This morning we will engage with the Department of Education and Youth to examine Vote 26 of the appropriation account 2024; the report on the accounts of the public services 2023 - chapter 7 on protecting the State's investment in the schools estate; and capital funding and expenditure relating to school properties.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Youth: Ms Bernie McNally, Secretary General; Mr. Hubert Loftus, Ms Martina Mannion, Ms Cliodhna O'Neill and Mr. Martin Clohessy, assistant secretaries general; Ms Emma Leonard, director of the planning and building unit; and Mr. Kevin Colman, head of the finance operations and development unit. We are also joined by Ms Georgina Hughes-Elders, principal officer from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, who is attending in a representative capacity, and by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Ms. Paula O'Connor, deputy director of audit. They are all very welcome.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that it is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement.

The appropriation account for Vote 26, education, records gross expenditure of just over €11.9 billion in 2024. This represented a 10% increase in spending compared to 2023. As previously explained, the Vote expenditure is accounted for under a single spending programme for first, second and early years education, distributed across 16 subheads. Subheads A1 to A14, inclusive, relate mainly to recurrent spending, which was the main focus of the meeting on 26 February. Subheads A15 and A16 relate to payments for the development and improvement of schools infrastructure, and for public-private partnership delivery of schools, respectively. These are the main focus of today’s meeting.

The Estimate for Vote 26 originally provided €870 million for expenditure on primary and post-primary infrastructure, which represented a drop of 30% on the outturn for 2023 for subhead A15. The 2024 provision was increased through a €502 million Supplementary Estimate. This was an increase of 58% on the original provision for the year, which the Department attributed to accelerated and expanded project delivery relative to what was originally planned. The final expenditure on the subhead in 2024 was €1.374 billion. Spending on public-private partnership schools in 2024 was €66.8 million, which was comfortably within the €70 million provision in the Vote.

The report on the agenda today examines the protections in place to safeguard the State’s investment in the schools estate. I published the report in September 2024, and it provides an overview as at end 2023. I previously reported on the Department’s management of the schools estate in 2020.

The Department invested just over €7 billion in the schools estate in the ten-year period to the end of 2023. This included €3.41 billion on new schools and large-scale school extensions and €318 million on site acquisitions. The balance was on smaller scale school projects. Historically, the Department relied substantially on patron bodies, such as church authorities, for the provision of sites on which schools were built. At the end of 2023, approximately 85% of schools were located on patron- or trustee-owned sites.

To protect the State’s significant investment, it is essential that robust legal agreements are in place. Charging leases were used in the past for this purpose. The examination found that charging leases were not always in place as expected or that leases put in place had expired. The gaps were acknowledged by the Department in September 2020, but subsequent action to address them had been slow.

In 2004, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, CSSO, proposed the implementation of deeds of covenant and charge rather than charging leases as a more appropriate mechanism to secure the Minister’s investment in building projects on patron-owned sites. In the 20 years since, this mechanism has not been implemented.

In January 2024, the Department introduced a centralised register of leases to record and aid the management of leases. The examination found that the register was incomplete and had multiple entries in many instances. We were, therefore, unable to conclude on the number of schools where leases were in place or if the original lease had in fact expired.

The examination also looked at the accounting arrangements in place for the schools located on Minister-owned sites. Although there are governance requirements in place for the boards of management of these schools, ultimate control of these school assets is likely to remain with the Minister. If this is the case, there is a requirement for these assets to be included in the Department’s appropriation account.

The report makes recommendations in relation to expediting the development of legal agreements to protect the Minister’s investment, strengthening the systems in place for managing and monitoring these agreements, and the development of a policy for the valuation of and accounting for schools built on Minister-owned sites. The Accounting Officer agreed the recommendations and will be able to update the Members on their implementation since September 2024.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I invite the Secretary General to deliver the opening statement on behalf of the Department. As set out in the letter of invitation, Ms McNally has five minutes to make her opening statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend again. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss topics the committee has identified, namely, capital funding and expenditure relating to school properties, and chapter 7 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2023, Protecting the State's Investment in the Schools Estate.

The Chair has already introduced my colleagues. Given the focus of the meeting is on capital, I will introduce Hubert Loftus, assistant secretary, who heads up the planning and building unit, and his colleague, Emma Leonard, director of the planning and building unit. We have provided the committee with some briefing material in advance and I hope that this has been of some assistance.

The Department’s gross expenditure in 2024 was €11.9 billion. The capital programme comprised approximately €1.46 billion, or 12% of this. The €1.46 billion included a gross Supplementary Estimate of €517 million above the original 2021-set national development plan, NDP, allocation of €940 million. By way of comparison, the investment in 2023 was €1.265 billion. The supplementary funding facilitated project roll-out to address demographic pressures and special education place requirements; payment of ICT and minor works grants; and the addition of REPowerEU funding awarded to the Department to support climate initiatives.

It is important to note that the last school year, 2024-2025, is expected to have represented the peak of student enrolments in recent decades, at over 977,000 students. This is 38,000 students more than in 2020, and 200,000 more than in 2003. This demographic increase, together with the increasing prevalence of special educational needs, which we focused on in February, has created huge demand for capital development.

In July 2025, the review of the national development plan confirmed the Department’s capital allocations for the period 2026 to 2030. With an average annual allocation of €1.5 billion, €7.55 billion in total, the Department’s capital funding is now on a more steady and sustainable footing. The five-year allocation allows us to better plan and prioritise project delivery without reliance on supplementary funding. The NDP sectoral investment plan for education and youth was published in January. Given the demand for capital funding across the education sector, a key focus of our plan is, and must be, to maximise existing capacity in schools and to prioritise projects that address the most urgent needs, particularly in supporting special education provision. This approach is underpinned by a strong emphasis on value for money and delivering high-quality, functional accommodation using standardised designs and specifications.

It is envisaged that works will be taking place at over 1,000 of our 4,000 schools during 2026. This includes projects already at construction, large-scale project roll-out, other extension projects, repurposing works for special classes, the climate action summer works scheme and the climate programme. This represents about 25% of the school estate.

When we published our NDP plan, we also published a first tranche of 105 large-scale and extension projects to progress to tender, or construction, in 2026 and 2027. Planning for the next tranche of projects progressing to tender will continue through this year and next. This process will involve significant engagement with key stakeholders and individual schools. It will also be informed by the very welcome energy and condition survey of the entire school estate, due for completion later in 2026. This will provide an additional evidence base to support investment prioritisation.

As part of our NDP roll-out, we are putting an increased emphasis on supporting a strong maintenance regime across schools. The Department has now provided clarity that the minor works grant and the ICT grant will be paid annually in the December and January period.

The committee has also asked to discuss chapter 7 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, Protecting the State's Investment in the Schools Estate. Very good progress has been made implementing his recommendations. We are very grateful to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor for the intensive work partnering with us to put the necessary legal arrangements in place. I can update the committee that we have provided the CSSO with all the relevant data and instructions to facilitate the completion of the remaining new school leases for schools on Minister-owned land during 2026 and the full implementation of all necessary deeds of covenant and charge for schools on patron-owned land. Deeds for projects over €5 million are targeted to be signed by the end of 2026.

The Department will continue to work closely with the CSSO to ensure these timelines are achieved. I look forward, with my colleagues, to answering questions. I thank the committee again for the opportunity to meet its members.

I thank Ms McNally for that contribution. I ask her to please note that we will suspend our meeting at around 1 o'clock for a break and resume shortly afterwards. We will now open the floor to members. The lead speaker today is Deputy Paul Murphy, who has 15 minutes. All other members will have ten minutes. If time permits, I will allow members to come back in for a second round.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming before us. Before I get into the capital expenditure element, I want to follow up on some of the issues raised at the last meeting and in relation to the correspondence we got back in response to our questions.

I will start with the backdrop to the last meeting, which was the controversy over the proposed cuts to 500 SNAs and the withdrawal of those cuts under pressure. The question was asked about whether the €19 million, which was found, ensuring those cuts would not take place, was additional funding. Obviously, if it was not additional funding, then meeting the allocation will mean cuts somewhere else in the Department of education. The response we got was to say that, as the Department stated at the committee meeting on 24 February, it understands that this is additional funding but that it is aware that the committee has written to the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to clarify this matter. Does Ms McNally have any further information at this stage? The Department has said it understands that this is additional funding. Does it know that this is additional funding at this stage or is it still in that grey area?

