Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 2007

Proposed Water Charges on Schools: Discussion.

The format of the meeting will involve brief presentations by the management bodies of primary schools, the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, and the Departments of Education and Science, and Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the implications of the proposed water charges on schools and possible solutions to alleviate the resultant increased costs.

I welcome Monsignor Dan O'Connell of the CPSMA, Mr. Shahzad Ahmed, Islamic Education Board, Ms Deirdre O'Donoghue, Educate Together, Mr. Donal O'Connell, An Foras Pátrúnachta, Canon John McCullough, Church of Ireland Education Board, Sister Mary Collins, Association of Teaching Sisters, and Mr. Tony Bugel, National Association of Boards of Management of Special Schools.

I ask the representatives to commence their presentation to the committee, which collectively is limited to a maximum of five minutes due to the time constraints under which we are working today, on the implications of the proposed water charges on schools. I draw the representatives' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

On a matter of procedure and since this is an extraordinary meeting the Chairman has convened, he might outline the way in which the remaining one hour and 50 minutes will be spent.

I will briefly address that for the vice chairman but advise that I do not intend to address any more interventions at this point. It is proposed that the speakers from the representative bodies will make a brief presentation. I will allow the two chief spokespersons from Fine Gael and the Labour Party followed by two Government spokespersons to question the representatives We will then move on to the main part of the meeting, which will involve a presentation from officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Representatives of the Department of Education and Science will be invited to issue a response by way of statement. I was going to propose that we go into private session to determine if we could agree a cross-party recommendation. However, Deputies from Fine Gael and the Labour Party have indicated they are not happy with that proposal. We will discuss and deal with any motions currently before the committee and then, because of time constraints that prevail, we will conclude the meeting by 4 p.m. I will hear a brief comment from Deputy Brian Hayes.

Arising from the remarks made by Deputy Quinn, do I take it from the Chairman's introductory comments to this extraordinary emergency meeting that the entirety of this meeting will be in public session?

As the Deputy has requested, this meeting will be held in public session.

On a point of information, what is the significance of the three motions in the name of the Chairman and that of Deputy Behan? Was there some confusion on the part of the Chairman in regard to the motion and he added more to it or what is the purpose of it also being in his name?

I will address that issue when we discuss the motions.

It would be important for the Chairman to address it before any submissions are made to the committee.

The reason there are several motions is in case any additional information comes to the committee from outside in terms of ministerial submissions or the submissions made by the witnesses from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or Education and Science. It was considered that we cannot issue a motion that would prejudge any contribution being made and, in that context, three Government motions and one Opposition motion are before the committee. I had hoped we could agree a joint wording but it has been indicated that this is not possible in which case we will debate the motions on their merits and, if necessary, vote on them. We will now hear from the delegation led by Monsignor Dan O'Connell.

Monsignor Dan O’Connell

I thank the committee for meeting us. We represent the boards of management of 3,160 mainstream primary schools and 124 special primary schools in the Republic of Ireland. We are concerned at the increasing demands being made on the boards of management we represent by the local authorities regarding water charges at a time when the boards are experiencing a serious increase in expenditure in a number of areas for the day to day running of the schools. The rate of inflation is 5% and the increased allocation in the December 2007 budget for the capitation grant for primary schools will in some cases fall short of the rate of inflation.

Primary schools, in comparison to the post-primary sector, are underfunded. Boards, principals, teachers, parents associations and the local communities are constantly involved in fundraising. There are 46 Catholic primary schools in serious financial difficulties since December 2006. They have had to depend on assistance from the trustees and patrons to clear those debts. In the other primary sectors, represented by my colleagues here, a large number of primary schools are operating from temporary accommodation in sports clubs and community premises. The boards are tenants of the owners of these properties.

There is no uniformity among local authorities in billing primary schools for water services and charges. Some councils have charged water rates at a reasonable fixed level since the mid-1960s while other councils have charged schools very high rates. Last year, the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council attempted to introduce a charge of €14.85 per person in each primary school.

Primary schools are making serious efforts to involve the pupils in school community and conservation projects and the green flag programmes, yet some local authorities give no assistance or credit to these schools for their efforts. Special schools that cater for pupils with severe physical disabilities have to use a great deal of water every day to meet the pupils' needs. Some of these special schools are under patron bodies comprising the parents and friends of the children who attend these schools. Mainstream primary schools that have pupils with physical disabilities also have high water usage.

The bills for water charges being received by boards of management are alarming. A school in a town in County Meath with an enrolment of 528 pupils was billed for €8,000 for the school year. The other primary school in that town has not received a bill for water charges. Two schools in the same campus in Ennis with a combined enrolment of 600 pupils received a bill for €20,000. A small rural school in Sligo received a bill for €5,000.

We, as management bodies, request our boards not to refuse to pay these bills but have asked the chairpersons, treasurers and principals to negotiate with the local authorities regarding the charges. As representatives of the boards of management of primary schools, we request the members of this Oireachtas joint committee to seek clarification on the following matters. From what date does the EU directive on water charges take effect? Does it apply to schools? Our patrons, trustees, bodies and management associations are registered charities. Is it possible that schools within these charitable trusts can be exempt from water charges? We are aware that one charitable institute received a waiver from water charges because of its charitable status. Do other EU states grant waivers to schools? We are aware that in some regions of France waivers are granted.

The programme for Government is committed to doubling the capitation grant for schools. When will this be completed? The programme from Government states that the issue of water charges for schools will be examined again to consider the possibility of granting a free allowance to schools and charging beyond that free allowance. When will this examination be commenced? Our schools are involved in water and energy conservation. Will the Government considering grant-aiding boards of management in water harvesting along the lines of the rural water scheme? When will the summer works grants scheme be restored? This scheme assisted boards with minor work schemes in our schools. Is it possible for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to instruct local authorities to adopt a national uniform approach to water charges? It is important to note that schools are not commercial enterprises and that all children are required by the law of the land to attend school. The vast majority of our schools are in rural areas where the parents already pay water rates as members of the farming community.

Primary schools for children with special needs cannot function without water. Mainstream and special schools promote health programmes and good hygiene practice among their pupils. This may have to be curtailed because of water charges. Mr. Ferdia Kelly, general secretary of the Joint Managerial Body for Voluntary Secondary Schools has sent the committee a written submission. One voluntary secondary school in Cork with 680 secondary pupils has an outstanding bill of €53,000 despite having paid €2,000 per year over the past five years to Cork City Council.

