I welcome Mr. David Owen andhis colleagues, Mr. John Ducie and Mr. IanMcQuiston from An Taisce. We will hear from An Taisce before taking questions from the members of the committee. While members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
An Taisce: Presentation.
Mr. John Ducie
I am the vice-chairman of An Taisce and, as such, have responsibility for An Taisce's properties, which is why I am leading today's delegation. I am joined by Mr. Ian McQuiston, former director of the National Trust, Northern Ireland, and a member of our properties committee and by Mr. David Owen, an environmental scientist and specialist in sustainable tourism. Mr. Owen has experience in Ireland and abroad and has recently conducted a study of the sustainable tourism aspects of An Taisce's properties. He now acts as secretary to the properties committee of An Taisce.
There are a number of documents in the folders before the members of the committee including a full submission, an executive summary of it, draft heads of legislation we would like to see enacted and copies of an overhead print out. In the absence of the overheads and the nice colour photographs they contained, we will have to work largely in black and white unless Mr. Owen can make our projector operational while we are talking.
To bring the committee up to date, before the election An Taisce brought in 2001 a document to the Oireachtas committee with responsibility for heritage and the Irish language which addressed the need for national trust legislation in Ireland. The submission led to a request by the committee that a delegation visit the National Trust in Northern Ireland to see a national trust in operation. The visit took place in March 2002.
An Taisce was also invited to return to the committee with the draft heads of an Act and these were presented in April 2002. The committee agreed in principle that the legislation was desirable and recommended to its successors - whom I presume are the members of this committee - that the matter should be pursued further. An Taisce was invited to get on with the preparation of a full draft, which is ongoing. Our purpose today is to bring the committee up to date on our progress and to reiterate the need for the legislation we propose.
An Taisce brings this proposal forward on behalf of the voluntary sector, not just on its own behalf. The proposal has the support of the Irish Georgian Society, Birdwatch Ireland and many other NGOs working in the area, of which An Taisce is the lead organisation due to its history. The founding aim of An Taisce is to protect Ireland's heritage for future generations for the benefit of all the people. Founded in 1946, it espouses the normal worldwide national trust aims of advocacy, education and ownership. A world conference to take place in Edinburgh later this year will include organisations from 130 countries representing 20 million paid up members of national trusts. An Taisce enjoys reciprocal rights with those organisations, which means a member of An Taisce is entitled to free entry to national trust properties throughout the world.
The four main areas of An Taisce's current activities include the planning system, of which members will be well aware, environmental education, research and ownership of property. We are almost unique as a national trust in Europe in having no legislative basis for such property ownership. An Taisce is prescribed under the Planning and associated Acts since 1963. Such Acts include the Aquaculture (Licensing) Act, the Forestry Act, the Environmental Protection Act as well as planning legislation. The organisation has been part funded by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government only since 2000, prior to which Ireland was the only EU member state not providing state funding for this independent watchdog function. Up to 2000, this role was sustained through voluntary efforts. A tiny part of our budget now comes from the Department to meet this need.
Environmental and heritage education is one of the founding aims of An Taisce which has a long history of educational campaigns. Our current programmes include the green schools programme, which has been signed up to by one third of all schools, and the blue flag scheme for beaches and marinas. Last April, 250,000 volunteers were involved in our national spring clean campaign. We operate a white flag scheme for leisure centres. We also run a young reporters for the environment programme and a number of other smaller campaigns. A major part of our work is environmental and heritage education activity.
On the research side we have the anti-litter league. This scheme puts towns in ranking order. It is funded by Irish Businesses against Litter, IBAL, but we operate the scheme. We produced a core document on sustainable development in Ireland, Learning Sustainability By Doing, in the late 1990s. Our study on sustainable tourism study in Mayo is the bedrock of the sustainable tourism policy of Mayo County Council. We also did a study on an environmental training programme for industry.
We own 16 properties, the first being acquired in 1951. There is a list of these properties in the submission. Our first property was Kanturk Castle in County Cork, which was acquired from the original National Trust founded in 1895 with an Irish committee. It acquired Kanturk Castle in 1900 and we inherited it in 1951 by lease and in 2000 by freehold.
