This morning readers put their questions to an expert panel, and this is what they said鈥�

More than 180 people took part in 好色先生TV.co.uk鈥檚 live BSF debate this morning, expressing a wide range of opinions about the cancelled scheme and asking questions about what will replace it.

In the question and answer session with a panel of BSF experts, readers differed greatly in their opinions of BSF, with one describing it as 鈥渁 once in a lifetime opportunity鈥� while others called it 鈥渆litist鈥� and accused it of producing 鈥渃ostly, lengthy and overdesigned schemes鈥�.

The debate took in topics such as whether new-builds improve educational attainment as well as opportunities for construction under the new 鈥榝ree鈥� schools and academies policies.

An architect taking part in the debate said: 鈥渕any architects supported BSF bidders on a speculative basis which was commercially unsustainable and only made sense if there were long term gains. Many virtually gave away their skills and experience.鈥�

In a reader poll, 84% said Michael Gove鈥檚 decision to scrap BSF had had a harmful effect on their business.

On the panel were:

  • Jonathan Hart, a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons projects and construction group
  • James Bowyer, head of 好色先生TV Schools for the Future and other major schools programmes for EC Harris
  • Chris Hill, the head of construction and engineering at law firm Norton Rose.

On the question of compensation claims, Jonathan Hart said: 鈥淚t is worth noting that the options which Councils will looking be at will be based primarily in the arena of judicial review, whereas disappointed bidders [鈥 may be more readily looking at possible grounds for challenge under the procurement rules鈥�

James Bowyer tackled the issue of future capital spending on education projects by saying: 鈥淲e do know that education in particular, remains in the top three national priorities for public services for the new Government. In order for the reforms to continue, there will still be a need to invest in infrastructure as well as services.鈥�

When the debate turned to perceived weaknesses in BSF, Chris Hill commented: 鈥淰irtually from inception in 2004 professionals throughout the industry complained about the programme - everything from the bid costs to the endless bureaucracy associated with the various bidding stages.

鈥淭he element of the scheme inciting greatest anger - particularly among sponsors - was the process of creating a Local Education Partnership (LEP) and the subsequent Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) between the LEP and the local authority.鈥�

To read the transcript  go to

And if you wish to continue the debate with other construction professionals go to

Topics