Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): You are all very welcome. We have Ms Heather Cousins, deputy secretary of the sustainability and infrastructure group; Seamus Gallagher from investment and infrastructure; and Stephen Creagh, deputy director of investment and infrastructure. You have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation, and then we will have questions from members.

Ms Heather Cousins (Department of Education): Good afternoon. I will begin by thanking the Committee for the opportunity to update you on the schools capital programme. I will make a few opening remarks, and then it will be over to you for any questions that you wish to ask.

As you know, our vision for capital investment is that every child is educated in a high-quality learning environment. The Committee will be acutely aware that there are many challenges in delivering that vision for every school across the estate not only in budgetary terms but in the context of the increasingly diverse and complex needs across the pupil population.

The number of pupils presenting with statements of special educational needs (SEN) has increased from 19,000 in 2019 to 27,000 currently. In the past year, we have created a SEN-specific capital programme. Within that programme, we have created an additional 1,450 SEN places across special and mainstream settings.

The Committee will also be aware that the Department has faced almost a decade of static capital budgets in an environment of rapidly rising costs, and that has significantly reduced our spending power. At the same time, our needs across all programme streams continue to escalate.

In addition, we are faced with an ageing and dispersed estate. Many schools built in the mid-20th century are now reaching the end of their life span and are no longer fit for purpose. We are also seeing the consequences of long-term underinvestment and a 15-year backlog in planned maintenance. That is an increasing cause for concern, as highlighted in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office value-for-money report , 'Managing the Schools' Estate'.

Given the extremely constrained capital budget in 2024-25, difficult decisions were taken at the start of the financial year to control expenditure. As a result of those measures and the additional funding received through funding rounds, I am pleased to report that we expect to remain within budget this year.

By way of an update across our capital programme areas in major capital investment, which focuses on new-build schools or substantial extend and refurbishment projects, 103 projects have been announced since 2012, and 35 of those have concluded. There are currently five projects on site. Two of those are due to complete in the current financial year, and two are due to complete early in the next financial year. The remaining project is due to complete in the 2026-27 financial year.

In the school enhancement programme (SEP), which concentrates on refurbishment and extension of existing schools, 72 projects are currently advancing in planning.

Under the Fresh Start programme, 28 projects were announced. Eight of those have been completed, six are in construction and three have been discontinued. Since the removal of Fresh Start funding, 11 projects have transferred to the Department's Executive-funded major capital works programme.

The minor capital works programme consists of smaller-scale works. The constrained capital budget position has meant that, in recent years, minor works have been restricted to ministerial priority 1; that is, those works that meet inescapable statutory requirements, such as health and safety, fire protection, safeguarding and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

With the creation of the new stand-alone SEN capital investment programme, all SEN-related capital works previously being taken forward within our conventional capital programme streams are, for the first time, brought together under one dedicated programme with its own strategic focus and dedicated budget.

The Strule Shared Education Campus is a pioneering programme to relocate six schools in Omagh to be co-located on the site of the former Lisanelly army barracks. The main works contract formally began in September, with construction work beginning on site in early February 2025.

Education capital supports a range of other projects, including ICT, school bus replacement, investment in youth centres and any capital needs across the Department's arm's-length bodies. That is 2024-25.

We face further challenges in the draft Budget for 2025-26. The Department has identified capital requirements of £649·6 million, of which £472·1 million are inescapable as they are either statutory requirements or are in contract or due to be in contract by the end of this financial year.

Turning to the indicative capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) allocation for 2025-26, the Department expects to receive £380·7 million. However, when earmarked, allocations of £102·8 million for Strule and £59·9 million for Fresh Start funding are taken into consideration, that leaves the indicative initial capital budget allocation of £218 million for all other capital programmes.

You will note that, when compared with an estimated requirement of £309·4 million, that leaves an estimated shortfall of £41·4 million in respect of the funding required for inescapable capital pressures. I will also highlight that, leaving aside the earmarked allocations, the coming years proposed budget is some £16·3 million down on the Department's opening capital position for 2024-25. That is an almost 7% reduction. Difficult decisions will, again, have to be made as to what can be brought forward within the context of that reduced allocation and could jeopardise key and critical initiatives.

The Department's aim is to invest in a large-scale school building programme to modernise our schools estate at pace. However, in the absence of significant additional capital funding, that is simply not possible.

Our Minister is continuing to make the case for substantial additional investment to allow for planned maintenance and a greater number of smaller, high-impact projects, so that as many children and staff as possible can benefit from capital investment. However, our overriding priority for the coming year will again prioritise capital investment to ensure that we keep schools open, keep pupils safe and provide education access for the most vulnerable.

My colleagues and I will now be happy to take any questions that you may have.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thank you for that, Heather. First of all, I am sure that you are all aware of the controversy around Lisneal College. It has struck a nerve in many school communities. We attended the teachers' union conference last Friday, and there was certainly a lot of discussion around it.