I thank the Deputy for his question and the opportunity to clarify this issue again. My understanding is that, as we said the last day, the provision of the additional €19 million has been made. That has been agreed in principle. That has taken effect, in that the decision has been made that no SNAs will be moved from those schools, as had been planned. That has been stopped. None of those SNAs will move.

Regarding the confirmation of that funding and the technical provision of it into our Vote, that has to go through financial procedures. That requires a memo to Government and Dáil approval, and that process has not taken place yet. I think the Deputy is aware that wider consideration is being given to our Vote at the moment, and this aspect is being looked at in that wider context. We have had very constructive meetings and discussions on this subject and we are hoping that we will see big progress on it in the next couple of weeks, quite imminently.

As Ms McNally stated in her letter, we also wrote to the Department of public expenditure to clarify this and its response also did not clarify that. Indeed, it did the opposite. It did not say yes, the Department would pay for it and it would be new money. Instead, it just said the process pertaining to this matter is still ongoing as the matter is under active consideration by the Government. Can Ms McNally say to me definitively now there will be no cuts elsewhere in the Department of education as a consequence of not cutting these 500 SNAs?

I have to respect the financial procedures. Decisions on our finances have to go to Cabinet. There has to be a decision there and then it has to be approved by the Dáil, but my understanding is there will be no cuts. That funding has been agreed in principle and it will be provided. The decision has absolutely been made that the SNAs who were going to be moved to another school will not be moved.

Okay. It is now almost three months since we had our engagement. It is a long time for that not to have moved on.

The underlying issue with the SNAs - it is what the campaigners argued and I believe them - is the issue of the circular and the relatively narrow approach of the existing circular in terms of primary care needs. I presume Ms McNally is aware that the Save Our SNAs campaigners, which include parents, SNAs and educators working together, have come up with an alternative circular placing appropriate emphasis on, for example, emotional regulation and well-being. Is that something the Department has considered in any sense yet?

There has been huge engagement with thousands of SNAs, teachers, principals, children who have special educational needs themselves and young adults who have been through the system. A huge amount of work has been done on that workforce development plan. We are hoping to see that published in this quarter.

A huge amount of work has been done. Fórsa is the official representative for SNAs and a huge amount of work has been done with it. It has an SNA that leads in many of the discussions. In the last couple of weeks, our Minister and Minister of State met with a number of SNAs representing the huge SNA workforce around the country. That workforce development plan will be hugely welcomed. It really sets out how much SNAs are valued. It talks about their role and reinforces their really valuable role. It also recognises that the teacher has to remain the primary educator in the classroom and that we best serve children when teachers are allowed to have that time to spend with children to meet their learning needs.

To clarify, do you have the alternative circular?

Officials may have seen it. We are certainly aware of it.

Is there an active process of consideration of this alternative circular?

I thank the Deputy. That alternative document was circulated to Deputies and more broadly. It is really important to say, and the Secretary General has touched on it a little, when we look at it, that almost 1,000 SNAs have engaged on our webinar and 28 SNAs met with the Minister and Minister of State in March. Fórsa is the leading union representing the SNAs. There has been two years of work on the draft circular we have proposed and it deals with a lot of the issues the Deputy talked about. It talks about care needs but it also talks about emotional regulation, student well-being, dignity, transition planning and review of support plans. All that work has already been done in the work we have done.

What is really important about the work we have done, and the work Fórsa, the National Parents Council and the Children's Rights Alliance have done, is it has the depth, detail and extensive consultation with stakeholders over two years. The individuals can absolutely have a commentary on a document and it is all very valuable, but the work has been done over two years with a number of people, such as the stakeholders, parents and the Children's Rights Alliance. The document which will come out of it will have the depth and clarity people will need. It will deal with the kind of issues the Deputy has focused on.

I think people can understand what Ms Mannion is saying.

In terms of what arises from the correspondence, there is the issue of litigation. I was quite struck by one line. This is a situation whereby parents feel compelled to take legal action, particularly often in cases of children with additional needs, to force the State to provide them with appropriate school places. The letter response to us states that most matters which are not resolved in advance of such correspondence, being legal correspondence or correspondence threatening legal action, are resolved satisfactorily through this mechanism with a proactive and collaborative approach to resolving the educational issues raised, particularly with the NCSE. It struck me as a bit of a contradiction in terms to say that an approach that is premised on families having to take legal action is proactive, if Ms McNally gets what I mean. We have established this norm, from the way it is written, whereby parents feel they have to go down this route, which in turn disadvantages parents who maybe do not have access to this. Obviously, there are many lawyers who would do it for free, but people may not be aware of that. It benefits those who are willing to or have the capacity to go down a legal route.

I will say this honestly and really genuinely to the Deputy. No parent needs to go down that legal route. I respect their right to and they an absolute right to do it. When they do that, we respond to them. Genuinely, we have put resources in and we have demonstrated there is a track record here. There is twice the number of special classes now than there were in 2020. We now have 31,000 specialist places. We have increased the number of places in special schools overall by 20%. We have put an extra 50 special educational needs organisers into the NCSE to be available.

Every parent who believes their child needs a specialist place needs to make themselves known to the NCSE and the SENO. We will provide them with an appropriate education in a special class. We have demonstrated the extra delivery of special classes and special school places. I accept that sometimes, it is not as quick as parents would like. I absolutely accept that and I hear their frustration.

I know personally multiple parents who have done everything right and things only move when they take legal action or threaten to take legal action. That is kind of what the correspondence is saying-----

I will ask my colleague to come in if the Deputy does not mind, but that correspondence shows that all those cases are addressed. We do not end up in court challenging any parent. We do get school places and that goes for all the children whose parents-----

After the legal letter arrives.

We would be getting those places anyway. For all those others, the hundreds and thousands of other parents who are acting who have not taken legal action, we have delivered school places for them and we can demonstrate that.

Okay. I will move on to the capital element. One of the things said in the opening statement is that this year, there will be works done to about 1,000 of the 4,000 schools in the State. You could look at it as being great that we are doing work on a quarter of the buildings. However, is it not the case that a lot of our school buildings are in pretty poor states of repair? There are many leaking roofs out there. Instead of building new buildings, as is often actually necessary, there is a kind of patchwork approach of fitting things up.

I will give the example of St. Aidan's in Tallaght which I have raised multiple times. There was an article in The Irish Times about it. The school has literally spent millions on roof works over the years and the school is just in a bad state. Water continues to come through the roof. You cannot open the windows. There are beads coming out of the walls. It is in a bad state. The school maintains the building needs to go and be replaced, but all this money is being spent just to keep it alive and putting plasters on it. Is that what explains the high number in that 25% of buildings are going to get work done in the next year?

No. If we look at that breakdown of 1,000, a number of those are on new buildings. Some are on summer works, for example, the climate action summer works scheme. The Deputy talked about the survey and what the standard of the school estate is. That survey we are conducting that will be completed by the end of the year will give us really strong, comprehensive evidence about every school across the State.

I have to say that we have a very generous NDP. It is €7.55 billion over the next five years but, nonetheless, we have to prioritise. We have to make decisions. If you talk to a lot of people, and I am sure those in the Deputy's own constituency, he will know there are a lot of really high-quality school buildings.

The new buildings are great.

There have been many developed over the past 20 years.

I thank the Deputy for his question. The figure of 1,000 projects out at construction in 2026 reflects the strong track record of delivery we have in the Department. It also reflects the forward planning we do to support that. That does not include emergency works-type scenarios that the Deputy might be referencing.

They are not included in the 1,000.

They are not included in that.

They are on top of that.

This is projects already at construction. These are large-scale projects and large State projects being rolled out to construction as part of our NDP rollout. They are our summer works projects and our SEN repurposing projects, which are very important, from the earlier discussion, in terms of supporting SEN provision and special classes.

It also includes our SEN repurposing projects which are very important, from the earlier discussion, in terms of supporting special educational needs provision and supporting special classes. They are just examples. We also have our climate programme. The Deputy referenced St. Aidan's; it is part of the pipeline of projects that we are working through.

How long does it normally take to get from the point of it being recognised that a new school building is needed to the new school building being provided? I was recently in another school, Scoil Maelruain in Old Bawn in Tallaght. It was back in 2014 that an architect appointed by the Department of education first said that new buildings were needed and that the existing one could not be patched up. A ceiling in a classroom collapsed. Recently, during the storms, water was coming through where an interactive panel was with all its electrics and everything. Things there are not safe. There is water regularly getting in. There was a whole series of various delays and a back and forth. Last July, the 2a form went into the Department but the school still does not even have a formal response to that, which seems to be a long time. Even forgetting about 2014, this is from July of last year. What is the kind of timeframe we are talking about?

