Mr. Robert Watt:

Procurement raises a big issue in terms of whether we have an approach based on regulation whereby we can be prescriptive and say that we support a particular technology or whether we ensure that decision makers reflect the higher price of carbon. We have in the public expenditure code new estimates for the future costs that will incentivise renewables and more efficient forms by comparison with those of the past. That will send a price signal to decision makers.

The use of heating oil in schools raises an issue. If ten years ago a school decided on a much more expensive option, based on a given view on energy costs, another committee of this House would have criticised the Secretary General in the Department of Education and Skills for allowing schools to misspend public funds. Heat pumps and the renewable alternatives would have been much more expensive. If, however, one has a different view on emissions and energy costs, one does not just calculate the cost of heating for the first few years but also for the next 20. That requires the wider system, not just ours, to reflect upon the cost of each choice.

We might be saying that in the short run, we will have school buildings that are more expensive but will lead to more efficient use over their life cycle. That comes down to difficult choices. In the short run, other measures will have to be foregone in the education system to afford such buildings. We have to face the policy decisions and choices that are raised in that context. Our approach involves the accommodation of regulations. All public buildings will have to adhere to the standards of the near-zero emissions directive from 1 January next. We have to ensure we look at the overall cost over time in the hope that it reflects what the true cost of carbon will be in the future.