We are concerned that there will be a creeping increase in charges for water and services levied by local authorities unless the Minister for Education and Science and officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government take urgent action. As management bodies we are confused by the different messages regarding water charges for schools emerging from interviews given by politicians and EU Commissioners.

We urge the members of this Oireachtas joint committee to seriously consider the financial implications water charges are causing to the boards of management, the school communities, trustees and patron bodies of the Irish primary schools. I thank the members of the committee for listening to us. We will take any questions members may wish to ask us. Mr. Tony Bugel will answer questions on special education and the other six members of the delegation will answer any other questions on our presentation. I signed off the presentation on behalf of the delegation.

I thank Monsignor Dan O'Connell for that presentation. I welcome Mr. Larry Fleming, president, Mr. Seán Cottrell, director, Ms Virginia O'Mahony, assistant director, and Mr. John Curran, PRO, of the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN. Normally, the members of the delegation would be seated at the back of the room but given that the other delegation is large and powerful, the members of this delegation will have to sit at the front of the room. They have a maximum of five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. I draw their attention to the fact that while members have absolute privilege, they have no such privilege in appearing or commenting before the committee. I ask Mr. Seán Cottrell to address it.

Mr. Seán Cottrell

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.

I thank Mr. Cottrell for his presentation and the written submission. He will have an opportunity to elaborate following questions. Just before we take questions, however, we should refer to some relevant items of correspondence. One is an e-mail to me from Mr. Michael McLoughlin of Youth Work Ireland, which is noted. Another is a submission to the joint committee from the Irish National Teachers Organisation, which is noted. Another is a letter from Monsignor O'Connell on behalf of his association which requested permission to attend the committee. It was also forwarded to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and is noted. We also have received an email relating to correspondence from Mr. Jorge Rodruigez Romero on behalf of Mr. Peter Carroll, Directorate General, regarding the water framework directive, which is noted. I have given members information obtained on the directive from the Irish website, which is noted.

I will now take questions from both leading Opposition spokespersons and two Government Deputies. We will limit the questions to two minutes and I will allow members to follow up for one minute.

I sincerely thank Monsignor O'Connell and Mr. Cottrell on behalf of the IPPN for their succinct presentation. We will put the questions that the Monsignor posed, on behalf of the various partners, directly to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Education and Science, given that they are best able to answer them. We have heard about this problem, of which we are all aware and which creates clear issues for schools. I have two questions arising from the presentation.

The various bodies represented are regarded within the Department of Education and Science as partners in education. Did the Department speak directly to them, given that we signed off on the framework in Irish law seven years ago in 2000? Did the Department speak to the groups about this issue which clearly was coming down the tracks?

Given the comments made by Mr. Cottrell regarding school size, how much of an issue is this for smaller schools? On the basis of the evidence he has given the committee, if one takes a 100-pupil school, its capitation grant is in excess of €17,000, yet the annual day-to-day running costs of the school are €34,000, leaving a balance of €17,000. That is a significant issue for small schools. Is it as substantial for larger schools which are in receipt of a bigger capitation grant?

I endorse the comments of Deputy Hayes. Which schools are threatened with bankruptcy or are in crisis? Are schools losing pupils because they cannot provide services or because of excessive demands for voluntary contributions?

I welcome the various deputations and acknowledge the contribution they make to the education of our children. Is inconsistency among local authorities on this issue a problem? Would a more consistent approach help to alleviate the difficulties the representative bodies have with it? Monsignor O'Connell has referred to a number of schools which have been in negotiations or discussions with local authorities. What was the outcome of those discussions?

I agree it is not acceptable or desirable that schools should have to negotiate with local authorities on an individual basis on water charges. School principals and boards of management are busy and their primary focus is the education of our children. That is where their focus should and must lie. Negotiating on water charges is outside their remit and they should not be forced into a position where that happens. I taught in a second level school which pays water charges to the local authority. There is significant waste in schools. Where schools have pursued the green flag initiative, they have made strident efforts to conserve water and energy and become litter free. However, there is still significant wastage in some schools, which needs to be examined.

I refer to the issue of parental and voluntary contributions. There is no compulsion on a parent to make a contribution to a school. It is entirely voluntary and if one chooses not to make a contribution, one's child will not suffer in any way. A solution must be found. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure the best solution for all schools is achieved. I take Deputy Behan's point about agreeing a fee acceptable to all.

Monsignor Dan O’Connell

The Department approached us in 2000 to let us know this would happen. At our annual general meeting in 1999 we were aware of what was happening. My predecessor, Sr. Eileen Randles, and I were asked to visit the Department of Finance but the officials told us it was the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, not theirs. We met officials in that Department who told us it was not their responsibility either and that schools would have to negotiate locally with their urban and county councils. That is what has been happening.

Mr. Bugel will fill the committee in on the position in respect of special schools. There are 46 schools in the Catholic sector which, if they were not bailed out by the trustees - the religious and the parishes involved - would close. When I was education secretary in Dublin in the hungry 1980s, the diocese of Dublin, as well as paying a local contribution, ploughed £1 million every year into Catholic primary schools. A debt was always carried by the diocese for the schools in the various parishes.

Would this typically have been in deprived areas?

Monsignor Dan O’Connell

It would have been right across the city but especially in deprived areas.

The patron bodies of Mr. Bugel's group do not even have parish support because they are the parents of the children whom the schools serve. It, therefore, reverts to the parents.

Canon John McCullough and I are in the fortunate position that we have a parish behind us. The group represented by Sr. Mary Collins is in the fortunate position of having religious trustees but Educate Together, gaelscoileanna, the Islamic Education Board and special schools do not have the support of a parish. Therefore, voluntary contributions represent a major issue for them.

It depends a great deal on the size of the school and the ability of the community to pay. For example, no money might be coming into a small school in a rural area and the water bill would crucify it. All of our schools which have negotiated with local authorities have achieved successful outcomes. There have been reductions in water rate charges from €10,000 to €3,000 but that is still a large sum to generate. It is time consuming for boards of management but it is only one of the many tasks that chairpersons, treasurers and principals must undertake. The State is getting a great service from the voluntary sector.