People are asking whether the processes that are in place to identify, prioritise and fund minor works programmes in particular are robust and fair. Will you tell us what the processes are and how they are prioritised and funded?

Ms Cousins: Yes. We believe that we have robust procedures in place. Part of the problem is the length of time that some projects take to get from the beginning to the end. I will hand over to Seamus to give a bit more detail on the processes.

Mr Seamus Gallagher (Department of Education): The last formal call for minor works was way back in 2017. Unfortunately, we have not had the budget cover to deal with any projects other than what were classed as priority-1 projects. In the interim, we have taken forward only statutory projects or projects relating to health and safety. We also have to have a mechanism for identifying projects that are inescapable, which means that they are unavoidable and must be taken forward in the interim. That is done either by a school making an application or by an issue being identified through a statutory inspection that is done when the Education Authority (EA) visits the school as a result of a call made to its maintenance help desk. All those projects are a priority. They are the only projects that we currently have the funding to deliver. Some of them will be larger-scale projects than others and will take longer to deliver. Some will require planning permission and will therefore take longer to deliver. Some will be deliverable only when the schools are closed, which means that the time frame for delivering them is restricted.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Seamus, one of the questions that has been asked is how you prioritise. Take the example of a school with draughty windows that let the rain in. In one example that we know of, the children had to be moved away from the window so that they would not get wet. We then have the example of funding for a pitch that, we were initially told, was not being played on before we found out that it had been played on. We were told that there had been a serious leg break, but "Footballer breaks leg on football pitch" is not in the realm of "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". How do you justify one school getting funding for a pitch — especially given that it has other pitches — while another school has rain coming through the roof and draughts coming through the windows? Tell me how you prioritise those two things.

Mr Gallagher: The Lisneal project was an EA project that fell within its delegated limit. The EA prioritised it and decided that it met the priority-1 criteria. I am sure that a school with a leaking roof that lets rain in on top of the pupils would also meet the priority-1 criteria. Both those projects would therefore be delivered. There is no priority difference between them. They are both delivered as soon as is practicable, and the practicalities of delivering them concern when they can be delivered and what approvals are needed to deliver them. If a school has a leaking roof, somebody will be sent out immediately, or as soon as is practicable, to fix it. We do not let that slide. As far as I understand, with the Lisneal project, the school reported 10 accidents to the EA, and there was also a report that said that the pitch was unsafe. As I said, however, that decision was not taken by the Department.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): The question then is this: if it was unsafe, why was it not closed until it could be replaced?

Mr Gallagher: As far as I understand it, the EA was continually taking contingency actions on the pitch to make it safe, but those only lasted for short periods. It was inspected before every use, but there were still 10 accidents.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): I have no objections to schools getting pitches. One school in my constituency has 1,500 students, and it does not even have one pitch. It is in school communities that all that has hit a raw nerve. I do not want to labour it.

I want to move on to the issue of the SEN investment fund. There is £51 million in that fund this year. Is that correct?

Mr Stephen Creagh (Department of Education): Yes, that is correct.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): What exactly is that for? Is it for minor works projects, is it for new schools or is it for both?

Mr Creagh: As you will be aware, earlier in the year, the Minister announced the new SEN capital investment programme. It will, for the first time, bring all SEN works together under one umbrella to be brought forward as a dedicated programme with a clear focus. Up to that point, SEN works had been taken forward through our various programme streams: some in major works programmes, some in minor works programmes and some as part of the SEP. That was done to bring a more targeted focus.

As you will be aware from previous briefings, Deputy Chair, the range of SEN provision across the estate is considerable. We have mainstream provision in general classrooms, we have special provision in schools and we have special schools. Heather set out the investment position in the introductory remarks. The demand has increased considerably since 2019, with numbers rising from 19,000 to 27,000. That is a 21% increase, and the numbers are projected to continue to increase. It is worth noting that, in that period, the capital investment from the Department and the Minister has increased accordingly from £7·8 million to the circa £51 million that you referenced.

The programme will target four broad strands. The first strand is targeted maintenance and minor works in special schools, which had never previously been focused on in isolation. The second is additional special provision in mainstream settings. That is additional classrooms from the range of types of classrooms that are required. The third strand is a greater focus on additional provision in special schools where they are just under capacity, because many special schools, including some in your constituency, have been there for many years. The fourth strand is a number of additional special schools, of which four are expected to be in Belfast and four will be elsewhere in the North.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thanks for that, Stephen. I will go back to Lisneal, unfortunately. Lisneal received £1·33 million for replacement of lost space after it set up a SPiMS (specialist provision in mainstream schools) unit. My understanding is that schools have been told that whatever space they lose as a result of setting up a SPiMS unit will be replaced at some stage. The accounting officer in the EA was not able to tell us whether that came out of the SEN budget or the minor works budget. Have you any idea where that will come from?