It is important to bring the committee through the history of the development of the National Trust movement in Ireland. As I said, the National Trust was founded in 1895 with Irish and Scottish committees as well as the English committee to cover these islands. The Irish committee acquired Kanturk Castle in 1900. That committee consisted of people like Lady Gregory and the Yeats sisters. Those involved in the Gaelic literary revival and the Nationalist revival of the early 20th century were also heavily involved in the National Trust movement at that point.
In 1907 the National Trust Act was passed in Westminster. In 1923 the Land Commission Act put into abeyance much of the terms of the 1907 Act. Although it was adopted into Irish law it was frozen so that no new properties could enter the trust. At the time it was said to be for economic reasons and that in due course it would become active again.
In 1946 Stormont passed its National Trust Act which set up the National Trust Northern Ireland. A new Westminster Act was also passed. In 1946 An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, was founded. Among its founding members were Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, later President of Ireland and Chief Justice, and Robert Lloyd Praeger, president of the Royal Irish Academy and former director of the National Library, who was the first president of An Taisce. Another founding member was James Larkin, the trade union leader, as well as a wide range of distinguished people of the day.
In 1951 the lease on Kanturk Castle was acquired and in 2000 amending Westminster legislation was passed to enable the transfer of the freeholding of Kanturk Castle to An Taisce. It was received by President McAleese on behalf of the people of Ireland and An Taisce at a special ceremony.
National Trust organisations exist in 26 European countries and these are listed in the submission. I apologise for not having the list on the screen but we were unable to do that. Sometimes technology does this to us. The oldest national trust organisation is the Norwegian one, which was founded in 1844. The National Trust movement is a worldwide one, which does not originate in Britain. There are many different types in 130 countries around the world. National trust is the term used in English speaking countries more often than not, but it tends to be heritage trust or heritage foundation in various translations in other countries. The national trust organisation in Holland which was founded in 1905 is the most successful in Europe.
Of the 26 European countries that have national trust-type organisations only four do not have legislation. These four are Macedonia, which is a new entity and engaged in a civil war; Greece, which, interestingly, has not adopted the legislation due to the conflict between the Hellenic and the Turkish past which has parallels to the Irish situation; Lithuania, which I understand is in the process of looking at legislative measures in parliamentary committee just as we are, and ourselves.
There is a major gap in the legislative framework for voluntary heritage protection when one compares Ireland to the rest of Europe. We brought forward draft heads of a heritage trust Bill. The Bill has two parts. Part 1 would enable An Taisce better to do its job as a national trust and Part 2 permits the Minister to recognise certain other types of non-governmental organisations to hold heritage properties in trusteeship for the people. This is parallel to the kind of legislation that enables the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds north of the Border or the Landmark Trust, the Civic Trust, or other such organisations. There is a great legislative gap in Ireland in this area. The idea is that this proposed legislation would fill that gap for all concerned.
I will briefly go through the provisions of the proposed Bill. I am sure members will want to ask questions. All the information is in the hand-out that has been distributed. The overhead page gives headings which might be the easiest way of grasping the principles behind it. Part 1, chapter 1 relates to matters affecting An Taisce and the formation of a subsidiary company, An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland Heritage Foundation. This subsidiary company would be dedicated to the permanent preservation of the properties for the benefit of the people. The 16 properties we currently hold would be transferred by law into this entity and the creation of endowments for those properties would be permitted. This would be done by amendment to the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, the legislation that allows the National Library, the National Gallery and the National Museum to benefit from donations, the donor to get tax exemption on those donations. This is a standard provision of heritage trust legislation around the world. This amendment would include An Taisce as an approved body, as well as including a building on its curtilage or lands in addition to objects of art or historic interest.
The next chapter of the legislation deals with valuations of the properties and provision for tenants for life in situations where the family might continue to reside in the property after the donation goes through. It encourages the donor but also allows for continuity in management. It is also standard practice in other jurisdictions.