In the primary sector voluntary contributions are sought in some places but if a family cannot pay, they are still voluntary. Sadly, many school communities cannot afford to make a voluntary contribution. Clarification is needed on the issues involved because what is happening is confusing for us as management bodies. If the water scheme service was reasonable and modelled on the rural scheme projects about which the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is well aware, that would help.

Sr. Mary Collins

We have paid water rates in the Limerick area since 1962 and the charge was per 1,000 gallons. A minimum charge of €114.50 applied, as well as a wastewater charge of €63.70. Therefore, a flat rate of €178.20 was charged before any water was used. The charge is now per 1,000 litres. Schools were billed quarterly on 30 September, 31 December, 31 March and 30 June and the only lean time was between June and September when schools were not functioning. The one advantage was that a meter was used. If one checked it on a Saturday morning, for example, it should not have been ticking over but if it was, it meant there was a leak somewhere and one could deal with it.

Mr. Donal O’Connell

We have 54 schools under our patronage. We have no parish support and depend totally on parents to supplement the lack of money to run the schools. At times the foras patrúnachta supports them but we have very little money and we are still trying to get more. However, that is another issue.

Mr. Shahzad Ahmad

We have two schools, one on Clonskeagh and one on the Navan Road. Luckily, we have not been charged water rates on the Navan Road but we have a meter in Clonskeagh. About two years ago we received a bill from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and I replied saying we were a charitable organisation. After that we did not hear anything.

Canon John McCullough

I have one school of 200 pupils. It now has a water charge of €3,000. That amount represents the increase in capitation. With regard to the reference to wastage, I am not aware of schools which have wastage but one of the ways in which schools would normally address that would be by using the minor capital works grant. It has been removed so schools can no longer deal with issues like that without hitting their main costs again.

Ms Deirdre O’Donoghue

I simply wish to endorse what previous speakers have said. I do not wish to add anything except to say that in addition to the various charges on schools, we have new schools and we are being asked by the Department to open new schools for the coming year. Those schools are already virtually bankrupt half way through their school year, without the water charges being added.

Mr. Seán Cottrell

I will try to cover the key questions. With regard to consultation, the Irish Primary Principals Network was founded in 2000 and did not become an official partner in education recognised by the Minister until early in 2007. Since then we have not been consulted.

There is a confusion regarding the question of large and small schools. The issue is not the size of a school but its level within the system. There is inequity between the grant systems for primary and secondary education. The secondary grant is double the primary figure. Small and large primary schools suffer the same problems. No matter how small a secondary school is, it is on the same enhanced level of capitation for the same utility bills.

With regard to the crisis and the number of schools in trouble, we ran a survey of 200 schools last February which illustrated that more than 50% of the schools surveyed were overdrawn, either officially or unofficially. They were not able to meet their bills and were having to go to parents for voluntary contributions and fund raising, which links with the point raised by Deputy Conlon. Voluntary contributions are voluntary and the Minister reiterates that on a regular basis. However, there is nothing like guilt in a parent to remove the sense of volunteerism. They know the school is not asking for money for fountains, swimming pools or showers in dressing rooms. Primary schools do not have these wasteful facilities. I am talking about taps in toilets, flushing toilets and sinks in classrooms, which are now required for the science and art and crafts curricula.

There is widespread inconsistency, both within and between local authority areas. There appears to be no pattern with regard to charges. I will not go into the detail already provided on that matter.

Schools have a better track record on wastage than any public building system. In schools, egg cartons are recycled for paint trays and margarine tubs for holding crayons. The culture of recycling and watching resources is pervasive in primary schools because we have had to be careful.

The green flag scheme could be further enhanced and it has a place within the solution framework. Some 570 schools have already engaged with the green flag scheme, specifically on water conservation issues. Today's figures show that 950 schools have been awarded the green flag and 2,172 schools are participating in the scheme and trying to get it. Two thirds of schools are actively working towards a range of ecological and environmental programmes.

We know from Monsignor O'Connell's figures and from our own research that there is a significant minority of schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas and remote rural areas, where the economic hinterland simply cannot make up the shortfall in costs.

This is not simply a water charges issue. It is a question of funding primary education in a rich country and of a primary system which is valued at 50% of the second level system. Do we accept that as a norm? What new charges may be imposed on schools in the future? What if local authorities decide to apply rates to schools? They have not thought of doing so yet, or perhaps they have. We must not confine ourselves to the micro issue but look at the macro issue of the funding of primary schools.

Mr. Larry Fleming

Mr. Seán Cottrell has dealt with the two issues I wished to raise. Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked about the effect of water charges on small and large schools. Water charges would affect small schools and their communities disproportionately to larger schools, because of the smaller base from which they can draw financial assistance.

Deputy Behan referred to inconsistencies in charges levelled by local authorities. Considerable inconsistencies have come to our notice in the last number of months in response to queries from principals. In a single town, one school might receive a huge bill while a neighbouring school was not levied at all. There are significant inconsistencies.

I thank both groupings for coming before the committee and giving such a detailed presentation. I now invite Mr. Tom Corcoran, assistant secretary of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Tom Sadlier, principal officer, and Ms Sheila McMahon, assistant principal officer. I invite the delegation from the Department to brief the committee on the implications of the proposed water charges on schools and possible solutions to alleviate the results of the increased cost. Members will then be given an opportunity to ask brief questions.

I draw witnesses attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded that we should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Tom Corcoran to commence the Department's presentation.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

I thank you, Chairman, and the committee for the opportunity to brief the committee on the issue of water charges for schools. As this is a policy issue, discussing possible solutions is a matter for Ministers and the Government. It is not something I can do. However, I can help the committee in setting out some of the background to the policy and some of the parameters to its application.

We must regard water as a precious resource. We need to promote its sustainable use and protect available resources. The Galway experience shows that very well. In 2006, local authorities spent nearly €570 million on the operation, management and maintenance of the water services and received an income from water charges on the non-domestic sector of just over €211 million. The statutory power to charge schools for water dates back to 1878, initially as water rates and since 1962 as water charges. Section 105 of the Water Services Act 2007, which was approved by the Oireachtas this year, reiterates current Government policy on water charges, namely, that we do not charge domestic households for water. The Act contains a prohibition on charging domestic households. All other users are charged. This policy was agreed by the Government in November 1998 during discussions on the Water Framework Directive. The Department of Education and Science and some of the schools were alerted to this.

