Ms Anna Heussaff:

We appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation and to raise the issue of energy use and energy reductions and costs in schools and in education generally.

What we have to say is quite simple. Everybody knows money is desperately needed in schools. We also know there is a climate crisis as well as a financial crisis. Emissions must be cut as much and as soon as possible. Cutting energy waste across the public sector is a step to address both crises. These are cuts that do not hurt, which is not a phrase one hears very often. In the work we have done on this issue we have found there are good policies and some good schemes, but there is no responsibility on school boards of management, which are responsible for school finances, to achieve energy savings. There is no national data available at present to measure progress and there have been major delays by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, in publishing data on other parts of the public sector.

There is no effective national strategy, that we can find, on implementation of the Government's policy that between 2009 and 2020, some 33% of energy use across the public sector will be reduced. That is a big change. We are almost half way to 2020, yet there is no data from the public sector. The SEAI has been promising data from 2011 but it is still not available. Schools will not be included in that data.

How much does energy cost for schools? The estimate ranges from €50 million to €80 million per year. That is the estimate made by the SEAI as well. Between 20% and 35% of capitation spending goes on energy. It is a substantial amount of money. Existing projects show that 20% of energy use can be saved over a short period of time, between one and three years, through no cost and low cost means. The no cost means refer to behaviour change, which must be planned and targeted and not simply consist of hassling people and hoping for the best. The low cost means include light sensors, timers and so forth. Again, that must be part of a plan. A 20% saving could mean an extra €20 million per year for schools. The schools would keep the money because it is part of the capitation spending and obviously they badly need it.

It has been found across the board that without energy management plans energy usage does not just stay stable but increases. In schools, for example, whiteboards are now widely used and are a great resource. They involve a laptop and projector as well as the whiteboard. The bulbs cost €400 each and often break after a year or two. If that single element in the school is not controlled, planned for and regulated, those costs can increase.

There are two programmes in respect of energy management in schools. They run in parallel but do not really work together. Energy in Education is a programme set up by the Department and SEAI. It runs a good website and provides advice to schools, talks, competitions and so forth. It was launched in October 2012 and at the time it was said that 250 schools had used the programme. Last January, 15 months later, it was stated that 260 schools had used the programme. That was an increase of only ten in 15 months and only 6% of the total of over 4,000 schools. The Department has not told schools about this scheme, certainly not by circular or by any big announcement by the Minister. I will be interested to hear the reason for that and what is planned. We are told that from next January all schools will be required to monitor and report not just their energy use, but also their actions to reduce energy use. So far, however, there is only a small pilot project taking place this year for the system to make that possible. Moving from ten schools in a pilot project to 4,000 schools does not appear likely to happen in 2015. Again, SEAI, which will be implementing it, has still not published data from 2011 from other areas of the public sector.

Second, there is the Green Schools programme, of which many people are aware. It is a voluntary scheme run by An Taisce and is not funded by the Department of Education and Skills. At least half of the schools are now actively involved in it at a given time. Energy is one of six themes in the programme and schools work on it for two years. They then move on to water, travel and other themes.

Green Schools and Energy in Education are great examples of individual schools saving thousands of euro. The measures are quite simple but must be done in a planned way.

Possible actions include using timers to switch off computers overnight, switching off heating overnight and at weekends, ensuring boilers are running correctly and set at the right temperature, and making sure photocopiers are not left open, which uses five times more energy than is necessary.

The green schools programme does great work but has limitations. It is not a national strategy to achieve savings of 33% in six years. Work on energy may not continue after two years have elapsed. Also, no data has been collected and there is no requirement for schools to do so after two years. The programme does not have the resources to support schools to maintain reductions.

The OPW has done a lot of work on energy reduction in some areas of the public sector, but unless one maintains the momentum and the revised system, one will go back to square one fairly quickly.

The school board has no responsibility. The green schools initiative is often co-ordinated by one person. In most cases the principal and board will be involved, but in other cases it will be just one teacher who acts as co-ordinator during his or her lunchtime or after school and is left rushing around. Again, there is no post of responsibility, so it is voluntary. It is difficult to keep the momentum going and the board does not have a responsibility to see that this happens.

Green schools have sought a remit. For example, they work with the National Transport Authority to implement their policy on cycling, walking to school and so on. They have not been given the remit or resources to have the SEAI as an institutional partner to implement a national strategy. If they had this, we could assess how many schools achieve savings, the type of savings achieved, and how to reach the target in 2020.

The policy seems to be falling between two stools and hoping for the best. Rather, we should be collecting data and publishing it. As we know, unless one has data and can measure progress, then improvements are not going to happen. We think it is all happening far too slowly in these financial and climate crises.

We ask the committee to pursue with the Minister and other bodies the establishment of a requirement that all school boards have an energy management plan in action. As part of their financial responsibility, they must report energy usage and actions from next January. Unless that forms part of a national strategy, we are afraid that in two or three years' time we will hear the phrase "Well, we are about to get there."

We are not here as advocates for the green schools initiative, or any particular mechanism, but they seem to have the infrastructure to carry out the job. If there is another way of achieving a strategy that happens now, this year and next year, then that is what should happen. The main thing is that there is a plan and a strategy rather than just a hope that we reach 15% in three years' time and so on.

Finally, we want the committee to urge the Minister, and all Government Ministers, to give leadership on the issue of energy cuts. The fact that we can save €200 million in pubic spending by cutting energy usage by 33% is rarely mentioned in public debates on the Haddington Road agreement, public sector reform, expenditure and so on. The matter should be sent to the Committee of Public Accounts, because it is about public spending and whether it is being wasted. We would like the issue to be raised much more widely both in education, health and other areas of the public sector. Again, these are cuts that do not hurt.