Chapter 3 deals with the concepts of acceptance and inalienability. The core principle in relation to inalienability is that there is a contract between the voluntary organisation and the State that the property cannot be sold without the permission of the State. In the British example this is done by parliamentary procedure. It is not possible to remove the property from the trust without parliamentary procedure. It is akin to something going into the National Museum; it cannot easily come out again. This is a safeguard for donors but also to safeguard the taxpayers' investment in the property. Its purposes are outlined in the proposed legislation.
It would be necessary to enable the trust to accept properties from various agencies that might have a heritage property which it wants to donate to the trust, such as public and local authorities, State authorities, the Criminal Assets Bureau, private partners, and various agencies that might have an important heritage property that they want to donate to the trust or put in public ownership in this way. In the event of the winding up of the foundation, all property would become the property of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. If, in the unlikely event that it ceases to function as a trust, and this happened in the case of the trust in Scotland where it got into financial difficulties, it was just reconstituted. The State steps in to put in administration and reconstitutes the thing. It is holding assets for the nation.
Chapter 4 of this section deals with the maintenance of premises. We require management plans to be drawn up for each property stating how it should be done and fundraising activities to be undertaken to provide for the upkeep of the heritage property.
Chapter 5 deals with the use of properties. They must be accessible, consistent with conservation, and change of use, and modification of change of use, can be considered. That has to be done by a procedure but it would be necessary at times to say, for instance, that we could not afford to continually open a property to the public as we originally anticipated because of economic downturns or something. The intention is that all would be publically accessible, and An Taisce in conjunction with the Minister can introduce by-laws for the regulation of the property. These would be similar to the ones that obtain for public parks or whatever. There is an outline in the legislation of how it would be done.
Chapter 6 covers application of charitable status as recognised by the Revenue Commissioners, exemption from income tax and associated taxes, non-profit making, use of any profits for the properties or the administration of the organisation. An independent and audited annual report will be required.
Chapter 7 deals with disposal of partial interests. This refers to estates with entails, some of which go on for several generations after this, and partial interests, and would allow the purchasing out of those estates. Many of the major heritage properties which are in private ownership have these problems and the present generation is not in a position to wind up those trusts and pass them over into public ownership. They have to wait until they have run out of all money, the thing collapses and is sold off to the highest bidder. Those families do not have the chance of receiving a donation. Permits for life tenancies, that would be permits for power to enter agreements restricting use of lands, would be important from the point of view of lands on the curtilage of the property and powers to exchange one property for another. That would also cover peripheral lands on the edge of these properties.
Part 2 deals with recognition of other non-governmental organisations. The Minister may recognise as heritage trusts non-governmental organisations that are registered as charities and recognised by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and should be limited by guarantee subsidiary to a NGO if necessary. Examples include Birdwatch Ireland, the civic trusts, Landmark Trust, etc. The intention of the legislation is to enable everybody in the voluntary sector to do their jobs better.
This part would also allow for revolving heritage trust funds. This is a common occurrence in other jurisdictions whereby tax advantages are given for the purchase of a property. When the property is restored and in good order it can be put back on the market and the money taken from that can be used again to renovate another property. So it allows for heritage trust fund operation. The Scottish have a brilliant scheme called the little houses improvement scheme which rescues vernacular architecture in towns and villages across Scotland and puts it back into circulation in this way. That is done by the National Trust for Scotland. There are various examples elsewhere. Many Irish villages and towns could benefit from this.
The trusts may be recognised for the acquisition of individual properties with tax relief for the donors. Properties so acquired may be sold, provided all the proceeds are reinvested in heritage properties. These are not-for-profit organisations and there would be independent audit and annual reports. Upon the winding up of a trust all property approved shall become the property of the Minister so there would be no advantage to the shareholders to do so. It also deals with uses of properties consistent with conservation protection, heritage buildings and lands and wildlife protection.
We are now at the point of looking at what happened when we studied the tourism potential of An Taisce properties. Part of the major economic argument for this kind of ownership is its value to the tourism industry, one of our major industries which needs the product, that is, the landscape and the heritage of Ireland, protected and made available to it. We carried out a study of our properties, commissioned by An Taisce and funded by Bord Fáilte, and this turned up four reasons why it is beneficial to enable national trusts to own property, as opposed to Government ownership.