The application of the polluter pays principle was a major bone of contention for Ireland during the negotiations. Basically, the Commission wanted the directive to require full cost recovery from all users, through water charges, without exception. This proposal was opposed by Ireland on the grounds that we intended to continue to exempt domestic households from explicit water charges. The then Minister submitted a formal statement to the Council meeting approving the Water Framework Directive. It is worth reading this statement into the record:

The Irish delegation fully supports the objective of the Water Framework Directive and its basic provisions. Ireland is satisfied, following legal consultations, that the final text accommodates the case advanced by Ireland in relation to the domestic sector enabling that sector to continue to be exempt from water charges in accordance with established practice.

We have stood by this statement.

Local authorities are required to charge the non-domestic sector the full cost of water and waste services but not a penny more. This is not to be viewed as a profit-making activity.

In terms of what is happening, we have been advancing a programme of water meter installation throughout the country so that water charges are based on actual consumption. The programme is reaching conclusion in many local authority areas and has thus brought this issue to the fore. It has enabled local authorities to issue volumetric bills rather than flat charges. These bills bring home the cost of water services to consumers.

The objective of the application of the polluter pays principle via water charges is to encourage careful and considered use of the resource. Wexford County Council supported a management study by Gorey community school in 2004. This reduced water consumption in the school by 37.5% and consequently significantly reduced its bill. In addition, the costs associated with the conservation works were recovered through the bill in virtually one year. Work can be done to reduce bills.

The commitment under the education measures in the programme for Government to examine the provision of a water allowance for schools with charges becoming effective after such allowances have been exceeded, will have to be implemented in a way that does not create conformity problems with the Water Framework Directive. It should be possible for the Departments of Education and Science, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance to devise arrangements that would be legally compliant, deliver water conservation and ease the financial burden on schools, an issue about which we heard a great deal.

I thank Mr. Corcoran for his presentation. The Opposition spokespersons on education will have two minutes each to ask questions. The next two Government members will also have two minutes to ask questions. Owing to time constraints, other members will have only 30 seconds to ask questions. Time will also be provided for follow-up questions.

Perhaps I could have two or three minutes to ask questions and could then obtain a response to them. This may help to clarify matters for other members. Would this be possible?

Deputies Hayes and Quinn may put their questions following which we will hear the delegation's response. We will then move on to questions from other members.

I thank Mr. Corcoran for attending the meeting this afternoon. My understanding from the framework directive is that the pricing structure must be introduced by the end of 2009 or early 2010. Why then are schools currently paying these charges?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

There are different elements to the pricing arrangement. The directive is not entirely clear and is quite complex. Article 24 is the relevant article in respect of the date of implementation. Article 9(1) requires us to go the route of cost recovery.

My understanding is that we would only be charged as a state if we did not apply the charges after the end of 2009. Do we, as a jurisdiction, not have an exemption up to end 2009 in terms of not enforcing water charges? My understanding is that after 2009, Ireland can be fined for its failure to recover these charges. Why then are we now enforcing these charges?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Ireland had to comply by 22 December 2003 with the requirement to take account of principle cost recovery, including environmental and resource costs, in accordance with the polluter pays principle. Other parts of the directive must also be implemented by 2010.

May I comment on that?

Please allow Mr. Corcoran to continue. Deputy Hayes will have an opportunity later to put further questions.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

There are a number of dates involved.

With the greatest respect, Article 9 was framed by the Commission as a means of fining a member state that did not have a recovery mechanism in place by end 2009. I put it to Mr. Corcoran that if Ireland, as a state, has decided not to charge schools up until end 2009, it cannot then face a fine from the EU.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

If we do not charge schools for water we will face infringement proceedings.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

No, now. There may be ways we can assist schools. For instance, it would not be possible to say that schools using up to a certain amount of water will pay nothing but there may be scope to work out a solution in respect of payments. The Government has considered certain aspects of this issue but others remain to be teased out. We must square a lot of circles, one of which is the provision of relief for schools.

May I ask a final question?

No. The Deputy will have an opportunity to put further questions later. I call Deputy Quinn.

Would Mr. Sadlier agree that transposition of the European directive is outlined in the statutory instrument that was never debated by this House? I refer in this regard to SI 722/2003 and to Article 11 in respect of cost recovery. This is the legal imposition in this Republic of a European-wide directive as interpreted by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The aforementioned document states that the relevant local authority shall in accordance with Article 9 of the directive, to which my colleague referred, take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water charges, not the totality but the principle. Does the word "principle" suggest to Mr. Sadlier that there is discretion in this regard?

Article 11(1)(c) states that the local authority shall comply with any direction or guidance which may be given by the Minister for the purposes of this article. Does this suggest the possibility of discretion? Article 11(2) states that for the purposes of this article - now our domestic legislation drafted in the Customs House -“established practices”, as referred to in Article 9(4) of the original European directive, shall include the provisions of section 12 of the local government financial provisions. I have looked at this and it simply states what practice was in place at the time. Hundreds of schools around the country did not pay rates or water rates in 2000. We have heard from Sr. Collins and others that while water rates were applied in rural areas they were not applied in urban areas.

Mr. Sadlier, the Minister and the Taoiseach have used the word "must" in respect of implementation of the directive. If we follow the logic of this statement to its conclusion, does it mean that schools which were not paying water rates or charges when the directive was implemented are permanently exempt from such charges, whereas other schools are not so exempt?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

No, there are no schools which are permanently exempt. To return to the Deputy's first question, it is in terms of the principle of cost recovery that there may be a way of finding a solution.

Does that mean 100%, 95% or 80% recovery? What is Mr. Corcoran's interpretation of the meaning of the principle of recovery?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Ultimately, we must attain full cost recovery. I will not give a percentage figure but believe that if our schools are paying for water, we may not be infringing--

Let me interrupt again. Given that this was not drafted by the Department, Mr. Corcoran does not need to be so defensive. If he was writing a document making a case for 100% recovery of the cost of the provision of a certain service, would he use the phrase "the principle of recovery" or the phrase "the total recovery of the cost"? What would he do if was writing this document in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Again, the principle of cost recovery is--

My point is that there is discretion.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

The degree of discretion is unclear.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

That discussion will take place between Departments in so far as we can arrive at a solution, which is what we would like to achieve.

