Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Second Report - The condition of school buildings

Public Accounts Committee HC 78 Published 19 November 2023
Report Status
Government responded
Conclusions & Recommendations
42 items (2 recs)
Government Response
AI assessment · 35 of 42 classified
Accepted 24
Accepted in Part 1
Acknowledged 5
Deferred 1
Not Addressed 3
Rejected 1
Filter by: Clear

Conclusions (10)

Observations and findings
10 Conclusion Not Addressed
It is unclear whether decisions concerned with addressing the condition of the estate are coordinated with those relating to the need for school places. Historically, there have been instances of school closures just before another demographic wave of children that means more school places have to be created. More recently, …
Government Response Summary
The government response addresses unrelated conclusions and recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee regarding the Health Transformation Programme and disability benefits, failing to address the recommendation concerning school places and estate management by the DfE.
View Details →
1 Conclusion
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we first took evidence from the Department for Education (DfE) about the condition of school buildings in England in July 2023.1 On 31 August 2023, DfE significantly changed its safety guidance for schools that were confirmed to have …
View Details →
24 Conclusion
We asked about the information DfE holds on the number of teaching staff who have died from asbestos-related conditions. DfE explained that the Health and Safety Executive reviews death certificates to produce data on the last known profession of people who have died. DfE stated that it reviews the ages …
View Details →
27 Conclusion
We asked DfE whether the 64,000 buildings on the school estate include temporary buildings, Portakabins and similar blocks. It replied that the first Condition Data Collection programme (CDC1), from which the total number of buildings was derived, did include such buildings. DfE later clarified that the CDC1 visits, which took …
View Details →
28 Conclusion Not Addressed
DfE told us that its CDC1 programme involved giving a ‘grade’ to every building component within each school. There were four available grades, from A to D, with grades C and D denoting a less than satisfactory condition. DfE explained that it gave a grade C to 2.1% of components, …
Government Response Summary
The government response provides statistics on the school estate's condition and states that CDC2 is underway to provide updated data, but does not address the committee's concerns about prioritisation decisions or the risk of considering only known issues.
View Details →
35 Conclusion
We have previously examined how external factors, such as inflation and higher price levels, can affect the cost schedule of projects and also the timeframes involved. We have seen how inflation can be largely driven by supply chain issues, meaning the consequences can be complicated and different for each project. …
View Details →
37 Conclusion
DfE analysed the 1,000 schools with the highest level of need in terms of the condition of their buildings, and found that in 345 cases the responsible body did not make an application for the School Rebuilding Programme. In 2021, it also analysed why schools most needing maintenance and repair …
View Details →
38 Conclusion
In its written submission, the Catholic Education Service argued that multi-academy trust funding for school buildings should be given directly to dioceses, to replicate the economies of scale and scope for longer-term strategic interventions that have been achieved with voluntary-aided schools.60 We noted how voluntary-aided schools (which are generally faith-based …
View Details →
39 Conclusion
We noted that there is a diminishing number of schools under local authority control, and that, given their number of schools, 10 local authorities would not reach the threshold to receive maintenance and repair funding directly if they were a multi-academy trust. We asked DfE whether it was providing these …
View Details →
41 Conclusion Not Addressed
For maintained schools, the lead decision-maker about educational provision and the upkeep of buildings is the local authority, which retains responsibility for sufficiency of school places. DfE told us that its regional directors do not typically play a strong role in decisions about school closures, although they engage with maintained …
Government Response Summary
The government reiterates that local authorities have the statutory duty for school places and manage demand, with recent changes to Dedicated Schools Grant providing flexibility for falling rolls, but the response does not address DfE regional directors' roles or the exploration of alternative uses for school space.
View Details →