The first is that it provides for greater access for funding by donations, legacies and gifts from international bodies. The State cannot access much of this money, although it is available. For example, our Scottish colleagues are taking £4 million a year from the North American market towards the provision of the National Trust for Scotland's properties. The British, including England, Wales and Northern Ireland, are not so well organised and are taking about £6 million a year. My Finnish colleagues said recently they could not exist without their North American cousins, as the diaspora there gives them the money to operate their 16 properties. All across Europe and around the world this tends to be the waysignificant funding can come in.
Second, administration in this way can be more cost-effective by use of voluntary structures and by benefits in various kinds from which the State cannot benefit. Third, it is environmentally sustainable by its very nature because it has to have a consultation process and be tied into the local voluntary organisations. That is where the volunteers come from and management plans are worked in this environmentally sustainable way, agenda 21 and so on being part of the thinking. Fourth, it overcomes conflicts of interest between economic development and heritage ownership. One of the snags for the State's ownership of heritage is that it is both the agency for economic development and for the protection of the heritage property. If two entities are set up to run in this way this can overcome many of these conflicts and it would bring Ireland into line with its obligations under the Granada Convention, which we ratified in 1997.
The implications of the Act would be establishment of property-related education programmes, one of the things significantly absent from the voluntary sector; development of informative signage on all the properties; creation of documentaries and literature of Irish heritage; carrying out detailed surveys of properties, archaeological surveys and so on; activating heritage property management policy; employing expertise; encouraging local involvement; and promoting sustainable tourism. Tourism transects many sectors. It is practically the widest ranging activity in the economy and has positive and negative impacts. It needs guiding principles for successful development so these voluntary trusts can give great example in this area.
We recognise, as does the tourism industry, and all involved in it, that a sustainable tourism policy is needed for Ireland and that we are in grave danger of getting things wrong in this period of rapid growth. The need to protect the resources on which the industry relies is pressing because one of the dangers is that we could go the way of the Spanish coastal resorts which would mess up the very asset that people come to see. The report shows An Taisce's future role in sustainable tourism. The recommendations of this study were that An Taisce properties should be incorporated in, or used to drive, local tourist initiatives, demonstrate conservation best practice, exercise stakeholder rights and encourage local involvement in tourism development.
The study names as a strength that all the properties have features which have been either scientifically recognised or have social heritage value. The most obvious weaknesses are the lack of informative signage and strong management committees. That is because we do not have the resources. We are a small voluntary organisation and it is a great burden to manage 16 properties with no help at all, unlike similar organisations in other jurisdictions. All of our properties have the potential to harness sustainable tourism, directly or indirectly. With funding An Taisce can use these properties to play a more meaningful role in galvanising and increasing its own membership and influencing the wider public. Without legislation, none of the properties is completely safe.
Endowment funding is internationally recognised as vital to sustainable management of heritage in the voluntary sector and it is a major gap in our situation. In other jurisdictions the money comes in for this purpose. A prerequisite to achieving this is inalienability and tax exemptions in heritage trust legislation. One cannot expect donors to give money for the future management of property unless the donors are satisfied that the money can be used only for that purpose and that the State is also going to help make sure that happens. That is why legislation is vital.
In all the European jurisdictions, and everywhere else we have discussed this, the experience has been that as soon as funding legislation is put in place the endowment funding comes in. Until the legislation is brought in, it is nearly impossible to raise endowment funding. Endowment funding is used to defray the ongoing day-to-day maintenance of the property and that allows property be opened to the public and to be accepted. As a current example we have recently been offered two properties, both by donation, but our problem is how to run them. They are gifts which we have to decline because we cannot raise the funds to run them. We have letters of offer on the table from the owners of these significant heritage properties but I cannot disclose the names of the donors. This comes up time and again and we cannot accept them.
Ireland should legislate for the voluntary sector to own and manage the heritage in trust for the people because of sustainable tourism needs, the need to safeguard properties, adequate funding for management needs, and the State's inability to do it all. The State can never protect enough heritage through ownership, which is economically unviable and probably not very desirable.