I thank Mr. Corcoran. There is discretion.

What percentage of schools are metered? On the issue of a flat rate, is a certain quantity of water exempt, whether several hundred gallons or another figure, before a charge kicks in? Mr. Corcoran stated one could not take such an approach. Will he expand on what options are available?

A question was asked about certain schools being given exemptions because they had charitable status. Will Mr. Corcoran indicate whether exemptions are available to schools with charitable status? If that is the case, does it open the door for others to lay charges of bias?

I do not agree with those who argue that individual schools should make a case to the relevant local authority. As a former member of a local authority, I know how busy they are and as a former teacher, I know how busy teachers are. Local authorities must have a policy to implement.

On a lighter note - if that is possible given the issue under discussion - I sit on the board of a local school which has been fighting to secure physical education facilities for a long time. It believes the lack of PE facilities could lower its water bill. Should we really encourage schools to kick physical education to touch because the cost of showers accounts for a significant proportion of their capitation grant, their only source of funding?

I welcome the officials from the Department. Will they confirm that Ireland is the only country in the European Union which does not charge for domestic water use? Are they aware of provisions in other EU member states exempting specific groups or bodies such as schools from paying water charges? In other words, were specific deals negotiated by other countries to allow schools or other institutions to avail of an exemption?

Is it correct to interpret the comment that it will be possible, with some ingenuity and a meeting of minds between the Departments of Finance, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and Education and Science, to arrive at a solution to this problem as meaning that a solution will be found which does not breach the provisions of the Water Framework Directive?

I object to the term "polluter pays". It is an insult, although I accept it was not coined by the officials before the committee but by some bureaucrat in Brussels. I object to the practice of describing as polluters those who use water for normal purposes such as drinking or washing. As Europeans, we must collectively come to grips with the fact that people who use water are not polluting but using a resource. We must devise an effective way to manage the resource that does not discriminate unfairly, particularly against children.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

I shall respond to Deputy Behan first. The phrase "user pays" is much better than "polluter pays". Unfortunately, the latter was used in the directive, whereas the former is a much better, more acceptable and more understandable term. The message I am trying to convey is that we hope to find a solution among the three Departments that would be legally compliant and meet the needs of water conservation, while easing the undoubted burden on schools.

The European norm is that all water usage is charged for and domestic users throughout Europe pay for water. I am not aware of any special deals for schools and any such deal would appear odd if people were paying for water at home. Ireland is in a different position in that people do not pay for water used in the home. In these circumstances, one may ask why schools should pay for the water they use. The opposite is the case throughout Europe where water charges are the norm. Uniquely, clause 9.4 of the directive which relates to domestic water and on which we rely heavily to let us out of jail, as it were, is known as the Irish clause in Brussels. It was inserted at our behest to have domestic water use exempted from charges.

Deputy Keaveney asked how many schools were metered. We know that approximately 80% of non-domestic consumers are metered. While I do not have a breakdown of the figures, I suspect the figure for schools would be close to 80%.

It is news to me that charitable status is a basis for exemption. I hope that does not upset anyone but I did not know it was the case. While local authorities may have used flexibility, I am not sure of the basis on which they have done this. Charitable status would not be recognised in the 2007 legislation. I cannot elaborate on the issue.

I propose to allow Deputies and Senators to respond in 30 seconds, after which the two main Opposition spokespersons may contribute.

I thank the officials for attending and their presentations. I contend, as previous speakers have also, that we have a real crisis in the underfunding of primary schools. Having been involved in primary education for 20 years, both as a teacher and teacher educator, I am acutely aware of this problem. There is a constitutional entitlement to a good primary education and it is obligatory for children to attend school until the age of 16 years. This also places a constitutional obligation on the State to provide sufficient resources and funding to help children avail of their entitlement. On average, capitation grants only meet 50% of the costs of running a school. Do the departmental officials believe the State is meeting its legal obligation?

During the presentations by the various representative groups, we heard that joined-up thinking was needed across Departments. To date, we have had nothing but confusion from various Ministers. In European Commission jargon, what is known as the "Irish clause" allows member states to make exemptions for domestic water use and other areas. It does not pertain to domestic water use alone. A senior official in the Commission's Environment Directorate General said he knew of no reason schools could not be exempted and receive a waiver. Will the officials comment on this and clarify the steps the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will take by way of joined-up thinking?

Deputy Quinn touched on the issue of discretion, on which I will not elaborate. Ireland has an exemption for domestic households. Before a child leaves for school, he or she meets his or her domestic needs at home. When he or she goes to school, his or her water usage, be it in flushing the toilet or drinking, effectively represents transferred domestic need. We should put in place a formula that would allow each child a quota of water in school based on his or her domestic usage.

It is bizarre and unbelievable, so many years after the introduction of the Water Framework Directive, that we are hoping the three Departments can knock their heads together to find a solution. When did the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government learn there was a problem? Was it in recent weeks on foot of the realisation that primary education was being run on a shoestring budget such that local authority rates could not be afforded? Was the Department aware of the problem for many years and, if so, did it decide to allow schools to do as they had always done, that is, raise money through cake sales, raffles and other sources?

Mr. Corcoran spoke about the school in Wexford which was able to reduce its water consumption. The problem is that the summer works scheme is no longer in operation; thus schools will no longer be able to participate in water conservation programmes. As with the 40-pupil school in Sligo which has been charged €5,000, schools will not have the money to address problems such as leaks.

Instead of bringing a sod of turf to school to defray costs, children must now bring a bottle of water. Has the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government been hamfisted and insensitive in introducing the charge? Bearing in mind that this issue arose in 2000, for how long has the Department been co-operating with the Department of Education and Science to resolve it?

Civil servants appearing before the joint committee as witnesses may not produce or send to a committee a document in which a civil servant, a member of the Permanent Defence Force or the Garda Síochána questions or expresses an opinion on the merits of any Government policy or policy objective. However, members may ask questions on the possibility of certain legal frameworks.

I have asked two questions and would like a reply.

I thank the officials for their presentation. What happens if a school does not pay its rates? Has the water supply of certain schools been switched off? Does this conflict with students' right to an education?

