Ms Anna Heussaff:

I wish to respond to several points that were raised and the specific question asked by Deputy O'Brien. I am rather disappointed that the Department referred mostly to new schools. New school design is evidently of a high standard, in particular a high energy efficiency standard but, as Senator Power said, most schools are not new schools. Therefore, unless energy reductions are achieved in most schools then serious cost savings will not materialise for decades to come and we do not have decades to spare.

The summer works scheme was mentioned in this regard. It can help with insulation schemes. One scheme specifically for insulation was introduced five years ago but there has been nothing since then. Summer works schemes cover resurfacing schoolyards, toilets, furniture and all sorts of other things as well as energy issues. Therefore, it is not a substitute for an energy policy to deal with the third element, which I did not address, that is, the retrofitting element. Senator Power raised this issue. The fabric in many schools is poor and they can only get to a certain point. However, our experience is - this is the strongest message we have - that there is a good deal of low-hanging fruit with regard to energy saving in schools that has not been picked. Green-Schools estimates that there is approximately €4 million of energy saving in the schools it is working with now. However, having spoken to its representatives I understand that if there was a proper implementation plan for all schools with targets, etc., across the board then there could be between €18 million to €20 million to be saved. We argue in this country over every thousand euro that has to be saved. Therefore, it seems like a lot of money not to be chasing and we should chase it as quickly as possible and in as structured a way as possible. The Department did not deal with how the roll-out of monitoring and reporting by schools will happen next January, especially since there is only a small pilot under way at this time.

The question of sanctions was raised. We wanted to raise the issue because at the moment the policy seems to be that it is nice if a school does it and the Department is glad, but the Department is not actually requiring or even requesting any school to impose them to save this public money. The main element of schools being involved is by voluntary engagement and such that the whole school works with pupils and teachers and so on. The idea is to highlight the rewards the schools themselves would get for that effort, including the financial rewards and other rewards. A major question remains. If certain schools did not engage with the process or simply ticked a box to produce a plan but actually could not show that they had done the work on the low-hanging fruit and the low-technology changes that can bring a good deal of savings, then perhaps the question of financial sanctions could arise.

I realise there is a legal problem with the status of schools and so on. It is not something that we have looked into in detail. However the point is to underline how we believe this is public spending and there are problems if schools are not being sufficiently supported and assisted, as is the case now, to gain it. If that does arise and they are still not doing it then maybe there is a need for sanctions at some point. Perhaps that is something to evaluate after two or three years of a national strategy actually being implemented.

We have not raised the issue of the involvement of third-level colleges. They have a large number of buildings and my colleague will make a brief point on this to give an example of what is possible.