Mr Creagh: I can confirm that that will come out of the SEN capital programme budget, because it relates to SEN works. The rationale is the urgency of the need, whether it is in mainstream settings or special settings. The pressures across the entire curricular provision in that school needed to be looked at. Given the time it takes for design and statutory processes to be progressed for that provision, we needed to look at where we could utilise and repurpose rooms so that we had somewhere to put bums on seats. That was done with proviso that the accommodation that had been sacrificed — I do not mean that in the loose sense of the word — would be restored in appropriate time. That is exactly what happened at Lisneal. You will be aware from a previous briefing that it was a pilot project. It was always the intention to restore the provision that was taken. That is all that is happening there. The work is being taken forward.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Will that be the same for all other schools that have set up a SPiMS unit?

Mr Creagh: Wherever possible, we will look at capacity in the schools. If we find that a school is running with numbers that do not match the capacity of the building — in other words, if there is a bit of spare capacity — you would not expect us to repurpose back, unless it has taken elements of the curricular provision that need to be restored, regardless of the number of classrooms. That work will form part of the approved business cases for most of the projects that are proceeding.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Thanks for that. I have one final question. The EA provides funding out of the minor works budget, and the Department also provides funding out of the minor works budget. Will you explain the two different processes to the Committee?

Mr Creagh: In overall departmental terms, it is called, "Capital works: other", and then we break that down into a number of component parts. One of those elements is minor works, and another is SEN capital works. Over the past number of years, we found that the two were competing against each other.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Sorry, Stephen —

Mr Creagh: Maybe I picked you up incorrectly, Deputy Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): — I am talking about the controlled sector and the maintained sector. The EA deals with the controlled sector, and the Department deals with the maintained sector.

Mr Creagh: Yes. The EA owns the estate, deals with all minor works and leads on major works and, in fact, all programme streams in the controlled sector. In fairness, while the Department is responsible for the entirety of the non-controlled estate, and brings those works forward on behalf of trustees, boards of governors and suchlike, we work closely in partnership with the EA as our delivery agent. We borrow the professional skills and expertise that the EA has in-house to take on roles like project sponsor and project manager. That assists us in procuring professional teams — the integrated consultant teams that, I am sure, you have heard about before. The EA brings a wealth of knowledge and experience. The benefit of EA's involvement there is that it is able to reach out to other areas. In some of the works, it looks at school meals accommodation and other curricular provision, and brings its expertise to bear there. It is a good, close relationship, but the EA does that work firmly on our behalf. We hold the budget for the non-controlled sector and grant fund the trustees to pay consultants and contractors when a project reaches that point.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): There was uproarious laughter when one of the speakers at the conference on Friday asked, "Who knew that we did not have to apply for minor works funding?".

Mr Creagh: To be fair, there have always been several approaches. Seamus referenced the 2017 call to which we received over 6,000 applications. It was ambitious. The budget to bring all those projects forward was not there. That is why they were prioritised under the three prioritised categories. Since then, there was always an ability to bring forward minor works through the urgent minor works application process, which is in place and operates, but there are other streams through which minor works can be brought forward that are more proactive — I will use that term — because the Audit Office, in its recent review of the Department's approach to estate management, encouraged us to be more proactive at all programme levels. That proactivity is shown in — as, I think, Seamus referenced — our having survey teams out, perhaps looking at the condition, or where we have maintenance teams out looking at urgent essential health and safety, fire risk or asbestos issues. We would not necessarily go to a school and say, "Right, we've identified a problem. We need you to fill out an application form". We just take those works forward proactively. It is a bit like the situation with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) that you will recall in recent years.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Yes. It just takes a phone call; that is what you are saying.

Mr Creagh: Sorry?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): It just takes a phone call.

Mr Gallagher: The application process is designed for schools to bring to our attention stuff that we have not found out about otherwise, through inspections or whatever.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): OK.

Mr Creagh: All works, regardless of their origin, whether that is through an urgent minor works application or its having been drawn from the 2017 call or more proactively, are subject to the rigours of a scoping exercise, which involves sitting down with the school to identify what the issue is and what needs to be done. Work is triaged. You referred to water coming in through the ceiling. In that example, it would look at whether any immediate work needs to be taken forward to ensure that the school can continue to operate safely and stay open. Other works will take further planning and time. It is like — forgive the looseness — putting a sticking plaster on it until we get a proper solution. Minor works will be nothing but an interim solution. The only solution is new build or the school enhancement programme, which makes real difference to the school estate.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): OK. Fair enough. Thanks for that. I will bring in other members.

Mrs Mason: I want to go back to something that Pat touched on about major projects. Only 35 of 103 major projects have been completed since 2012. You have outlined clearly the budgetary constraints, so I am not getting at that. What communication has there been with schools where projects have not been completed or even started? I will tell you why I ask. St Francis' Primary School in Drumaroad in my constituency has been waiting for a canteen. It has no canteen or hall, as such. The school has been approved for that, but it cannot even get a response, never mind an update on where that project stands. What is the communication with schools that are waiting on those projects?