Schools in certain countries do not seem to be paying water rates. Could this be part of a solution in Ireland? How do the officials explain how we have arrived at the current position, given that some schools are paying no rates, some are paying some, while others are paying high amounts?

Is it possible for the Department and specifically the Minister to instruct the local authorities to adopt a uniform approach to water charges, particularly in the case of schools?

I circulated correspondence from Mr. Jorge Rodríguez Romero who was responding on behalf of the Environment Directorate General. He seemed to indicate there was flexibility in the application of the directive to schools. However, he sent a follow-up e-mail suggesting the exemption under Article 9.4 was limited to established practices, meaning practices in place at the time of the adoption of the directive. Does the Department's interpretation of "established practices" relate to whatever derogation was provided for in the directive, or does it mean that if some schools were not being charged for water prior to 1999-2000, they do not have to be charged?

I do not believe we received a full response on the question of the percentage to be charged. Is it possible to charge a proportion of the full cost and thereby spread the full cost among other users?

Can I make a statement, with which I want the delegates to agree or disagree?

The Deputy may do so as long as it does not relate to an opinion on policy.

Although the water pricing provisions will come into full force towards the end of 2009, the directive already requires member states to prepare the way for implementation and not to take action that could compromise the future achievements of its objectives. Do the delegates agree or disagree?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

I agree. One cannot go backwards. For instance, if one is charging, one cannot suddenly decide not to charge.

If there was no charge at the time in question, I presume a charge would not have to be levied.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

If a particular school was not charged, this would not constitute established practice; rather, it might constitute a breach of established practice.

A school not being charged represented an established practice.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

We will end up in court solving all these issues.

Is it not the case that the Commission has already flagged to the Department that it wants intelligent flexibility on the part of nation states?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

There was a mistake in that the Commission's first letter did not refer to established practices and thus seemed to open the door to our thinking up a new exemption and levying a charge on all other users. This letter has been circulated. I tried to contact its author but was unable to do so. However, I was able to contact his boss who is the head of the unit. He is very senior and, at my request, was able to clarify that established practice was a prior requirement. He clarified that it was not feasible to create new exemptions. Not charging domestic users was established in law and thus was established practice.

If there was no requirement to charge at the time, presumably not charging was established practice.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

There was a requirement in respect of water charges since 1962.

On every school.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

On every school.

It did not obtain in urban areas.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

It may be that certain local authorities did not charge.

That is an established practice.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

The legislation required charging. The final resolution will be achieved in the courts rather than around the table.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in a reply to a parliamentary question on 18 October, stated his Department would co-operate with the Department of Education and Science in examining this issue. What has happened since?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

We have been talking to the Department of Education and Science for two years on this issue.

But not to schools.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Not to schools. The Department of Education and Science would talk to schools, whereas my Department would talk to that Department.

We recognised a potential solution in the Gorey case. We worked with Wexford County Council to reduce water usage in schools. We offered to fund a pilot project in each county in order that lessons could be learned.

Is Mr. Corcoran referring to Gorey community school, which is the largest community school in the country?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Yes.

That is not a good example to give.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

That is why we agreed to do one pilot project in each county.

I am conscious of time constraints. Mr. Corcoran is a senior official in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and this statutory instrument would have been drafted by the Department together with the Attorney General and the Parliamentary Counsel. Is that correct?

Article 11(1)(c) states “comply with any direction or guidance which may be given by the Minister for the purposes of this article”. Would I be off the wall in suggesting that it gives the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, following discussions with the Minister for Education and Science, room for manoeuvre such as to guide local authorities to have the same charge per litre of water across the country, to have a threshold for free water consumption based on an analysis of what consumption practices might be, and in consultation with the Department of Education and Science, to provide guidance, using Mr. Corcoran’s words, for local authorities, on the standard unit charge, because schools get a standard capitation grant?

All the same types of schools are getting the same capitation grant. There is a different rates base in every local authority but local authorities must make the same assumption of biological water consumption requirement and needs, not varying from one end of the country to the other. The articles and the statutory instrument under which the Department is obliged to function, namely, that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, if he so wished politically, legally has the power in consultation with the Minister for Education and Science to provide guidance on a countrywide basis that would provide for a certain recovery of the cost of the delivery of the water but not the total recovery cost? I am not asking Mr. Corcoran to interpret that. Would that be a misinterpretation of the law as I read it?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

There is a possibility of guidance. It would not be possible to guide local authorities to charge a flat rate because local authorities are required by separate legislation to recover the costs and costs differ in different areas. In some areas the local authorities have put in very expensive waste water treatment, in other areas it is largely going into the local stream. Therefore, each has a different cost base and that must be acknowledged. The local authorities must be encouraged to provide the best treatment. The Deputy is correct in that we can provide guidance to local authorities and when we talk to our colleagues in the Departments of Education and Science and Finance and come to a conclusion we will be giving guidance.

I ask Mr. Corcoran to respond to some of the main questions asked by other Deputies and Senators.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

Under the constitutional right to education, I was asked if the rights of children were being infringed by what we are doing. In fairness, the Department of Education and Science may be better able to—

Are representatives of the Department of Education and Science expected to attend today?

We are under time constraints so will Mr. Corcoran wrap up his contribution?

Mr. Tom Corcoran

We are committed to finding a solution so I hope we will come before the committee again with some help for the schools.

I thank the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for appearing before the committee today. We have had a very good debate and I allowed quite a considerable amount of leeway.

I welcome Mr. Martin Hanevy, assistant secretary, Mr. Matthew Ryan and Mr. Hubert Loftus, principal officers and Mr. John Dolan, senior engineer from the Department of Education and Science. I ask Mr. Hanevy to brief the joint committee on the implications of the proposed water charges on schools and possible solutions to alleviate the resultant increased costs. Members may then ask questions. We will use the same format as before.

May I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this does not apply to witnesses. Mr. Hanevy has five minutes.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I understand the time constraints. Given that my presentation has been circulated, I will summarise it. I will help the joint committee on matters of fact, however, I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of policy.

Under the heading, funding for schools, the programme for Government addresses issues such as capitation payment at first and second levels and ancillary support for caretakers and secretaries, and also the provision of waste and water allowances to schools, with charges becoming effective after the allowances have been exceeded. The combination of the two is particularly relevant to the work of the committee today.