We give an indicative timeframe for all of these stages. The Deputy is very familiar with them. They are from zero right through to 2a, 2b and up to construction. From zero to four, when a school is out, on site and ready for construction, the indicative timeframe we give is about five years. The Deputy will understand that there is a lot of planning and design. We follow the public procedures and guidelines on public infrastructure. There are various stage gate controls there. We have to protect Exchequer funding and ensure that we follow that governance. That is the indicative timeframe. It can be less on occasion but if there are complications and planning issues, it can take a little bit longer.

Just to add to that, new schools are not a large element of our overall capital programme. Our big emphasis is on supporting existing school buildings, improving those buildings and adding capacity to them. Where we have to build new schools, we do them and cater for them where there are demographic needs or, more recently, in terms of special schools. There are a lot of new schools there. Wherever we can, we provide them on existing school sites as campus. That is a particularly strong aspect of special schools. The Deputy mentioned Scoil Maelruain as an example of new schools. The Department is due to meet with those schools later this month regarding their project.

That is great. Let me just get one final question in before my time is up. In relation to the PPPs, it seems to me we are spending an extraordinary amount of money on these public private partnerships. In total, if my readings are correct, we are due to spend a total of €1.8 billion on what will be 30 schools. I could be off by one or two on that - the witnesses can tell me if I am wrong. That works out, if my maths are correct, at about €60 million per school. Obviously, that is not just building but also maintenance and so on. Has the Department done any work on a cost-benefit analysis of PPPs versus building the schools ourselves? Does the Department plan to use this again? Obviously, we have 30 schools that are up and running, and there are contracts and so on, but are there plans for more of that?

I will ask my colleague Mr. Loftus to come in but I would just say we have done a very extensive review. They are costly projects but we get very good quality product and the lifespan of the building is probably longer, so there is value. We have got value for money but I will ask Mr. Loftus to come in on the detail.

PPPs are not part of our current delivery model. There were a number of projects and programmes that we did over recent years, going back 20-odd years. The first of them, the pilots, are due to be handed back at the end of 2027. We are currently meeting with the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, and with schools regarding the handover arrangements around that. We are planning all of that well in advance of the handover. The last bundle, which was schools bundle 5, was probably the guts of eight to ten years ago. More recently, our main delivery models are essentially employer-led design and design-and-build programmes. Ms Leonard would have led on some of that PPP work in the past and we would have done reviews, including a pilots review, in that regard.

I will just come in briefly on the specific question about the review. We actually have done a review of the pilot schools bundle. What we did, which was quite interesting and the first review of its kind, was to take the pilot PPP schools and a group of conventional schools procured around the same time and look at them 17 or 18 years after they were built. That review is available on our website. What it showed was that while we pay significant moneys for the PPPs in terms of operation and maintenance, the standard and condition are very high. The residual life of those buildings, when they are handed back at the end of 2027, will be very high and that is an important point in terms of the PPP context.

This is our second engagement in a period of months. I do not think this committee is any clearer on this €19 million for SNAs, despite us asking and despite the Department issuing us with a written response after a lengthy engagement on this issue at our last hearing. The responses to my colleagues here this morning are not any clearer. The witnesses cannot categorically tell us that this is a new funding stream. They are telling us that is their understanding but they cannot tell us, after two or three months, that this is going to be a new funding stream. They cannot guarantee that any other Department's funding will not be cut. This comes in the very week when, only on Tuesday, the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, acknowledged that there is a significant challenge in the Department of education's budget, despite a significant increase in funding over the last four years. It was reported last month that there is a projected overspend in the first quarter of this year in the Department to the tune of €600 million to €700 million. Correct me if I am wrong on this, but changes to the Government's budgetary practices mean that overspends are not covered by supplementary budgets and must be absorbed by other Departments. If there are not going to be cuts to the Department of education to cover its overspend, then other Departments are going to be cut. Am I right in that?

I cannot speak for the Department of public expenditure and reform but I can respond to some of what the Deputy has said. First, on the SNAs, I have to say that the policy position is very clear. No SNA is being moved. That policy has taken effect and has been implemented. No SNA will be moved. It is just to reassure families and schools in that regard. The Deputy mentioned an overspend and said that it was in a quarter, but what was publicly stated was in regard to a full year.

I know it is the full year but we are in the first quarter of this year and already the Department is projecting a significant overspend of €600 million to €700 million.

Our estimates and predictions on spending have proven to be very accurate over the years.

This comes four months after a budget. How is it feasible that so soon after a budget we are already seeing projected overspends of massive amounts of money? Can the witnesses here today tell me that they believe the Department of education is well-run, well-led, and well-directed by the Minister when it has so many overspends year after year? This is not a new problem this year. This is a constant and consistent failure by the Department in recent years.

I have to go one step further and say the witnesses are being particularly evasive with this committee. I asked for correspondence to be provided on conversations and meetings that may have been held between the Departments of education and public expenditure. I asked for that at our last meeting. The Department issued a written response stating that there was extensive engagement between Ministers "in this Department" and officials. It went on to say that no correspondence was exchanged between the relevant Departments on this matter as all engagement happened between officials and the relevant Ministers. However, the Department stated earlier that this was between officials and Ministers "in this Department". The Department is contradicting itself in that. If I go one step further and submit an FOI request for these documents, it will return that there were documents, even if they were only about the scheduling of meetings, which I specifically referenced for inclusion but have not been provided.

We are facing either cuts to the Department of education or cuts to other Departments at a time when SNAs are worried, and when across the board we are seeing the reintroduction of exam fees and an increase in school transport fees. We are looking at significant increases in fees. The Department is increasing fees and yet it is still looking at a budget overspend. This, I might add, comes at a time when, to be parochial about it, in my own town of Drogheda, schools and community leaders have expressed absolute outrage and devastation about the fact that not one school in the town was included in the new DEIS plus funding scheme, despite seven schools in the other end of the county, and fair play to them, were included. Local principals of these school went so far as to say that this was a de facto demotion for existing DEIS schools. How can people in my area have confidence in the Department of education when they are being snubbed by the Government and the Department on the provision of badly needed DEIS placement in an area that is suffering severe deprivation? They are facing increased exam fees and transport costs and there is no credible security being offered on the basis of SNAs because we cannot identify where this funding is coming from.

There is a huge amount of information there.

There is.

-----but the Deputy should bear with me and I will respond on it. She mentioned that SNAs are worried. I categorically seek to reassure them that they should not be worried. I have clearly said no SNAs are being moved for next year. Not only will we be employing the 1,717 I talked about the last day but we will also be employing the 500 funded by the €19 million. Therefore, SNAs, families, children and schools should not be worried about this.

The Deputy asked me whether I can state here that we have a well-run, well-managed Department. I can tell her categorically that she actually does not even have to take my word for it. Our Department has been subjected to a lot of external examination. The IMF reported last year, in July, and stated the education system in Ireland is at the frontier of efficiency compared with systems in other jurisdictions and sectors, and at the frontier of efficiency-----

It is not efficient in budgetary-----

-----in terms of the money invested, what we do with it and the outcomes we get.

We have also had an organisational capacity review. That is not published yet but it will be in the next couple of months. It highlights good management practices. I have an audit committee that is chaired by a former partner of one of the big five management consultancy and audit companies. That audit committee is independently chaired. I have asked it every year to scrutinise everything and said there are open books. The previous chairman was a partner from one of the big five companies. I have 19 accountants on my staff. Our head of finance is a qualified accountant. Our head of internal-----

What is the reason for all the overspend then?

We have lots of assurance regarding good financial management.

Who does the buck stop with? This is a consistent problem year after year-----

I am happy to answer that.

-----and it is growing year after year.

I am not doubting Ms McNally’s enthusiasm in her response, but if the Department is as efficient as she is making it out to be, what is the reason for the overspend? Who does the buck stop with? There is no efficiency in this regard.

I have to completely and utterly rebut that.