Mr Creagh: We have a governance regime in place that sets appropriate governance structures for each and every announced major works project. Each project has a steering group initially, until a business case is approved, and then that converts into a programme board. We have all the relevant positions that you would expect in a governance structure: a senior responsible owner, sponsors' arrangements, school representation and the investment decision maker, which is the Department and my teams. There is regular and ongoing communication on any announced major works. Bear in mind that major works are new build or substantial extend-and-refurb projects. I will just check: you referenced a canteen at St Francis'; is that a minor works application?

Mrs Mason: Yes. I would not imagine that it is a major works project. It is a small school.

Mr Gallagher: It may well be a minor works project. We can come back to you on that specific project. I do not have a briefing on it in this pack.

Mrs Mason: Are you are saying that all schools are communicated with, as far as you are concerned?

Mr Gallagher: They all should be.

Mr Creagh: Yes, they are.

Mrs Mason: OK.

Mr Gallagher: There are governance processes for and regular meetings on all projects, certainly from the school enhancement projects upwards. It is less so for minor works, and they should be delivered more quickly. We will look at the situation with St Francis' and at what scheme it is in. We will get an update to the school, if it has not had one.

Mrs Mason: I can confirm that it has not. If you could get that to the school, we would really appreciate it.

What capital is planned to be allocated to preschool? The Minister has rolled out a standardisation scheme. Whilst it is positive that that is coming, it has clearly caused a bit of chaos in the sector. Do we know what capital has been allocated to getting preschools ready, structurally and infrastructure-wise, for the standardisation?

Mr Gallagher: That is probably a decision that the Minister will have to take. When the draft budget turns into an actual budget, we will put a budget strategy to the Minister, showing where the needs are. He will then direct us as to where he wants the spending to be made.

Mrs Mason: OK, so we are already rolling out the standardisation scheme, but we do not yet have capital allocated to it?

Mr Creagh: We have to engage with Finance on capital, because, depending on the setting and its eligibility for capital, some of the funding may have to come from the recurrent budget resource. That is just the nature of the financial rules and regs that we have to follow. Under the Minister's curriculum-based programme, a number of tranches of that have already rolled out. As of February, there was an initial allocation to preschool and primary settings for outdoor equipment. I know that that is not what you are interested in here particularly, but I am using it as an example to show that we are working towards it. As Seamus said, we will have to bring this to the Minister for his consideration as part of his budget strategy for the next financial year, which we are about to enter.

Mrs Mason: The £25 million that was allocated for childcare, which the standardisation roll-out came from initially, is not —

Mr Gallagher: That is not capital; that is resource.

Mrs Mason: OK, so, at the moment, there is no capital to follow that up with?

Mr Gallagher: We are approaching the end of this financial year and about to enter a new financial year. We go to the team that is responsible for implementing that, and it advises us if it needs capital. Then we consider that, in the round, against all the other needs.

Mrs Mason: OK. There are preschool settings that are in chaos. One might think that that was putting the cart before the horse and that those places should have been made ready before standardisation was rolled out.

I want to ask about the specific accommodation needs in the Irish-medium sector. We all know that that is the fastest-growing sector in education, yet around 60% of its accommodation is completely unsuitable and not fit for purpose. Pupils have spent years in what was supposed to have been temporary accommodation. Is there any update on that or on the Irish-medium investment strategy that was announced back in May 2023?

Mr Creagh: We are taking forward a range of work programmes in the Irish-medium sector across our programme streams. Major works include eight new-build projects that have been announced since we started our current approach in 2012, which sounds like a long time ago. Four of those have been delivered, the most recent of which was Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh in Strabane. It was formally opened by Heather at the back end of last year.

Two others are moving on-site. We hope to get them on-site in this financial year, but the work might cross into next year. One of them is Scoil an Droichid on the Ormeau Road, for which the tender approval hit my desk just this afternoon. I will get that out pretty quickly, because it has been on an announced list for some time. The other is Gaelscoil Uí Néill, which is already in contract. We are just finalising arrangements for the shared works with the council. The remainder of the eight are progressing through the late design stage, apart from one, which, unfortunately, is at a much earlier stage. One of our big issues with the major capital programme is identifying and securing sites. We lose a lot of sites to the private sector because of our timescales, although we have addressed those. I am happy to come back on that.

We take forward minor works across the estate, including small-scale projects such as dealing with roof leaks and window replacements. We get it that some mobiles are past their sell-by date, but we are working hard to improve the situation. Equally, many Irish-medium schools have pretty good mobile accommodation. For example, the accommodation that Gaelscoil Uí Neill in Coalisland is moving out of is not in bad order. The school may argue with that and say, "This has been here for 20 or 30 years", but the lifespan of modular accommodation that we put in is 25 to 30 years and sometimes longer.