Capitation grants meet the running costs of schools and a broad range of utilities such as heat, light, telephone, cleaning, insurance, security, painting and miscellaneous matters. In the case of primary schools, the specific proposal in the programme for Government is to double capitation payments over the life of the Government. This is continuing a policy momentum that began in 1997, which has brought the rate of capitation grant up by 212%, significantly ahead of inflation. I think that is a very clear indication of the policy thrust.

At second level, the improvements are similar but are not at the same pace, but again ahead of inflation, which is bringing schools up substantially. There is a particular issue in the way secondary schools are treated in budgetary terms because of the policy of equalisation vis-à-vis VEC schools and community and comprehensive schools. The Government intends to maintain this policy of equalisation. Schools dealing with special needs children, and schools in the DEIS programme get augmented capitation through variations in the capitation scheme.

There is a proposal in the programme for Government to examine the provision of waste and water services. Ultimately, depending on the outcome of the examination, the Government and Ministers may decide on particular policy responses. The critical factor is that since 1999 we had settled policy on water changes to exempt domestic water use. The parties to the current Government in agreeing a programme opened up the possibility of revisiting that narrower aspect. This matter had been raised in 1999 but the policy was decided.

The Department of Education and Science accepts that this is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister made this clear to the House on 11 December 2007. We are clearly prepared to play our full part in the examination of the issues and already in discussion between officials of both Departments, it has been agreed that the examination to be undertaken should concentrate as a priority in the first instance on bringing certainty to the legal position in order to eliminate any ambiguity and to look at the scope and flexibility available to Ireland under the Water Framework Directive. This should bring a certain clarity on what domestic policy options remain open, if any, and or the extent to which any policy options might be circumscribed or limited by our EU obligations.

The text of the programme for Government clearly sets out that the matter for examination is the extent to which schools might be charged as distinct from the total elimination of charges for schools. In this way the price signal required in line with the directive would not disappear and for that reason the Department recognises the need and the importance of having flanking policy measures in place on water conservation and the minimisation of wasteful usage. They fall into two categories, namely, those that go to capital works or remediation, and those that go to altering behaviour. Somebody already referred to the work being done by Wexford County Council with Gorey community school, which is the largest secondary school in the country. Work has also been done recently by Dublin City Council on a pack which gets pupils to measure water. There is a longer-term societal benefit from inculcating that type of thing through the school system.

I thank Mr. Hanevy and his colleagues for coming before the committee. Does the Department of Education and Science have its own water meter?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I presume it has. There is a large utility in the centre of Dublin. I am not aware directly, but I presume--

Do all the other departmental offices in Athlone, Tullamore and elsewhere have water meters as non-domestic users?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

My assumption is that they do. The only exemption is the domestic exemption. All other bodies have meters.

Departments do not pay rates.

If they do not pay rates, they do not pay water charges.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I can find that precise information for the Deputy, but my direct competence is the schools area. The OPW manages buildings.

I appreciate that. Mr. Hanevy referred to the programme for Government and the proposal in it to examine the provision of waste and water allowances to schools as a key component of the programme. Given that Department officials knew this was coming down the tracks for the past eight years and would hit schools with hikes in bills of between 400% and 800%, why is it the case that the allowance is not in place now?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I can only respond by saying that policy was set in 1999. The Government parties have set this nuance on where policy might go in the future.

Does Mr. Hanevy accept that if a school has leaky pipes due to its age, it requires a major infrastructural project to repair them? How does he propose to pay for those works so that schools can put water conservation measures in place?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I will answer that by clarifying a couple of matters about the building programme. The summer works programme was suspended this year. The devolved minor works grant to primary schools remains in place since the middle of the 1990s to allow schools discretion. The funding for that is about €27 million across the schools, which has increased by 40% in the past 18 months.

We will not get into a discussion on the budget and the funding available to schools. I call on Deputy Quinn because we only have 15 minutes for this section.

I thank Mr. Hanevy and his colleagues. They have already heard the questions I put to Mr. Tom Corcoran from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He agreed that there was some room for discretion for his Minister to give guidance to local authorities. We have a clash of two systems. The capitation grants system is a highly centralised, one size fits all system. We also have a devolved local government system, where the cost of recovery of water works in County Monaghan, County Donegal and County Dublin will vary. If the local authorities are required to recapture those variable costs, how does the Department of Education and Science talk to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, irrespective of who is the Minister? We have two systems that do not connect.

If the view of this committee is that we want to find a national system for schools, then how can we get a centralised one size fits all water charge that can apply to the school and then get around to the business of who pays for it? If Mr. Hanevy was charged to look for a technical solution to a policy option, how would he go about it?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I do not want to avoid the Deputy's question, but that is the work I am tasked by the Government to do with colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We must look at the boundaries of this and see what is possible.

I will try to answer the Deputy's question by explanation. He is right that we have very variable geometry across the local government structure for whatever reasons, and that is probably part of the examination. The capitation grants system is a one size fits all model that is scaled according to school size. That must apply across all the variables. In the run-up to this year's budgetary round, I invited Monsignor O'Connor to send me a selection of accounts because of the issues of debt and so on. That reveals quite a variable landscape. It reveals schools that were once of one particular size with large physical plant that are now downsizing the number of students, but that are still maintaining the bigger plant. It shows emerging issues about security in some places, which other rural schools would not have at all.

In line with what the Government seems to have set us as a task, we must find out what is possible within the Water Framework Directive when giving schools an allowance and a system of charging beyond that. If that does not remotely prove possible, then we are back to the issue of the adequacy of the capitation grant. Then there will be a challenge to us to see if there are particular nuances. If the Government decides to allocate more, we must figure out how to nuance the capitation scheme.

I welcome the delegation today. Does the Department have legal certainty in this matter? When does Mr. Hanevy expect to have legal certainty? What is the process by which the Department will have legal certainty? It seems to be the view of the previous delegation that it is possible to resolve the situation within the legal framework presented to us. Is that Mr. Hanevy's view, thereby reducing the burden on schools we have heard about today? What is the process for this and is there a time limit for it?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

These matters are fundamentally within the competence of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The legislation and the European directive rests with the Minister. There is clearly a requirement to get that legal certainty as quick as possible. The manner in which the Departments do it is also important, given that it is done through internal mechanisms.