The fact-----

I am happy to provide the information. I mentioned in my opening address that we have had 200,000 extra children and young people in the system in the past 20 years. That is a 25% increase. In the past five years, we have had 38,000 additional children and young people in the system. Eighty-six percent of our current budget is spent on payroll and pensions. It is mostly for teachers and SNAs. We have a very rules-based system in education. It is a demand-led system. At the moment, Government policy sets out that for every 23 children in a primary school class, broadly, there should be one teacher. Therefore, there are rules on that. It is similar with special education in that for every six children, there is one teacher. Those rules are in place under what is established Government policy. When demand goes up, we need more teachers. Teachers' salaries are set. This entails a fixed cost and I cannot change it. When there are more children, as there have been, we need more funding. When there are fewer children – we all probably know of small rural schools that closed down because they lost a teacher – the amount I require goes down. There is very strong evidence that we have needed supplementary budgets over recent years to cover Government policy.

Can Ms McNally provide a detailed note on all that to the committee, just to save time?

Absolutely. We have all that detail.

I am just conscious of time.

There is one school, in particular, that I want to raise in regard to capital, namely St. Joseph's CBS in Drogheda. All of its flat roofs and metal roofs have ingress issues, resulting in black mould, mildew and green moss on all the walls. Despite all this, it has been refused climate action summer works scheme funding. Things are that bad that it actually has buckets in its PE hall to collect water during bad weather.

Other elected representatives in the area have been in contact with Ministers as well asking for guidance on how to proceed. The school has been directed to programmes like RePowerEU Pathfinder but it cannot sign up because it has too many classrooms to be considered. This is based on one of the stipulations. Instead of prioritising schools for retrofitting through the scheme on the basis of the number of classrooms, schools are being asked to proceed on the basis of carbon emissions and the BER rating. I nearly fell over when I saw the boiler in St. Joseph’s. It runs off gas oil or green diesel. It is 80 years old and is running at only 65% efficiency. The roofs of the school have no insulation and the asphalt is completely worn away, exposing no waterproof layer, but the school cannot sign up to the scheme because of the size of its classrooms. That needs to be addressed and considered.

The school has also asked me to raise the role of teachers in applying for all of the funding. There are teachers up on roofs, unqualified to be there, and talking to architects and contractors. There are too many middlemen in the application processes. The school would prefer it if when a complaint or query was raised, or when a grant application was queried, somebody technically qualified from the Department came out to assess.

I am conscious of the time I have. The only real light at the end of the tunnel for this school, it believes, is the pathfinder programme. We know there is a new round of funding coming out in the months to come. The school has applied for this and it is hopeful of success. However, I urge a review of all the measures. The school has applied for multiple grants. I commend its assistant principal, Seán Hughes, who has taken on the maintenance project in the school over the past two years. He has applied for multiple grants and has been refused in all cases. He is really despairing and at a loss at this stage. Could the Department examine this specifically and revert to me on it, maybe with some guidance? If the school is not eligible for one thing, we really need to find a pathway forward for it. It is a massive school and it is very proud of its children. It is colourful and warm but at every corner you turn, a roof is leaking. The walls are black with mould, and buckets are used to collect water in bad weather.

I ask Mr. Loftus to give the Deputy a brief response on that.

I thank the Deputy. She certainly paints a picture. We are doing an extension project at that school for special needs and special classes-----

That is only one part of it.

-----and that is important to note.

In terms of the existing building and the issues with it, the best thing is probably for us to arrange for the Department to make direct contact with the school to determine the appropriate pathway for addressing the issues. There are schemes available and it is a matter of determining the appropriate one.

Could I be kept included on that?

I thank the Department of education and its Secretary General for all the work that is being done across the education system. Our education system is not an easy system to be in charge of. There are challenges every day of the week and I fully appreciate that. I put on the record the last time I attended a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts that I am more than willing, as an Opposition TD, to work with the Department to make sure we have a Department that works efficiently for the children across the State.

I have many questions that I want to try to get through. Based on parliamentary question replies, it is my understanding that since 2020, the Department has spent €223.2 million on modular rental accommodation and €1.186 billion purchasing modular accommodation. Is modular accommodation, be it permanent or rental accommodation, the model we are moving to now as opposed to building new buildings?

I am happy to answer that. I thank the Deputy very much for the acknowledgement. Serving 4,000 schools and 1,000,000 children means a busy job. I thank all the elected representatives who constantly lobby and approach us for their constituents.

We are responding to need using a variety of mechanisms. Modular accommodation is one very important aspect of that but it is not the only one. We are still doing traditional build, design and build, etc. We are using a number of methods but modular accommodation is an important element. It has many advantages, one of them being speed. It can be faster than traditional builds. We talked about climate earlier. Modular accommodation is really climate friendly. Satisfaction from schools is also very high. Modular accommodation will continue to be significant but it is only one element.

On rental, with the need that exists and the amount of development we are engaged in, having to rent occasionally has to be expected.

Is rental for emergency situations?

It could be where a new school is being built and we do not want to put modular accommodation for a period. Getting modular accommodation and moving it on to another school later is an option, but on some occasions the most cost-effective and the most efficient option is to rent. Last year, we engaged in only 22 new agreements.

I have a couple of general points in terms of rentals. Notwithstanding all the growth pressures the Secretary General outlined, the level of our spend on rental arrangements is probably about 2% of our overall expenditure.

It actually reduced in 2025 relative to previous years. We keep a tight control of it. We did a strategic review of those rentals about five years ago.

Mr. Loftus will not have the figures here but, so that we can move on, could I get possibly get a breakdown of how many prefabs or modular accommodation units are being rented and how many have been purchased?

Yes, we can give the Deputy an update on that. As the Secretary General said, the modular is an important part. We have started the initial preparatory work for another strategic review of our overall rentals. That will take a period of time to progress but we can reference that when we respond.

A final point is that in terms of modular, we have got hugely positive feedback from the school system and stakeholders about the quality of accommodation we are putting in, the speed of delivery, and how energy-efficient the modular buildings are. It certainly has supported us. We have frameworks in place. We have project management supports for schools in terms of modular delivery. It certainly helps us with the roll-out of SEN mainstream provision. It is really important.

Ms McNally will appreciate that at the last Committee of Public Accounts we discussed something that is really important to me, that is, the provision of appropriate special education classes right across the country. She informed me that at the end of February a memo was to be sent to the Government on how we are going to deal with the additional level of demand for special classes, which was budgeted to be 400 but is now projected to be 600. I am none the wiser. I am pretty sure that no memo has yet been sent to the Government on how we are going to deal with the additional children who require special classes. When I heard the announcement of the classes yesterday I feared that we are now going to have 12 students to a class as opposed to six. I do not want to get into that right now because there is perhaps further scope to get into it next week when we will have parliamentary questions on education. Has the memo been sent to the Government? Do we have an idea of how we are going to deal with the existing level of demand? Will the classes be appropriate to match the level of need?

The good news is that in the time since we were here eight weeks ago today, we have announced another 130 special classes. We also announced the establishment of four new special schools. Progress is being made all the time.

There is agreement in principle to funding beyond what we got in the budget last year. On the last day I talked about us bringing a memo but that has been delayed. As the Deputy knows, events in the last couple of weeks have diverted people to other things. Really good progress has been made. There has been constructive engagement. I very much hope that in the next couple of weeks we will be publishing the numbers and the plan. As I said, there are 130 extra special classes just in the few weeks since we met.

With the 130, will we have reached the 400 limit?

That is over the limit. It is about 430 special classes.

Does Ms McNally reckon we will get to 600?

I cannot say that.

Does Ms McNally reckon that is the level of demand that is there?

I have to say what I said the last day, which is that we have been planning this since last October. There are good plans in place but we do have to bring a memo to the Government.

Could Ms McNally also tell me if the Minister is aware of the situation since November?

Absolutely. There was a different Minister in place in October. The NCSE has been keeping us up to date. As the Deputy knows, the numbers continued to grow after 1 October.

What is the number of children who require a special school place or a special class place for the next academic year?

I cannot share that with the Deputy at the moment, but what I can say is that there is really good planning happening to ensure that we meet the needs of every child and young person.

What is the reason Ms McNally cannot share it with me?

It is because we have to bring it to the Government. In fairness, the Government needs to be briefed on this situation before it is publicly announced.

Does Ms McNally have a figure for the exponential growth in the number of applicants who require a special class or a special school place?

We have a figure on that.

But she is not going to share it with me.

It is an evolving situation. More and more children are coming forward, although I expect that we have most identified. We are working on it with the NCSE, and we do have a plan.