We have taken forward other works in the Irish-medium sector. You will be acutely aware of the work that we have been doing at Coláiste Feirste, which was completed in 2018. It was built for 600 pupils but currently has, I think, just in excess of 1,000 pupils attending. We recently completed the provision of eight double-decker modular units at the front of the school to deal with the immediate pressures. We are also working closely with the school and Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta to see how we can embrace the Corpus Christi College building as an additional campus for Coláiste Feirste to deal with those additional pressures.

We continue to examine options for sites in north Belfast, because there is an ambition to have a setting there. Currently, there are only two post-primary Irish-medium settings: Coláiste Feirste in Belfast and Gaelcholáiste Dhoire in Dungiven. We have been working closely with the school and the school authority up in Dungiven on that provision. We recently completed extensive works to a leisure centre that was bought from the council. Unfortunately, that was the gift that kept giving: with everything that we took down, we found more issues, so the project became protracted. We are also working with the school on a broader master plan to look at its future growth. I will put my hands up: we have not been able to take that forward as quickly as we would have liked, because, unfortunately, the same teams are working on a lot of the pressures, and we are being spread thin, much to the school's frustration. We have that project, however; a previous permanent secretary gave a commitment that we would continue to look at the master planning, and we are happy to keep doing that.

We are well aware of the issue, and I hope that we are stepping up on our statutory responsibilities in that regard. If you have any particular questions, I am happy to answer them.

Mrs Mason: You referenced the eight projects from 2012. There was a lot of information in what you said. However, a lot of the estate sits outside those eight projects. It would be fantastic to get information on those — not right now but after the Committee.

Mr Creagh: We can follow up on that, Deputy Chair.

Mrs Guy: Thanks for the briefing today, folks. You mentioned the static capital budget and the need for £100 million extra funding. I have no doubt that you need that amount. You will also be aware of the Audit Office report in which it was stated that we need to change how we do things with the capital budget. There is nothing in your briefing about how you will reform or change the processes. Will you give me an update on your intentions around that?

Ms Cousins: Put simply, since we do not have sufficient capital budget, there is not a lot that we can do at the moment. We have, however, accepted recommendations from that report and will work with delivery partners to see what we can do. I do not know whether you want to add to that, Stephen.

Mr Creagh: One of the key recommendations is for us to adopt a more strategic approach to the estate. The Audit Office levels criticism at us for being very reactive. I have made the point that we are trying to move to a more proactive approach. The report makes nine recommendations, some of which we have been able to accept only in part because of issues with the ability to implement them. We have to look at the cost of proactively going in to access and cost every instance of minor works versus the benefit of doing that. There are some very helpful recommendations that reinforce the Department and the Minister's position of there being need for additional capital investment across the estate.

A key recommendation was to have better information about the estate. We are just about to complete year 2 of a five-year condition survey of every school in the estate. That will give us more informed information from which better decisions can be made. We would like, ultimately, to move away from the minor works approach that we have been talking about. We keep all our processes and systems under constant, regular review. It has been our intention, for some time, to move to a more proactive approach, particularly for minor works but even for major works, whereby we use our own information rather than going out to a call and having to carry out scoring and suchlike.

As Heather said, we have the Audit Office report and are working through its recommendations. A key recommendation that the Minister has committed to is the development of a capital investment strategy for the estate. We are working our way through that. Unfortunately, to develop something such as that for an estate of 1,100-plus schools will take a bit of time, and we may need to reach out for additional assistance, whether that is from consultants or professional colleagues in the likes of Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD).

Mrs Guy: OK. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

I want to talk about the amount of money that is being invested in Strule compared with what the rest of the budget is being invested in. Is there a business case that shows that Strule will deliver value for money?

Ms Cousins: A full business case for Strule was developed before approval was given. It is difficult to say completely that it will be value for money. A business case that was done a number of years ago assessed it as being value for money. The benefits and proof of concept for a lot of what we are planning to do differently with SEN will be tested through the opportunity that it gives us to do that.

Mrs Guy: Sorry, will you explain that a wee bit more? The SEN —.

Ms Cousins: It is about what we can do on the inclusive agenda so that every school will have provision that it can use for special educational needs or for additional support that pupils may need. That is built into the design of all the schools on the Strule campus. That has not necessarily been the case with all schools to date.

Mrs Guy: Does the business case that you are using now say that it will be value for money going forward?

Ms Cousins: Yes, it says that that part of it is value for money.

Mrs Guy: That part of it.

Ms Cousins: Yes, because we need additional provision that we will not be able to meet otherwise. It has been challenging to win hearts and minds on that issue, but that is the way that we need to go if we are to cater for the changing pupil population that I referred to in my opening remarks.