An Taisce will launch its own new heritage foundation to show that it is putting its money where its mouth is. It is forming a subsidiary company. The board will consist of An Taisce people but also persons nominated by other non-governmental organisations, and a nominee from the National Trust Northern Ireland, and it will be launched later this year.
Newhailes, outside Edinburgh, is the latest acquisition by the National Trust Scotland which was funded by heritage lottery money, public subscription, European Regional Development Fund funding, some State funding, flag days and that kind of thing. At minimal cost to the state, a major property was acquired for the National Trust Scotland.
Likewise, the Castle of Horst near Antwerp was acquired recently by the Flemish heritage foundation through a similar process. It purchased the property using public subscription, donation and some European Regional Development Fund funding to get its management under way. Across Europe this is how management of heritage is being undertaken. For historical reasons we have lost out on this type of idea. Our purpose in coming here is to say please, in the national interest and the interests of us all, see to it that we close this gap and enable the voluntary sector to get on with it, and do not rely only on the State sector which is the historical circumstance.
To speak topically, Lissadell shows exactly what the problem here is. There is only the State to do it. In Belgium or Scotland the voluntary sector would be there to do it as well and probably could raise the money quite easily. Given the experience of our colleagues in other parts of Europe, it should be possible to raise this money through fundraising among the diaspora.
The €5 million, the asking price for Lissadell, would be easily acquired from rich Irish Americans. The onward endowment funding also could be satisfied by these means. To illustrate the point more clearly, in the last ten years Tony O'Reilly purchased land at Land's End and donated it to the National Trust in England. He is an Irishman but he is not doing anything of that kind here. I am not criticising Tony O'Reilly but I am pointing out that the lack of legislation means there is a gap in this area.
I thank the committee for its time. I extend to it an invitation from our colleagues in the National Trust Northern Ireland who would be most happy to accommodate a delegation from the committee, should it wish to send one to Northern Ireland.
I thank Mr. Ducie for the invitation. We will consider that matter later in the autumn.
I welcome the deputation from An Taisce. It is important that we meet An Taisce regularly. There are conflicting views about its real agenda but the portfolio which it has presented here and the number of properties in its trust are a welcome sight.
Can the delegation clarify what it means by restricting the use of lands in its discussion of disposal of partial interests? The Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution is discussing property rights and there is concern about this issue. What exactly does An Taisce mean here? Many people are concerned that people's property rights are being infringed or eroded by other groups which can decide whether land is in special areas of conservation. They fear an erosion of a persons right to decide what he or she can do with land, within reason, taking into account protection of the environment and everything else.
With regard to the issue of inalienability, tax exemptions and heritage trust legislation, recently there was a case in Cork of a fine old house being sold off to a developer. It is regrettable that such fine houses are being sold and that it is left to the whim of the developer to decide what can be done with them. Is it not possible to come to some arrangement with the developers who buy large tracts of rezoned land whereby the house can be put to commercial use but be retained in its original form, for example as a modern hotel, as opposed to holding it for people to visit whenever they feel like it? There could be a commercial side to it. Sometimes An Taisce does not realise that there is a commercial world out there. People have to pay large sums of money to upgrade these houses. Is there some mechanism whereby we could meet them half way so that with a bit of imagination and goodwill on all sides these houses could become a commercial interest but retain their integrity?
It seems to be the case that whenever there is an imaginative proposal An Taisce objects.Carrickmines Castle is an example. Was An Taisce consulted prior to the motorway being developed at Carrickmines and did it make formal submissions? Was it invited to contribute? Was its advice sought prior to the selection of the route? Is there not a time for An Taisce, like everyone else, to accept that there is a greater good, that people have to make sacrifices across the board, and that sometimes its view may not be upheld? Should it not accept that and move on, instead of continually wasting its energy in high profile cases which most of the public does not support? I have serious concerns about the Carrickmines area, having used roads in that area last week. I found it incredible that we have a fine motorway which comes to a standstill. If An Taisce is genuinely concerned about trying to protect the environment and its heritage, there comes a time when it has gone through all the processes and has to accept that and move on.