I will move on from that very briefly and touch on the €19 million that has been spoken about here. I fully believe that is an issue for the Department of public expenditure. It is allowing the Department of education to take the slack for it. The Department of public expenditure has not signed off on €19 million. The Tánaiste said to me it is not robbing Peter to pay Paul in any way, sense or form; that it is going to be new additional money that has to be provided. Has the Department of public expenditure come to Ms McNally and said where the money is coming from? I understand that it has to go through the Cabinet and the Dáil itself. Does Ms McNally feel the Department of education is taking the slack for funding that the Department of public expenditure should be providing?

No, we are working very constructively with the Department of public expenditure and reform. It is a matter of fact that certain financial procedures have to be followed. The Department of public expenditure and reform has a role. We are working very constructively with it. Probably not a day goes by that we do not engage with officials there. We all, including probably the Department of public expenditure and reform, would have liked to have it resolved earlier but obviously other things have taken its attention. We are making progress and we hope in the next couple of weeks that there will be some clarity.

I have a minute left and I hope I can ask three or four questions. It was extremely disappointing news to see the €600 million overspend in the Department of education. What is the last year when there was no overspend in the Department?

I have to correct the Deputy and say we would not consider it an overspend. We would consider that this is the funding that is required to deliver Government policy.

When was the last time the money that was budgeted for the Department of education was enough?

The nature of the financial system in Ireland is that there are supplementary budgets and it is probably quite rare that the supplementary budget has not been used in the past for some reason. In recent years, Covid could not be planned for as part of a budgetary process. That required supplementary funding. Ukraine was not planned and that required supplementary funding. Likewise with cost-of-living measures.

The point I am trying to get to is whether there will be consequences.

I am sorry but what does the Deputy mean when he says "consequences"?

Will there be cuts in some parts of the Department of education to facilitate other sectors of the Department?

What I understand is that the Government is very committed to education. Again and again our leaders have restated their commitment to education. We know we get very good value for money. We invest average levels of funding and we get very good outcomes.

I appreciate that the Chair has allowed me to very quickly ask another question. I have very serious difficulties with the reintroduction of the State exam fees and school transport fees rising. We are living in a serious cost-of-living crisis at the moment. Is any consideration being given by the Department to scrapping the examination fees for the next academic year or to reducing the amount of money people pay for school transport? I have made plenty of statements about this, as have other Opposition spokespeople. I understand the fees are being capped, but overall a family would be paying nearly €100 extra for school transport for the next academic year.

The leaving certificate fee is €116 and the junior certificate is €109. Those fees have not been increased since 2012.

No, but they were taken out.

That is despite all of the inflation. The exams are free for medical cardholders.

The exam fees were taken out. There were no exam fees for students in the last couple of years. Then all of a sudden, when the cost-of-living crisis had soared even more, the exam fees are coming back. Can Ms McNally see the negative aspect of that?

It is not anywhere near covering the costs of the State Examinations Commission.

I know that.

They have not been increased since 2012. What I would say on school transport is that the fees at €100 per year are extremely good value for money for parents. Again, it is free for users of the special education transport scheme. They do not pay anything and neither do medical cardholders, so about 14% of children on mainstream buses use them free of charge. The current fee at €100 per child works out at about 55 cent a day. It is good value for money.

It is. The Department must appreciate that the stories coming back to us are that parents cannot afford State examination fees and extra increases in school transport costs on top of the cost-of-living crisis.

We also hear parents say it is very good value for money and they are happy to pay the €100 a year because it allows them to get to work and it is good for the environment. They accept that there are a lot of advantages to it as well. I hear what Deputy Kenny hears from his constituents.

Our ambition is to have free school transport across the board.

I thank Deputy Kenny.

I thank all the witnesses for appearing here again. Initially, I might just touch on the replies that were provided in the letter following on from our last committee meeting. As a parent I really struggle with the idea that 126 parents felt it necessary, rightly or wrongly, to go to the High Court on behalf of their disabled child to look for a space in a special class almost a quarter of a century after the Sinnott Supreme Court decision.

It found that we have to ensure every child, no matter what their ability, has a free primary school place. I heard what the Secretary General had to say, particularly in relation to the number of special classes created in the last eight weeks. I think she said it was almost the same number, over 130-----

One hundred and thirty.

So, it almost matches one for one. Why does Ms McNally think there were 126 cases this academic year regarding this issue? Did all of the children involved get school places?

I cannot speak for parents. As I said before, I genuinely empathise with their situation. If I were a parent, I would want to know a long time out that my child was going to have a place the following September. I would not want to be waiting until the final few months. Part of what parents are responding to is the huge amount of negativity. They may not fully understand how things have improved. I still accept that they have a right to be concerned, but we must consider the fact that we have 31,000 specialist places now, and twice the number of special classes that there were five years ago. There are 4,000 special classes now. Since we last met, 130 extra special classes and four special schools have been announced.

Parents probably do not trust us yet and they probably do not see and believe the amount that is being done to ensure every child and young person will get a school place. We need to be able to assure them much earlier. We are working towards a situation where they will know a long time in advance that their place is safe, whereas at the moment some people probably take legal action because they are worried that, come June, they will be left not knowing where they are going to be in September. It is partly about a timing issue on our part. We are working really hard. Part of the reason for putting the parent notification process in place with the NCSE, whereby parents had to notify by 1 October, was to pull everything back so parents would know where their school place was. The 430 special classes we have announced were announced much earlier than last year. It was still not early enough, but months earlier than last year and the previous year. It is so schools will know as soon as possible if they have a special class, meaning they can get the enrolment process in place to identify the children and assure them.

The 126 instances included many pre-litigation letters. They did not proceed to cases. Solicitors, on behalf of families, wrote in. The Secretary General has been really clear that, in the Department, we are absolutely committed to ensuring children get the places as quickly as possible. There has been a 43% increase in places since we were last here with the members. The number of special class places has doubled in the last five years. There are 20 new special schools. Every county in Ireland, this year and last year, has those places-----

In the 126 cases, did all those involved get a place?

All those cases were resolved on the basis that the Department worked with the NCSE on finding a solution acceptable to parents. Parents and their legal advisers could have continued with those cases had they not been happy with the solutions proposed. We are hopeful about the solutions proposed, which resulted in none of the cases proceeding to a hearing. I cannot speak to what a parent felt. All I can state is that the evidence is that they did not proceed to cases.

In this academic year, was 126 a particularly high number by comparison with the numbers for, let us say, the previous three years?

The number of pre-litigation letters would vary. I can give the figures on the cases that proceeded to litigation.

Ideally, it would be the like-for-like figure.

Yes.

Ms Mannion can come back to the committee on that. Has she a sense of the figures? I am not looking for specific figures. She can come back to the committee on previous years, but what is her sense? Was the number for this academic year particularly high by comparison with the numbers for previous years?

Levels of litigation in special education have been relatively high in recent years. The Deputy talked a little bit about the Sinnott case 20-plus years ago. Levels of litigation and pre-litigation continue to be high. We have talked extensively about trying to reassure parents that they genuinely do not have to go down that route. We are hoping that with the additional 50 SENOs working directly with parents, every county has more special education provision and that parents can really start to see that on the ground. We hope this message is filtering through. We really do hope the earlier sanctioning of classes is getting through.

We respect the right of parents who wish to engage in litigation but we want to reassure members and parents that the staff in the Department and the NCSE, in dealing with litigation, are about finding the solution and reassuring and satisfying the parents so that they do not feel the need to proceed with cases. The evidence is crystal clear. In recent years, none of these cases has proceeded to a hearing. We have been able to find solutions. The only issues left are those that relate to costs. Those are the costs for the solicitors acting on behalf of the parents. That is what is left to deal with.

It is so important that we get the message out to avoid situations where parents of disabled children think their first port of call is a solicitor. As somebody who worked in the courts system, I would not recommend that anyone be in it, least of all a parent who just wants their child to get access to education. Anything we can do to get the message out is exceptionally important.

The Department gave replies in respect of the NCSE appeals over the past five years that I had asked about. Later, Ms Mannion might also give us the number of SNA appeals in 2026 to date. We have just been given the figures for 2021 to 2025. My recollection-----

Could I answer that question?

Yes.

The special education teacher allocations would have gone out as part of our teacher allocations in March. The opening date for schools that wish to appeal their special education teaching allocation was Monday, so obviously we are only a couple of days in. The closing date for the reviews is at the beginning of May. That is to ensure that the NCSE has considered all of the cases and has provided clarity and assurance to the schools. As of today’s date, there are seven appeals for 2026.