Mrs Guy: You said that the money that is left for the rest of the estate was about £218 million. Do you have any breakdown of where that will be apportioned to, between minor works and major works?

Ms Cousins: We have not done that exercise yet. That is what goes into the Minister's Budget submission; that is where we look at that. We start with one capital allocation and then, through engagement with the Minister, EA and others, break that down to where, we think, it should be spent. That is an opening position, but, because it is dynamic, it can change throughout the year.

Mrs Guy: I will keep with the idea that, when you have limited resources, it is really important to use them effectively. There was a curriculum-led investment programme with an outdoor learning aspect that came through to schools at quite short notice. Some of the feedback that I got about that was that it came in too late, putting pressure on teachers, and that it was, ultimately, a wasteful use of the money, because of the need to get it spent quickly and people being restricted in what they could spend it on. They would rather have had the money to spend on something that they really needed or wanted to use the money for. Do you have an intention this year to make sure that those last-minute schemes do not come forward in that manner again? How would you respond to those criticisms from school leaders?

Ms Cousins: There is some justification in that it was quite late in the year and there was limited time to spend it because of financial year-ends. However, we have put submissions to the Minister on how we believe that the money should progress in the future. We are looking at where people do not have facilities as a top priority for spending the money, and some things will take longer than others. There are pitches and sports halls, for example. We are setting out clearly what can be delivered within a particular timescale. Some of those might be in the school enhancement programme but could be progressed through this other stream, meaning that another project could be progressed through the school enhancement programme. It is very dynamic; we look at it all the time and make flexible changes where we can, but I accept that that money was very late in the day.

Mrs Guy: OK. Thank you.

Mr Brooks: Thanks for your briefing so far. I recently visited Ashfield Girls’ High School in east Belfast, which is a wonderful facility. The principal spoke to me about how that facility is very helpful in inspiring the pupils with their education. They feel the value of some of the extra things that they can do because of the facility that they have, which is no surprise to anybody. I want to contrast that with a previous visit to Dundonald High School, where I heard the converse story about how it is hard to inspire in children that they are valued and that they matter and what they can do through education, when the facility is not reflecting the ambitions of the staff. I understand the financial pressures and so on that the Department faces around all of this. I have said before in Committee that walking around that school was eye-opening for me. I always knew that the school estate was struggling in parts, but I really struggle to look at that school and see how, in five or 10 years, even with patching up as we go along, it will be fit for habitation, to be honest. To add proof to that point, they are reflecting to me that they have been told by the EA on a number of occasions — I will put it to the EA when its representatives are here — that basic amenities, for example, toilets in toilet blocks, are just too expensive to fix, so nothing was likely to happen with those toilets. Staffrooms and so on have been transformed into classrooms, and staff have nowhere to go. Again, that was in contrast to Ashfield, where the staffroom and what they have been able to do there had raised staff morale and so on. It is a case of the haves and have nots.

We talk about inescapable pressures quite often, but how much of our school estate is at the point where, if there is not a significant investment in the next five to 10 years, those buildings will just not be usable?

Mr Creagh: The only actual metric that we have is out of date. As I said, we are completing year 2 of a condition survey across the estate. The previous metric that we had was circa £450 million of backlog maintenance. That was the cost to bring the estate, from an assessment of every school back at that time, up to handbook standards. There is no question that there is a need for investment. We have a very dispersed estate of buildings that are 60, 70 or 80 years old. Arguably, as with the example that you have given, some are perhaps passed their sell-by date. The difficulty that we have is that we can only bring so many forward. We have to be careful on expectations; once a school is announced, there is an expectation that it will continue on through. Obviously, we have budget constraints and a whole host of other technical constraints, such as design, development, planning and availability of land, that cause problems.

In that scenario, the best that we can do, as I said earlier, is that, if the school raises its concerns with the school authority, which may be done through the urgent minor works application process, the works will be triaged. I suggest that work to ensure that the school can stay open and be as safe as possible to keep operating will be undertaken and that any further work can be planned. Clearly, that school is not on an announced list, so you would have to look at the context of the affordability of something that needs done essentially and has to be planned. Again, it depends on the overall quantum of that. It may be the case that so many things need to be done that there needs to be a master plan as opposed to putting sticking plasters on the individual elements. You run the risk then of bringing a scheme on to the announced list having not come through our protocol process. We have to be very careful.

It is very unfortunate, David, when schools look at new builds — there is no question that they are fine buildings, and I am sure that you have been to more than you have suggested — compared with some that are in desperate need, but some schools were not put forward for consideration for a range of reasons. They may have been in the context of area planning or consideration within the sustainable schools policy.

Mr Brooks: That school was probably earmarked for closure in 2012, and, now, having taken on some newcomer children and with SEN aspects in the school as well, it is in a different situation with its numbers. That has left the school quite a way back in that way.

