The National School Delivery Cost Benchmarking report published in October 2022 shows the average cost per square metre of new school building projects built using the Departmental construction framework between 2012 and 2020. The report can be found here: https://documents.hants.gov.uk/property-services/NationalSchoolDeliveryBenchmarkingreport.pdf. The data presented in this report also shows that the Department has been delivering building projects in primary schools between 13 to 30% more cheaply than Local Authorities over the time frame of 2012 to 2020.

The Department has continuously improved its approach to building schools since the Sebastian James review of Capital in 2011, which highlighted many issues with the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme introduced under the last Government in 2004. The review identified that projects delivered under the programme were overly bureaucratic and not designed to target poor condition, did not support high quality, did not meet standardised specifications that work for education, and did not deliver value for money and economies of scale from central procurement and delivery. These are all are now prioritised when building schools. Millions of pounds have also been spent addressing failures in design left by the BSF programme to ensure schools are suitable to deliver an effective education.

The National Audit Office’s published report on Capital Funding for Schools found that, on average, whole school rebuilds delivered by the Priority School Building Programme were around one third cheaper per square metre than schools built under the Building Schools for the Future Programme.

The School Rebuilding Programme builds on the success of the Priority School Building Programme. It is delivering schools to an even better specification, with buildings that are designed to be carbon net zero in operation and more resilient to the effects of climate change. The sample size for completed projects delivered by the School Rebuilding Programme is currently too small to draw any conclusions on the average cost of this programme.

Two schools were built under Building Schools for the Future in wave 4, phase 3 in Oldham.

North Chadderton was delivered using a design and build contract so did not incur any unitary charges. The contract for North Chadderton was signed in 2010 for a value of £23 million.

Blessed John Henry Newman Roman Catholic College was delivered using the private finance initiative (PFI). Information on PFI projects is published by HM Treasury and can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-finance-initiative-and-private-finance-2-projects-2017-summary-data.

The Department can confirm Blackburn with Darwen has a private finance funded Building Schools for the Future Programme. PFI contracts were signed in 2010.

There are 299 academies that were constructed under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or Private Finance 2 (PF2), as set out in the attached list. The schools' addresses can be downloaded from the ‘Get information about schools’ website at: https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Downloads.

The Department has recently signed five PF2 contracts as part of the Priority Schools Building Programme. Prior to these PF2 contracts, 169 contracts (including 67 Building Schools for the Future PFI contracts) were signed by local authorities under the PFI. Local authorities hold this information.

Building Schools for the Future was cancelled in July 2010. Rather than providing new school places, the programme’s main aim was to rebuild or refurbish all secondary and special schools in England by 2020.

Supporting local authorities to create sufficient school places is one of the Government’s top priorities and we fund all school places needed based on local authorities’ own forecasts. We are spending £7 billion to create new school places between 2015 and 2021, which, along with our investment in the free schools programme, we expect to provide 600,000 new places, including 270,000 in free schools. The latest data shows that nearly 735,000 additional pupil places were created between May 2010 and May 2016 with many more delivered since then and in the pipeline.

On top of this, our current school rebuilding programme, the Priority School Building Programme, is meeting the condition need at 537 schools across the country. It has reduced timescales to start building works by up to two years and is delivering projects for a third cheaper than Building Schools for the Future.

The Priority School Building Programme (PSBP) is spending £4.4 billion on rebuilding or refurbishing those buildings in the worst condition at 537 schools across England.

The investment is being targeted more effectively than before, with investment decisions based on a comprehensive picture of the needs of the school estate. In doing so we are maximising the impact of every pound of taxpayers’ money.

Under PSBP, timescales to start building works have been cut by up to two years and the average cost is a third less than under Building Schools for the Future (BSF).

All schools, including those that were due for rebuilding under BSF, were invited to apply to the PSBP. Successful schools were prioritised for the programme based on their condition need.

The vast majority of schools within the first phase of the programme will be delivered by the end of 2017, two years earlier than originally planned.

Local authorities were responsible for the local delivery of the Building Schools for the Future programme (BSF). They planned, procured and continue to manage the BSF school buildings, including ICT contracts. Advice and guidance on ICT Contracts was provided to local authorities by Partnerships for Schools: http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/library/BSF-archive/BSF-ICT.html

The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme is coming to a close, with the final schemes moving in to construction. The Government's main programme to address the condition needs of the school estate is the Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP) and the majority of work will be procured using the Education Funding Agency's (EFA) Contractors' Framework, which commenced in November 2013.

All PSBP procurements carried out by the EFA through this Framework will require the use of project bank accounts (PBAs)

PBAs differ from traditional construction industry payment arrangements whereby the procuring party under the building contract makes payment to the main contractor, who in turn makes payment down his supply chain. This can lead to delay and cash-flow problems for small and medium-sized businesses, who typically make up a significant proportion of the supply chain.

Instead, the procuring party will make payment into a trust account established specifically for the project. The majority of members of the supply chain are nominated as beneficiaries of that trust account, and the building contract requires that payment must be made from the PBA to the supply chain as soon as possible after the PBA is placed in funds, typically within three to four working days (although varying slightly depending on the specific banking arrangements).

There are a small number of PSBP projects being procured through a private finance route. For these projects, the project agreement does not deal with construction payments as no payment is made until the project is operational. Before that, payments for construction works are made by the single-purpose company (SPC) set up to carry out the project, to its subcontractors, and then down the contractual chain. The SPC's solvency is, in its contracts with first-tier subcontractors, protected by industry-standard provisions with which PBAs are not compatible. We are considering whether more can be done to encourage prompt payment further down the contractual chain.

The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and his special advisers use equipment and systems provided by the Department and their own IT equipment as appropriate, depending on their location and circumstances. Where information is generated in the course of conducting Government business, it is stored on departmental systems. Neither the Secretary of State nor his special advisers use social networking sites for Government business.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Building Schools for the Future scheme was expensive and inefficient and that we had to scrap it because it was unaffordable. It was one of the many unaffordable promises that he and his colleagues made before the election in order to get people’s hopes up, yet still the former Chief Secretary left a note stating, “There’s no money left.”

May I welcome the funding in the autumn statement for building future schools, or what we call Building Schools for the Future? May I also welcome the extra allowances for capital investment, or what we call capital allowances? Why did we have to wait two years and have a double-dip recession for those good Labour policies to return to government?

[holding answers 21 and 26 June 2012]: The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and his special advisers use equipment and systems provided by the Department and their own IT equipment as appropriate, depending on their location and circumstances. Where information is generated in the course of conducting Government business, it is stored on departmental systems.

[holding answers 21 and 26 June 2012]: The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and his special advisers use equipment and systems provided by the Department and their own IT equipment as appropriate, depending on their location and circumstances. Where information is generated in the course of conducting Government business, it is stored on departmental systems.

[holding answers 21 and 26 June 2012]: The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and his special advisers use equipment and systems provided by the Department and their own IT equipment as appropriate, depending on their location and circumstances. Where information is generated in the course of conducting Government business, it is stored on departmental systems.

The Building Schools for the Future programme is not mine or the coalition Government's; it was a programme started under the previous administration. The mean cost of all new build schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme is £18.6 million pre-election and £16.3 million post-election. The acquisition cost of schools or sites is not held centrally; local authorities will hold this information on individual projects. The average refurbishment cost of schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme is £3.9 million. The average capacity of new build schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme is 1,080 pupils.