Ms Mannion is referring to special educational needs, not SNAs, so the figures-----

That is set. I know the Secretary General has given reassurance but, again, it is important for me, having responsibility for special education, to state that all the SNAs have been sanctioned-----

They have been allocated. I have only two and a half minutes left.

-----so anybody looking for additional SNAs can go to the NCSE.

For 2026, does Ms Mannion have the number of appeals completed? I am not asking for it now.

Sorry, but there will be no appeals unless people are looking for additionality.

Okay. So, Ms Mannion is saying there are no appeals to date in 2026.

We did not take away any SNA.

We did not take away anybody. Everybody who looked for additionality got it. None of those who were due to lose-----

What about the people who were looking for an SNA but did not get one and who may have made an appeal? That may not be captured.

I apologise if I do not understand the Deputy. With regard to everybody who looked for an SNA, did the review with the NCSE and received its decision, those who were due to lose are not losing.

Yes. I understand that.

Anybody who gained one received one, and anybody who had any concerns could continue to engage with the NCSE. That process is still ongoing.

I believe there are examples of schools that wanted more, lodged an appeal and got more. I was just wondering whether there were figures for 2026. The witnesses can look into it and come back to me.

We will come back to the Deputy.

What is the process? In 2025, 181 appeals regarding SNAs took place and 32 of them were upheld. The NCSE has advised that there was a timeframe of six to eight weeks. What is the process in this regard? Does the Department of education have a final sanctioning role in relation to this? Once the decision is made, is that the be-all and end-all?

Ms Mannion will come in on the detail but it varies from year to year. The NCSE has a rigorous process in place. The fact that it overturns some of its original decisions shows the process is entered in good faith and that it is prepared to say it has been given additional information that will change the outcome. The percentage of successful appeals varies from year to year. It is an NCSE process.

This is absolutely an NCSE process. We talked a little bit about it the last day.

I have only 30 seconds left. Does the Department of education have any function at the end of the NCSE appeals process?

No, this is an NCSE-----

Is there no other layer?

That is appropriate for the agency. The NCSE is the statutory agency.

To reassure the Deputy, there is an allocation, an NCSE review process and a final, independent review if people are unhappy. We talked a little about that the last day. It is led and managed by the NCSE, which has responsibility for allocation and reviews.

Like every other TD, I deal with multiple schools. I am currently dealing with two - St. Patrick's Boys National School, Ringsend, and CBS Westland Row - both of which are DEIS schools. Both have downpipe issues affecting their toilets. As simple as that sounds, it is not simple because the summer works programme deadline has passed. The emergency works programme is always ongoing, but the level of discretion under the emergency works programme regarding downpipe and flooding issues is very different from that in respect of, let us say, electricity issues.

That is my experience of dealing with both these schools and having visited both of them. I visited a school and saw a toilet shut. In fairness, personnel from Mr. Loftus's unit actually came down and visited St. Patrick's boys national school and were horrified by what they saw, and yet still the school has not been granted the funding to fix the toilet. It is merging with the girls' school. The witnesses can probably understand how difficult it is for us as TDs to communicate back to a school that this is the system of bureaucracy, etc. They probably will get the money at some point but in the meantime, children and teachers are going into a school that has dampness on the walls or toilets that are broken, and then they are seeing new buildings being built. Is there a layer of flexibility that can be introduced for some of these issues because they seem exceptionally tight? That is certainly my experience of dealing with these issues as a TD.

We are aware of the two schools. We have had close engagement with the chair of the Ringsend school, Monsignor Dan O'Connor, on the matter and we see a pathway to working through a solution around that and getting works done. There was an application for emergency works at the school on Westland Row and some emergency works were approved in relation to that. We can come back separately in terms of confirming that.

From the Department's overall perspective, the climate action summer works scheme, which was an opportunity for all schools to apply for works to improve the condition of their buildings, was the standard mechanism for schools to do things in a proactive, planned and structured way. We factored in climate measures as part of that, such as improving insulation, etc. Where there are other issues that arise in an unforeseen or unexpected way, that is where our emergency works scheme comes in to address those. We are conscious that everything cannot be foreseen by an individual school. There is a good structure to our schemes, but we always keep them under close monitoring as well.

I wish everybody a good morning and thank them for being here this morning. To pick up on the issue regarding the SNAs, I am very clear on what Ms McNally is saying from the perspective of there being no cuts to SNAs. Does the Department have the finances available to make that assertion?

We have been assured at senior political level that additional funding will be provided, and that is why we activated it. We put it into action that no SNAs will be moved this September, and we are planning to recruit over 2,200. There will be funding for over 2,200 additional SNAs.

Does the Department have the funding?

We have agreement in principle.

What does that mean? Does the Department have it writing?

So, the proper financial procedures-----

It is just a "Yes" or "No" answer.

-----have to be followed. It is what I said before. A Cabinet decision has to be made on this, and it has be voted by the Dáil. That process has to be gone through. That is proper financial procedure. I understand that it will hopefully be resolved in the next couple of weeks. That is the plan.

Can I ask the representatives of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation what update they have with regard to that funding? Where will it come from? When will it land in the Department of education's bank account in order to then employ these additional SNAs?

There is still ongoing work to prepare a memo for the Government in relation to the moneys concerned. We hope to make good progress on that in the coming future.

I do not find these answers acceptable in terms of assurances. We are verbally saying this very comfortably, and I believe the witnesses wholeheartedly, but we have no credible pathway that we can see as to how we can stand over that from a financial perspective. The Departments have assurances-----

What the Deputy is concerned about is those children out there in schools being able to access SNA supports, those schools having those supports and those SNAs having security. That has been provided. They have been categorically assured at the most senior level of the Government that no SNA is being moved next year. Looking at this from a child-centred manner, that assurance has absolutely been provided. What is to follow now is financial procedure and agreement, and that process is under way.

If it is not too much to ask, as soon as that is reached will the Departments between them update the committee? As the officials can see, there is great interest in it from our perspective.

Is data available on the number of schools in the country that are in part, or in full, reliant on prefab or modular buildings?

I will ask Mr. Loftus to come in. The survey we are currently completing, which will be done by end of the year, will give us fabulous information on every school in the country and every block of accommodation on the grounds of that school. We will have all of that evidence compiled. We have some information at present, but do we have it all?

The energy and condition survey will give us a good sense of the full picture. As I referenced earlier in terms of temporary accommodations and rentals, etc., the Department did a report about five years ago on the schools which, at that point in time, had temporary accommodation for five years or more. In the intervening period, through our forward planning and through our delivery, the number of schools in that particular cohort would have reduced by about half. We are now doing another strategic review and are starting the preparation work around that. When we have that done, and it will take a period, we will be happy to update the committee.

So the Department cannot tell me now how many schools have, in part or in full, modular accommodation or prefabs. I am not trying to be sharp, but it is a yes-no question.

Well, I think an important-----

There is a strategic review coming. There is a survey coming. I am just asking a question.

I think, Deputy, to be fair-----

It is "Yes" or "No".

No, to be fair, Deputy, I have to provide context.

You have already provided context.

No, it is an important point. Modern methods of construction are an important feature of delivery across all sectors, equally in the schools system. When we provide modular accommodation solutions, that is a permanent accommodation solution. I do not regard it as a temporary solution. It is a permanent accommodation solution. That culture is increasingly accepted across the schools system. It is just one delivery mechanism. I do not necessarily put a flag on that to say "that is that, and this is the other". It is part of our overall delivery.

Surely the financial controller would have this information in terms of the leasing agreements. Who is paying for the modular units?

We certainly know the number of modular projects.

We know, and we have put a framework-----

That is all I asked five minutes ago. How many units are there?

We can provide that data to the committee.

I thank Mr. Loftus. How much does it cost annually to lease? How many arrangements are we part of? What is that? I am just looking for the data.

As I said earlier, in terms of rental arrangements, that represents around 2% of-----

What is the sum, though? What is the sum?

In 2025, that was €37 million. That was a reduction over the previous three years because the figure had been over €40 million. That is through good, tight management by the Department in managing that and keeping it at around a level of 2%. That is appropriate in terms of meeting needs because it provides additional flexibility for short-term needs. We minimise the number of new rentals. For example, in 2025, there were just 22 new rentals. The strategic review I have referenced will give us a bigger overall picture in a point in time, and we will be happy to update the committee.