Is there a feeling that, if no finance comes forward from the Executive to allow some of those things to happen, there will be a breaking point where we will become overwhelmed to some degree? It feels to me that it is a false economy to go around patching up what is there, and the costs will just continue to rise. There is bound to be a breaking point. Essentially, you guys are having to hold back the tide.

Mr Creagh: All that we can do is continue to triage the issues and deal with them as best we can. There was a reference to sticking plasters. Sometimes, it can be one sticking plaster on top of another to keep the thing moving. Obviously, if there was unlimited capital, that is one thing, but we have to look at the capacity of the system and the capability of the professional design community and the contractor community to bring forward a more substantial programme.

Ideally, we would like to bring forward more major projects. As referenced in Heather's opening remarks, there are five projects currently left on-site. In the last year, we had 13 on-site. It is just that they have come to a stage of completion. We have seven primary schools and one post-primary school, which the Minister announced earlier last year. It was agreed that those can progress to construction. A number of those are coming on stream, so those five will grow.

It is almost like a pipeline where we are getting the new coming out, and we are wanting to bring more in. However, unfortunately, you will be acutely aware that a number of the schemes that were announced in 2022 had to be paused by the permanent secretary at the time. The Minister released seven schemes to get design teams in place, but it was done with the consideration that that would cost further money for the design team and the statutory processes when there was no visibility around when we would be able to bring them to site.

Mr Brooks: I appreciate that the Minister is doing what he can. He has agreed to come to Dundonald, and I know that I have been very parochial on that. The phrase used earlier, "as safe as possible" is telling, and it is not where we want to be with our children. I know that it is not where you want to be with our children, but it reflects the situation.

Mr Baker: Is there any update on progress with the recently published SEN reform agenda and delivery plan and the reference to a SEN-first approach to area planning?

Mr Creagh: I am afraid that area planning is outside our purview, but we work very closely with our policy colleagues on the outworking of the SEN capital investment programme and on the outworking of the end-to-end review.

The Minister has already taken steps to create the stand-alone programme and to ring-fence a stand-alone capital budget to give us that absolute targeted focus across the range of programmes: extracting all the works that were being brought forward and competing with other needs across the estate into that targeted prioritised programme. From our side, that is what we are doing. I am sorry if that does not answer your question.

Mr Baker: That is fine. The plan is only recently published.

From the briefing note, we know that 6,000 additional children with special needs will be in the system in the next 10 years, and there is a need for at least eight special schools. Is there any progress on the location and delivery of those schools?

Mr Creagh: We have made some good progress on the major works under the SEN programme that you referenced. As I said, the Minister announced in his statement that four of those schools are likely to be in the Belfast area or the greater Belfast area and four will be elsewhere in the North. We have been working very hard on Belfast 1 and have looked at north and west Belfast. We have looked at a number of sites in those areas. We have identified the sites, but I cannot say where they are until an approved business case is in place and that becomes the preferred option. We have taken receipt of the feasibility study. Consultant teams are in place and are working diligently through that. One thing that is coming out of it — this was referenced earlier — is that we have construction inflation and the like. The costs of any special school will be considerably higher than we could ever have imagined in the last year or two. We are making good progress there.

There is progress being made elsewhere as well. We are procuring teams for Ardnashee, which has just opened. A second Ardnashee campus will be taken forward. We are working with colleagues in the EA to take forward procurement of the consultant team there.

I will get the rest of the detail on what else is happening, if you bear with me for two seconds.

On the work in SEN schools — that is the special schools — 10 were identified as progressing through the school enhancement programme. We have taken those out and brought them within the SEN capital programme. We have been assessing those. Many of them are at different stages of design and development, but what we are finding, particularly across a number of them, is that what was being taken forward would not meet the need by the time it was delivered, so we have drawn a breath and said, "Right, do we need to really look at those? Do we need to look at additional capacity?". Some of the schemes have moved further forward. We will take those forward as a minor works solution rather than hold up the provision.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you for your evidence today. I want to chat about the procurement side of capital, if that is OK. I am conscious — this is not a problem for you guys, thankfully — that the new maternity hospital somehow managed to get 10 years behind schedule in terms of build and then went massively over in terms of spend. My first question on procurement is this: how challenging is it to get value for money (VFM) on the SEP and major capital? Is it the Department's experience that, generally, those come in in and around on time? I am not aware of any that have been subject to the peculiarities of the Health situation. Is it challenging to get VFM on the SEP and major capital, and do those generally come in on time?

Mr Gallagher: Every project will have a value-for-money business case. Many factors can make a project fall behind its original schedule that are beyond the Department's control, such as purchase of land, planning and unforeseen ground conditions. It typically takes seven to 10 years to build a brand-new school. We would love to bring those schools forward and have them completed in three years, but no matter what we try, it does not really speed it up that much. We have introduced new governance procedures that have seen some benefits. At all stages, a project continues to be assessed for value for money, and, if anything changes, we have to look at it again.

