Debate contribution: Schools: Improved Procurement Practices
Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Schools: Improved Procurement Practices
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4815439
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and confirm that we have no issue with supporting the DUP amendment. I suspect that the debate will consist largely of Members agreeing on all of the substantive issues that we are discussing. Before I begin any detailed remarks, I record my interest as a governor at Killinchy Primary School. Like all schools in Northern Ireland, it is impacted directly by these issues. Members had the opportunity to rehearse a lot of the key issues in the motion last week, when Emma Sheerin brought an Adjournment debate to the Chamber specifically looking at procurement policies in the Mid Ulster context. The debate, of course, widened out to cover issues in the procurement landscape for all schools. Anyone who was in for that debate will be familiar with the direction of travel in which we may go and particularly with how the Minister may frame his remarks. The main area on which I receive feedback from school leaders when I engage with them is maintenance. That issue is highlighted again and again. As Peter Martin mentioned, controlled and maintained schools, in particular, are in a constrained context. I will not rehearse the details of that, as Peter covered it in detail, but it seems that, invariably, the items or services procured via the EA service turn out to be more expensive — not in all cases but in many. We all know just how constrained school budgets are. Cathy Mason highlighted that clearly in her opening remarks. We have school leaders who are rightly incredulous, as, in some cases, they stare into substantial deficits and really struggle to find levers that they can pull to resolve the issue. They are looking at having to spend additional money out of the public purse, when they know that they could secure items and services more cheaply. The principals whom I speak to are clear on this. They have many examples, and we could all list such examples, some of which are shocking almost to the point of being comical. However, they are not comical, because it is public money, and we should take how we spend public money seriously.
As I said, we all have examples. Through the EA service, one school was quoted in the region of £20,000 to paint a corridor. It is a big corridor, but that is a lot of money. The school knew that it could secure that service for a fraction of the price through a local contractor. I also know a principal who needed toilets repaired and was quoted £167 per toilet. The caretaker was able to source a part for £6 that did the job for each toilet. We cannot be operating in a context that gives good value for money. Last week, it was positive to hear the Minister confirm that new EA maintenance service contracts have been set up and will roll out in the coming weeks. I am keen to hear the Minister specifically assure us that those contracts will deliver better value for money. However, the issue goes beyond the contracts. It is about the flexibility afforded to schools in that space. The Minister also referenced the EA's looking to roll out a new system with more flexibility for schools needing lower-level maintenance services, particularly those worth £5,000 and less. Again, that sounds welcome, but can the Minister clearly set out how that will definitely remove the bureaucracy? Can he provide assurances that it will deliver better value for money? All Members will probably reflect that, while we are keen to see better value for money delivered and more autonomy for our school leaders, any revised system must have safety, quality and transparency at its heart to ensure that any work carried out is of high quality and that our schools remain safe environments for our children. We also want to avoid any system in which one local contractor gets all the work for one school. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that. Also, where a personal relationship between a contractor and a principal or a member of the board of governors could lead to preferential treatment, we want assurances that that will be avoided. Aside from those concerns, I am happy to support the calls in the motion and the amendment to deliver flexibility and better value for money in our procurement system. Aside from some of the clarifications that I have sought from the Minister, I am happy to confirm my support and that of the Alliance Party for the motion and the amendment.
762 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.60 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.33 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:02 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.