So, in those 2025 new rentals, what is the duration of those leases? Are they all the same? Is it a standardised contract? Is it a five-year lease? Is it a ten-year lease? Is it a permanent lease because that is what Mr. Loftus is saying he sees these as? Are these modular units permanently leased as opposed to bought? If so, that does not represent value for money, in my opinion.

The vast bulk of what we do from our modular delivery is all purchased, and we relocate where needed. However, there can be particular circumstances where, for example, a new school is near completion but is not ready yet and there is a particular need for a short-term rental.

I accept that.

The duration of such rentals is determined on a case-by-case basis and determined by what is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the individual school.

I will speak to the officials about St. Patrick's in Celbridge. I note that we are still at stage 2A with the three-school campus there. It really came to national attention in the last couple of months. I appreciate the work that the Department did in response to that when its officials came out. In many ways, it is clear to see that much work has happened so far. What does the Department estimate would be the entire budget of the works that need to take place in those modular accommodations that have been there for over 20 years now?

We can come back to the committee on that. There are works ongoing there so the full picture on that will become clearer over time. We are very conscious that our bigger picture that we are focused on is the new three-school campus there and that is an important part. The Department is doing the stage 2A meeting with the stakeholders, and with the National Development Finance Agency, in relation to that.

That is scheduled for later this month.

Can Mr. Loftus confirm that the stakeholders involved in the three-school campus are meeting regularly?

Absolutely.

Are meetings taking place between the three boards of management or the three principals?

That three-school campus is very important. It will include a primary school, a post-primary school and a special school. That creates great opportunities for inclusion for the students with additional needs. The delivery of that project is part of our NDFA programme. I assure the committee that the NDFA is one of our very strong delivery partners. That project will certainly be moving forward. It was impacted by particular site issues that arose. There has been a long history in that regard with the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and all of that. From the Department's perspective, we are certainly very conscious of the importance and urgency of the project.

With regard to St. Patrick's, Mr. Loftus's Department refused a number of freedom of information requests. These refusals stated that the information being sought would potentially prejudice the competitive position of the contractor or project manager. We are looking for a lot of information about how we arrived at a point where children and teachers were still going to this site every day despite successive architect's reports condemning it. Where freedom of information requests were made, it seems that we prioritised the needs of the project manager and the contractor over transparency and scrutiny as regards our ability to do the work. Does Mr. Loftus stand over the refusal of those freedom of information requests?

The response to a freedom of information request is determined by the decision maker in the area. There is an appeals process around that. I understand that the Department has been in contact with the Deputy's office to provide information. We have provided a lot of information. We link in very closely. As recently as yesterday, my team was linking in with the school principal on that issue.

I will make a general point. When an architect or an engineer does a report on an individual school, it is part of due diligence and good governance by the Department to assess and stress-test that position. Through its project management team and its professional staff, the Department has a wealth of experience in dealing with projects. I am always very conscious that a local architect, engineer or whatever may take a view, but that is not to say the Department will fully accept that particular view.

I will raise one last thing before I finish. I appreciate the Chair allowing me the time. An application for emergency works at Scoil na Mainistreach in Celbridge was rejected this week despite clear evidence of the need for significant works and a legacy of works having happened. Will the Department undertake a review of this specific application? It is another roof leak and it represents a significant problem facing children in Celbridge. We need to assure this community of 20,000 people that the schools are safe for their children. I have been contacted by the school. I ask the Department to review this application because, if it cannot get emergency works funding, where can a school like this go for funding? It has already pumped in a lot of money itself. What is going to happen?

We can arrange for the Department to make contact but I would make the general point, which is relevant for that school or any other school, that where there are particular issues with leaks or things like that, the window for dealing with those issues in a more substantive way is the summer works scheme. That window was open in early 2025. I have to pose the question: what did the school prioritise? Did it prioritise its roof for the summer works scheme?

I thank everyone from the Department of education for being with us today. At the outset, there is obviously huge concern. As the witnesses have said, the Department has a comprehensive capital package but there is real concern about its ability to manage its budget. Will the witnesses confirm the exact projected overspend for 2026?

On the capital front, we are absolutely on profile. We were given a national development plan, NDP, allocation of €1.6 billion for this year and we are committed to living within that. The five-year window for the NDP gave us the ability to plan, forecast and so on. We are actually slightly under profile.

On the current side, and as discussed earlier, we are charged with implementing Government policy. The Department of education's system is demand-led. We are actually very transparent. Every principal in the country knows exactly what they are entitled to in terms of numbers of teachers or, on occasion, even the teacher hours. Our system is demand-led and very rules-based. As I have said, 86% of our current budget is expended on payroll and pensions. I can go through where the rest of it goes as well. It is very transparent. There is an area where we are engaging with the Department of public expenditure and reform. We are having very positive engagement. We had hoped to be a little bit further ahead but events in recent weeks have delayed us. We hope to have a resolution to that in the next number of weeks.

I am just asking for a figure. What is the total sum anticipated to be?

I do not want to say too much publicly. The Minister is on record as saying that, on the current side, it is north of €500 million. It is a significant amount of money. We are engaging with others on that.

I understand that, if there is a change of Government policy mid-year, it can lead to something changing within the Department's Estimates and that it may now need to go back. Things like that happen. I understand that the Government has to make decisions, but where did this go wrong? We have a really lengthy budget process. Departments fight to get as much funding as possible to deliver. They work with the Department of public expenditure and reform and have debates with it. They work with their Ministers, who talk to the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Jack Chambers. Where in particular did this get out of control, leading to an extra spend of €500 million?

I do not think it is out of control. It is clear that there is an amount that has to be addressed. This was caused by demographic growth. There are 200,000 extra young people in the system since 2003 and 38,000 since 2020. On another cause, we have talked about special education and the increasing prevalence of conditions. All of the initiatives we have talked about, such as the extra special classes and special schools, require funding. Services like the school transport scheme have seen huge growth in demand. There are now 181,000 children travelling on that scheme every day. It is mostly down to demographics and demand-led schemes.

Had we not adequately projected what was going to be required this year?

Our paper trail would show that, when it comes to predicting the number of teachers and so on, because we use really good data, including Central Statistics Office, CSO, data and data from our primary online database, POD, and post-primary online database, P-POD, systems, we can predict the number of teachers required with a great degree of accuracy. On the special education front, there can occasionally be more demand than was predicted. The Government has also decided to introduce other initiatives. The SNAs are an example. The Government and senior political leaders decided to leave those SNAs in place and not to move them. There have been other additional measures, such as those for survivors of sexual abuse in the past. The Government makes decisions to invest more, which are addressed through the Supplementary Estimates process.

To round off on that, what is the Department of education going to be doing in the future to make sure that this does not happen again? I refer to the scale of current expenditure. It is quite understandable at the moment with the uncertainty and the oil shock. I imagine pricing schools is a nightmare. Even for the construction companies that are trying to operate, it is a nightmare. I would say the Department of public expenditure and reform is having a nightmare trying to figure out how to fund a lot of the NDP projects because there is so much uncertainty at the moment. However, current expenditure would generally be fairly sticky as regards the amount that is going to be spent. Can Ms. McNally reassure me that we are not on a runaway train here?

We are absolutely not on a runaway train. The average Supplementary Estimate across the Government was 7% between 2022 and 2025. For the Department of education, it was not 7%; it was 8%. We were just a little bit above but, because we have a big budget - we have the third largest Vote across the Government - that is obviously quite serious. Over those years, there were one-off events. There were the additional costs from Ukraine, Covid and the cost of living. There were also pay deals. Of the €4.4 billion extra in our Vote since 2020, €1.7 billion was for national pay deals because we are such a big employer.

We are working constructively with the Department of public expenditure to have a formula in place to agree how we cost it. Some of it is unpredictable, so the Government has a right to respond. On the other hand, we want to have a good formula in place.

That is okay.

I want to move on to another topic that was brought to my attention by AsIAm and Deputy Catherine Ardagh, who cannot be with us today. I want to ask a few questions about the pupil-teacher ratios for autism spectrum disorders, ASD, classes and specifically what evidence the Department relied on to justify increasing autism class sizes from six to 12 pupils in the pilot?

The Deputy talked about pupil-teacher ratio. To be really clear, the ratio remains at one teacher for every six students and two SNAs, so if there are 12 in the class, then there would be two teachers. The ratio remains the exact same. What was announced yesterday was actually a ground-up initiative in some schools that had special classes already in place to serve six children and wanted to serve more. They said that they could serve more children out of that classroom. A good inclusive special class is a base. The children might come into it in the morning but they are out. They are being integrated all day. It would be very rare to have six children in those classes. The schools are saying that they need the teachers and the SNAs.