Mr Martin: Thanks, Seamus. In the context of wider government capital projects — this is not particular to Education — they end up being significantly more expensive than the cost they started out at. Let me put it this way: there is a general sense that, in some government capital procurements, they start out at price x and end up at price y, and price y is usually a lot higher than price x. You do not have to look past the new maternity hospital to find that out. Is that because of market conditions? There are a lot of things — I am not going to answer the question. You guys can answer the question. Is it just market conditions or are there wider issues?

Mr Gallagher: Generally, it is market conditions, time and inflation. The SEP programme started at £4 million. Market conditions brought about by Brexit, COVID and the general labour market meant that prices were going off the rails. We could not have delivered any of the projects for £4 million, so we benchmarked them at the construction cost of £2·9 million in 2019 prices. Therefore, we controlled the expenditure on those projects by applying construction inflation to the 2019 prices. Basically, our aim was that, irrespective of when your project was delivered, you got the same value. Yes, prices will increase as time passes; market conditions will force them up. There was a period of particularly rapid price increase. It is still high, but the rate of increase has levelled off somewhat.

Mr Creagh: Peter, it is worth adding that we engage regularly with the other jurisdictions. The issue that you have raised is not unique to us. We are advised that it is the same in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. We engage with the industry, through the Construction Professionals Council and the Construction Employers Federation (CEF), to ensure that we are working closely with it on those very issues. One of the big things is to warm the market as best we can, but we can do that only within the parameters of the budget available to us. Over the years, on many occasions, we have gone to the CEF and the contractors and said, "Here is our programme. Here is what we are bringing forward", only to be held up through reduced budgets or other processes that stifle progress.

Mr Martin: That is really useful.

I go back gently to minor works, and that was a useful session. The Chair started it, and it was great that Cathy flagged up St Francis' Primary School during her questions for a minor works update. A few weeks ago, I was in a school after storm Éowyn. The principal asked me to email some pictures, and that formed a minor works request. Seamus, it was useful to know from your description that minor works requests can come in a range of ways. It can be through inspection, flagged up by the school, through the EA being there, through an MLA being at a school at the request of a principal, or through an MLA being made aware of something and raising it with the Department or the EA. For clarity, Seamus, is that a legitimate way for the EA to be made aware that there is a hole in the roof or that water is coming through a door?

Mr Gallagher: Yes. It is a legitimate way for us to be made aware of an issue. Supporting evidence will be needed for whether it is then assessed as a priority 1 or not. If it is assessed as a priority 1, the work will be taken forward; if it is not, it will be taken forward at some point in the future when we have more money.

Mr Martin: Yes. My question was to clarify the methodologies that the EA can use to identify things that need done in schools. That is great.

Ms Hunter: I have a few questions. In December, I submitted a question for written answer to the Minister of Education to identify how many schools in Northern Ireland have black mould. The answer was that 84 schools have black mould. I visited a school in Claudy, in my constituency, which has enough space to make a sensory room to help support the children with special educational needs, but there is so much black mould in the room that the project cannot be moved forward. How does the Department prioritise those issues? How quickly is it moving through those schools? How is that done?

Mr Creagh: Black mould is a health and safety issue because of the spores and suchlike. Where it has been addressed to us by the school or through the range of surveys that we have discussed, the work will be triaged. Sometimes, black mould can appear as a result of poor ventilation or poor ventilation management. Opening windows keeps the fresh air flowing through. Where it proves to need some other work, that will be prioritised alongside other works. Black mould is treated as a priority, because there is clearly a potential health issue.

Ms Hunter: Do you have to hand any data on how many schools have black mould?

Mr Creagh: I am sorry; I do not have that.

Ms Hunter: Will you come back with that information? That would be really helpful. I am mindful that it is an issue that occurs again and again. I know that it is particularly bad for children's respiratory and immune systems. We were talking about capital funding and the upkeep of school buildings. Some of them are decades old and are definitely ageing.

The information in our pack touches on developments at Ardnashee School. Do you have to hand any updates on the changes at Rossmar School in Limavady? I attended a meeting at which the Minister spoke about further developments to the school building and, potentially, looking at post-19 provision as a pilot programme.

Mr Creagh: Rather than give you inaccurate information, can we come back to you on that one, Cara?

Ms Hunter: Yes, certainly. Thank you very much.

Just to wrap up, I want to echo what Cathy said. We have had a number of events on Irish-medium education over the past few weeks in the Building. The point came up that some schools have been in the same buildings for decades and they are falling down round them. Is there any chance that you can update the Committee — not right now, obviously — by way of a written briefing as to where that stands? That would be extremely helpful. You can come back to me on that, but thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): A number of members have asked about specific schools or issues. I would be obliged if you could go back to those individuals rather than coming to the Committee with the information that members were seeking.

Thanks very much, Heather, Seamus and Stephen, for that update today.