I thank the Chairman for giving us the opportunity to address the committee. I believe members have been given a copy of a document. I draw their attention to the second page. I will start at the very end because as far as we are concerned, this is the bottom line. The lower half contains an assembled set of accounts derived from an examination of five schools with an average of 100 pupils each. This is a reality check for those who might not be directly au fait with the finances and financing of primary schools. Figures for the current school year show the level of grant assistance for a 100-pupil school and the average outgoings that need to be met for from that income. As members can see, it leaves a shortfall of a similar amount. In other words, the input from the State capitation grant in respect of costs other than secretarial and caretaking salary costs is approximately 50% of the real cost of running a school. This is a real crisis which we, as representatives of the principal teachers of the Republic of Ireland, have been highlighting for a number of years. The crisis has been escalating. I echo the words of Monsignor O’Connell. We support everything that was stated by the representative group. I will avoid repeating its comments, if possible.
One cannot pay bills with money one does not have. It is that simple. One cannot do it at home or in a business or a multinational. If one does, one will get into trouble. Boards of management are precluded from going into debt, yet we are expected to run schools and provide a level of education which the public demands and to which it is entitled. Frankly, we are frustrated, annoyed, embarrassed and angry at times as regards the pressure placed upon us as the day-to-day managers of schools on behalf of boards of management to ask parents to prop up a system in a country that is rich beyond belief. It is a fact of life and everybody knows it but, like the elephant in the room, we are not addressing it. The water charges issue is the straw that broke the camel's back. I would like members to focus on that image for one moment. This hearing is specifically about water charges but I want members to think about the bigger picture. The water charges bills are disproportionately large compared to other costs but they are impossible when one considers the available resources.
Overleaf, there is a reference to the context, background and other issues about which members will be able to read in their own time. I wish to use the time available to focus on solutions. There is no simple solution to this matter but a couple of things need to be borne in mind. First, we do not think negotiating with local authorities on a school-by-school basis is the way forward because it involves a skill, competency and time factor that individual school principals do not possess in abundance. Second, it is also an inefficient way to do business.
I bring to the attention of the committee the broadband initiative rolled out recently by the Ministers for Education and Science and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. That example set a precedent for interdepartmental co-operation. Joined-up thinking is important in matters such as infrastructural technology. Thankfully, virtually every school now has broadband facilities. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources brought the telecommunications industry on board. Almost €15.5 million, plus €5 million from the Department of Education and Science, was put into a pot to allow the broadband scheme to be rolled out.
Is water not as important an infrastructural and social resource as broadband? I argue that it is. I urge both Ministers and their Departments to work out a solution. The taxpayer funds the Exchequer. It is the one pot of money. We should not have to attend an emergency meeting of a committee such as this to work out a revenue plan needed by local authorities. We have no problem with the EU directive because we think it is a good idea, but why should it be in conflict with the need for a proper funding structure for schools?
I draw the committee's attention to a couple of facts and figures. The capitation grant for primary schools is roughly half that for second level schools. According to our calculations, it would cost approximately €71 million to bring both into line. This is only three quarters of 1% of the entire primary education budget. From what I can gather, there is only about €7 million worth of water at stake in this instance. It is difficult to calculate but we estimate that is the figure. In the overall scheme of things, it is not a lot of money, especially when one sees that €71 million is missing from the primary education budget to bring it into line with that for second level.
Apart from the letter from Ferdia Kelly, to which Monsignor O'Connell referred, I have not noticed a single secondary school principal, board of management, trade union or principals' association - with all due respect to them - getting excited about this issue in the past week. Frankly, that is because they are funded to a level double that for primary schools for the same utility bills. There is no evidence to suggest a child of nine or 15 years has different heat, water, security or other requirements.
It is an extremely constraining factor for schools to have to pay VAT on something, which is effectively going back to the State - bearing in mind that money has to be raised through the community to pay bills. We are willing to offer constructive advice to the various Departments on how we can find a solution. Schools have not been found wanting when it comes to water conservation. Some 551 schools have taken part in the green schools flag scheme with a view specifically to water conservation, while a further 955 have a green flag for general environmental awareness.