With regard to whether it is possible to resolve the matter, clearly the intent by the Government was to have an examination and we will want to have a rigorous examination. The Minister for Education and Science has already had discussions with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in a formal sense, and we have had regular contact. This is not about task forces, working parties or anything else, but about the direct engagement of particular officials. We must get clarification of the legal issues as quickly as possible. It is futile proceeding unless we know the pitch on which we will play.

It is not a level playing pitch as all schools are not metered. A remedy will have to be found for that as soon as possible. I see in Mr. Hanevy's statement that the matter for examination is the extent to which schools might be charged as distinct from the total elimination of charges for schools. Given that he is talking about examination and that there would have to be discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding an annual allowance or the uniformity of charges, where does that leave the schools currently with the huge bills? Would it not be advisable to suspend the payment of those bills until these discussions are completed? Everybody can then be on a level playing pitch.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I shall answer the Deputy's last question first. The matter of water policy is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister has told the House that schools are currently talking to the local authority. Monsignor O'Connor has indicated that this has elicited a certain amount of flexibility. Clearly the intent of the Government was to have this matter examined within the paradigm about which we spoke, namely, the concept of an allowance and ultimately retaining the price-control mechanism to trigger responsible behaviour on waste and conservation.

There is an exemption in the text for the domestic sector. How do the officials classify a school? A primary school is clearly not a business and in reality is far more closely aligned to a domestic premises, as noted by another Senator. The teacher is in loco parentis and acts as the provider with regard to the education and welfare of the child, similar to the parent. Has the Department considered making a case for an exemption for schools on these grounds? There is an opening that has not been exploited.

I thank the officials. I have listened to all the questions and agree with some of the answers but not with others. I am confused about the timespan. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government seems to be the key player in regard to responsibility for water policy, whereas the Department of Education and Science is secondary. Given all the gaps, this has taken a long time to resolve. We are at the peak of the issue but still do not have a solution. When do the officials think the matter will be cleared up once and for all?

I find it incredible that, seven years on, we are still looking for a legal interpretation of the framework directive to find what scope there is. With regard to the rates, schools have received bills and are being forced to pay them by the local authorities. However, local authorities annually waive rates for businesses and non-domestic premises across the board - the last figures for Donegal County Council showed a sum of €2 million in irrecoverable rates. The Department, with the local authorities, should consider such a scheme to waive rates this year.

It is not acceptable to ask schools to act individually with the Department, which should act on behalf of schools with the local authorities. Has the Department considered what would happen if a local authority cut off one of the schools for non-payment of water rates, as proposed?

In the event that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not move and tells the Department of Education and Science to deal with the local authorities, an opt-out clause, will the Department of Education and Science, by increasing the capitation grant, provide funding for schools which have a serious problem as a result of this debacle?

Has the Department received bills from schools yet?

I reiterate the questions asked by Deputies and Senators on all sides of the House and have a follow-up question. If the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government receives clear legal guidelines that its hands are tied with regard to implementation of the Water Framework Directive, will the Department of Education and Science acknowledge that it is the body charged with helping schools to deal with the financial crisis caused by the charges?

If Mr. Hanevy was promoted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and was confronted with this problem on the other side--

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I might need to be.

- -would his interpretation of Article 11(1)(c) comply with any direction or guidance which may be given to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the purposes of this article? Without prescribing a solution, does Mr. Hanevy believe this article was inserted to give flexibility to a future Minister in dealing with the unforeseen? Mr. Hanevy is a seasoned civil servant. What is his view of the relevance of that sub-clause? Is it to provide flexibility?

Will Mr. Hanevy respond to other members also?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

While I do not want to be evasive, the responsibility to give a lead on the legal position must rest with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It has taken the transposition of the directive and the domestic legislation--

A civil servant's skill lies in the fact that one can move from one Department to another. How does Mr. Hanevy interpret this?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

From our perspective, I would like to think there is flexibility in this regard. The public debate of recent days makes it clear that there is confusion about the matter. Our task as civil servants is to seek clarity in order that the Government can have clarity and then decide, to answer Deputy Burke's question. If it ultimately concludes, on our advice, that there is no avenue within the directive, it seems logical that the issues that have arisen remain one of the tests of adequacy of the capitation support or funding for schools from the Department. It is a matter for the Government to determine its policy position in that regard. That probably covers the Chair's question.

I will let Deputy Brian Hayes come in. Mr. Hanevy can then wrap up.

When I raised this matter with the Minister in the House on 11 December, I asked her a direct question as to whether her Department had sought a derogation going back to 1999. She informed me that she had done so. How was that brought about? Did the Department speak to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or did the Department of its own volition speak to the Commission?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

The record shows that there was a written letter to the Department from the then assistant secretary, Mr. Baldwin, setting out the Department's reservations.

Does Mr. Hanevy refer to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

Yes. In response to the question on the timespan, I was drawing a distinction between what had been a settled matter of policy at Government level from 1999 through this decade with the local authority system gearing up on that basis. In the past 12 months, in particular, with the consciousness of how this was panning out, it seems the parties in government were minded to include the particular reference to this new scheme in the programme for Government. Clearly, that has given momentum to the civil servants in both Departments to produce to Government options within it.

I was asked what would happen if the water supply to schools was cut off, which ties in with an earlier question on constitutionality. Clearly, there is a constitutional issue. Whether it would become an issue after a day or two, or what the position of the management authority of any one school would be in making hard choices, I cannot say. Hypothetically, there could be an issue downstream but--

Is the legal obligation one for the Department of Education and Science?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

While I do not want this to sound like a text, the day-to-day operation of a school is a matter for the management body. The position of the management bodies, as articulated by Monsignor O'Connor, suggests they are prepared to negotiate with the local authorities, presumably as an interim position.

I thank Mr. Hanevy for being so--

Questions have been left unanswered. How would Mr. Hanevy classify a school?

Mr. Martin Hanevy

I beg the Senator's pardon. Strictly, that is probably a matter for my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, as I understand it, a school is classified in the institutional space. Therefore, while it is not commercial, it is unambiguously institutional.

That is a very interesting response. I thank the officials of the Department for appearing before the committee to give such a detailed response and answer questions from members.

Barr
Roinn