Will that flexibility be offered to schools now? How does the Department see that working?

I will ask my colleague, Ms Mannion, to come in on this.

As the Secretary General said, this is already happening organically in schools. The five schools that we talked about yesterday were post-primary schools. In post-primary schools, by their nature, children are not sitting in one base classroom all day. They are moving across for individual subjects. In effect, what we have done here is facilitate schools to do something that they have been doing as part of their existing inclusive practices for a number of years. For example, prior to this initiative, many of the children who have come forward in recent years for special classes were already within the mainstream school. Those schools want to keep the children there. They do not want them moving to new special classes in other schools. They are asking us to provide the resources and supports, the teachers, SNAs, capitation, training and school transport.

How many schools are in this pilot?

I would not call it a pilot, Deputy. These are five schools.

It is being interpreted as a pilot.

That is an incorrect interpretation because what they are are five special classes that are using the resources they have flexibly. The Department is facilitating them to do that. The committee will have seen yesterday that the management bodies of those post-primary schools - Education and Training Boards Ireland, ETBI, the Joint Managerial Body, JMB, and the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools, ACCS - are the people who run our post-primary schools. They came out immediately welcoming this initiative because it is what post-primary schools want.

It is across five schools at the moment.

Five schools are doing it currently.

Does the Department anticipate that this will become the standard model nationally and what safeguards are in place to ensure that students' needs are not negatively affected?

I will ask Ms Mannion to follow up on this but doing the right thing for children and young people is our ultimate priority. Also, we know that inclusive practice is really important when we see schools already doing this. There is a school in the south that actually only has two classrooms, but 36 children are being supported. The school did that on its own initiative. Those young people are out being integrated across the post-primary school all day. The schools are doing this anyway, so this is a natural evolution and we are putting the needs of young people at the centre of it.

I understand now what the witnesses are talking about. It would be really good for the Department to engage with AsIAm to clarify this matter and to have an open conversation about that.

There was engagement yesterday with advocacy groups when this happened but further meetings are planned. We engage really strongly with all stakeholders, management bodies, unions, parents and advocacy groups. We have a forum where we work with our advocacy groups and parents. We meet them constantly on all of these issues. We will continue to engage with them to give them whatever reassurance they need.

I appreciate that. I am out of time, so I just wanted to say that Mr. Colman got away from me today, but I have one last question for him. When will the data for quarter 4 of 2025 be published?

I think that was published yesterday.

Fantastic. That is great. Mr. Colman is on the ball. Fair play.

In a machine-readable format.

I want to say to everyone in Mr. Colman's section that I know that was probably a headache. I thank the section for the work that went into getting it into machine-readable format. I hope that it will become an easier task to complete.

My next point is on trying to do the golden thread where we link from the contract to the tender award to the payment to see the project outcome. If we can link across all of that, it will help have greater transparency for all Departments.

I want to raise a number of matters so I will try to move swiftly. Ireland's best asset is us, its educated, hard-working people, and education is key to unlocking that. The environment that people work in and study in is impacting outcomes. I represent Dublin Fingal West, which is essentially north County Dublin. Fingal is the youngest area in the country and Balbriggan is the youngest large town. Some of the buildings, old and new, that the school community are inhabiting are appalling.

I would like to address Mr. Loftus on communications, I have visited many schools in my area, and I am being told repeatedly that the principals are being ghosted. I read with interest the briefing document,which told us that principals are provided with a direct link to deal with queries. The reality is principals are emailing his unit and not getting a response, and that is simply not good enough. They really need to get a response because they are not project managers. They need engagement and guidance from the Department. The population of Rush has increased by 60% in 20 years, yet the environment in several schools is absolutely appalling. School buildings have to be delivered. I was really disappointed that no school buildings in my area were on the list that was released last month. As I said, it is the youngest area in the country. It is incumbent on the Department to deliver good school environments in the areas that need them most. Skerries, Balbriggan, Rush and Lusk are all towns that are expanding hugely. Fingal is accommodating the largest percentage of housing development in the country. We have to have the school environment for teachers, principals, pupils and the families and community around them.

I have a question that I asked Deputy McEntee when she was the Minister for education. Will Mr. Loftus commit to time frames to responding to principals so that they no longer feel ghosted?

If the Deputy does not mind, I will respond to that. We agree about how important it is to value our children and young people and value all teachers in our schools and that is what we are doing. She will know that we are spending every penny of the capital money available to us. We are trying to put it to good use. That is why, in Dublin, €1.8 billion was spent on schools in 2020.

I appreciate that, but time is really short and I have a lot of questions.

I just want to put in context that a lot of good work is being done.

I hear Ms McNally but the communication has to be improved because it is affecting principals' mental health. When it rains, I know of teachers and principals who go in two hours before classes start to mop out the school.

I know of special education classrooms that have been closed because they are flooded. The environment that they are trying to work in is severely impacting the excellent education that these school communities are trying to deliver. I am afraid they cannot be ghosted by the Department. It is not good enough.

I thank the Deputy for her question. From the Department's perspective, as the Secretary General said, we very much are always looking at improving and strengthening our communications with schools and the level of supports we provide for schools in terms of project delivery, project management supports, buildings officers, etc.

In terms of what we are delivering, the Secretary General gave the Dublin position but we have delivered 16 very significant projects in-----

Will Mr. Loftus commit to a time frame in which he will respond to principals? I commit to responding to my constituents within a three-to-five day timeline. Can the Department commit to the principals, the people it works with, that it will respond to their emails within a specific time frame? I am not going to dictate it.

I am head of the planning building unit. Four thousand schools interact with us. We try to do a lot of our communications through patrons and management bodies and then layer that down into individual schools. Certainly, it is always something that we look at and improve on.

The briefing document states that every principal who is looking at doing a building project will have a direct point of contact.

Where there is a direct point of contact. All I am saying is across 4,000 schools, there is 4,000 school principals.

Is Mr. Loftus saying he does not have enough people in his unit to meet the demand?

I would always love to have more people in the unit. I am very proud of the people that are delivering hugely. They have a very strong track record of delivery.

Mr. Loftus is not going to commit to a time frame.

We are committing, and always commit, to do the best possible customer service. Some of that best customer service is-----

Unfortunately, I am going to have to move on.

-----seen in the strong delivery that we are doing.

In terms of special education, I very much welcome the announcement that there will be a special school for Balbriggan. However, I can get no details as to how many students there will be, whether it will be open in September and where it will be located. I can get no information from the Department but what I am being told on the ground is that the building that will be used houses an adult education service that is badly needed in the community. They will be kicked out and there is nowhere for them to go. While I very much welcome the special school announcement, we need to have more details. It is not good enough to make an announcement without details. I am inundated with queries from parents who cannot get access to the schooling that they need. What will be done about the adult education service?

I thank the Deputy for the question. We are liaising very closely with Dublin and Dún Laoghaire ETB in relation to the new school in Balbriggan and we very much see that as important.

How many school places will it provide?

That is something that works through based on the demand having regard to what NCSE sees as the need in that area. It is just one of a number of areas that we are opening new special schools.

The demand is phenomenal.

We fully acknowledge that and that is why we have opened 16 special schools over the past-----

Okay, just on this particular one.

We are increasing that to four. We are working very closely with Dublin and Dún Laoghaire ETB in relation to all of the accommodation arrangements and the start-up arrangements. We are having good discussion with Caitríona Murphy, the chief executive.

What about the adult education service?

That is part of the remit that Dublin-Dún Laoghaire has. Adult education comes in under the Department of further and higher education. We are working closely with it so that can things can be managed smoothly, as best as possible.

Many parents have contacted me who have applied to every school north of the Liffey and cannot get a special education place. I am at the point of telling them to take litigation proceedings. As a lawyer, I do not want to tell them to do that. What can I tell them instead?

Can I say, as I said before, no parent should feel that they need to take-----

Absolutely, I agree. What can I tell the parents?

That has to be horrendously frustrating for them. Their local special educational needs organiser is really critical.

They are all in touch with their SENOs.

That is absolutely really important. They do need to give it a little bit more time. As I said, since we were here this day eight weeks ago, 130 extra special classes-----

Have been sanctioned.

-----have been announced.

Will they all be opened in September?

We would hope that they will be open, absolutely.

"Hope".