I do not represent a rural constituency but there is a concern in rural Ireland that An Taisce has decided at policy level to object to almost all one-off housing. Could the delegation clarify that?
Heritage trust legislation is obviously working very efficiently in other countries. Would there be a cost implication to the Exchequer if legislation were drafted? Would it allow An Taisce to acquire more properties? Would there be a large burden on the Exchequer if this legislation were introduced?
It is a lot to ask the visitors to remember all the questions until the end, but I will do my best to be brief. I thank the representatives of An Taisce for their presentation and I welcome my colleague from the National Trust in the North as well. I am sure many people are aware that quite a number of Oireachtas Members are members of An Taisce and I am proud to be one of them. I am also glad to say that I meet many members throughout the country when I travel. It is important that Oireachtas Members who are not members of An Taisce realise that there are many members of the organisation within their own constituencies. There is a misconception abroad that An Taisce, which is so efficient at presenting very professional and cogent arguments and does so much practical work, which is undervalued when it comes to the tourism product mentioned by Mr. Ducie, is not supported at all by the Government or by any agency other than its own members. The amount of work An Taisce does is phenomenal.
To what extent is An Taisce stressing the principle of sustainability in its policy decisions? I detect that there is a strong belief in the need for sustainability within the organisation. I also understood that the Government was signed up to the same concept, but I am less convinced on that matter. I ask that An Taisce reiterate that the rules set for adhering to sustainability are not set by An Taisce, nor by the Government, but by nature. We can rant and rave but unfortunately nature tends to have the last word on those matters.
In relation to the issue of one-off housing, as raised by Deputy Kelleher, there is not by any means a blanket ban from An Taisce. Many of the situations are not high-profile at all, they are focused on the issue rather than the media. The use of water is doubling every 20 years, while Ireland faces court action over water quality. I have just returned from Roscommon, Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal, and the issue that comes up again and again from people living in towns and rural areas is their need to buy bottled water. I ask myself the same question, but the answer, unfortunately, comes down to understanding the rules of sustainability and sustainable settlement patterns.
I was going to ask a question about Lissadell, but the representatives have already answered it well by saying it would be a lot simpler, and probably better for the country as a whole, if we had heritage trust legislation. Maybe the Government can tell us whether it will bring it in without waiting for a change of Government. Will the endowment funding be sufficiently ring-fenced to ensure that in hard times it does not get siphoned off in any fashion? The history of the national lottery, for example, indicates that such a scheme is seen as additional funding to be used on set projects, but as budgetary constraints kick in there is an enormous temptation to claw some of it back into the State coffers. Any fear of this happening would be a disincentive for people to donate to the fund. Has there been experience in other countries from which we could learn lessons?
Mr. Ducie
I will ask my colleague, Mr.McQuiston, to deal with the issue of endowment funding and how it operates in other jurisdictions. The intention is that the funds be ring-fenced.
In reply to Deputy Kelleher's question, the restriction on the use of lands refers only to lands owned by the trust. It does not affect anybody else's land; it is land that the trust has in ownership and may sell on afterwards. It is a way of enabling buffer zones to be protected through purchase and ownership and the whole point of this legislation is the ownership of the land. Funding is achieved through commercial partnership in every jurisdiction. We are not proposing to reinvent the wheel. Our colleagues in Northern Ireland have substantial funding from commercial interests through donations and sponsorship deals - this is how it is done. We propose to do the same thing. I draw the attention of members to our successful green schools project, which receives half its funding from industry - from Coca Cola and so on. Many of our other education programmes are also partly funded by industry. An Taisce is already involved in this way with commercial concerns, so it is no problem to us to do this.
Our only concern is sustainable development. The founding aim of An Taisce was to protect Ireland's heritage for future generations for the benefit of all the people. The latter part of this, which was written in 1946, refers to sustainable development. We are concerned with the long-term legacy left by this generation to the next. This is why we have concerns about development. We advocate sustainable development and protection of Ireland's heritage. Of course we enter into the national debate from that standpoint. We do not have any decision-making powers in these areas, nor do we seek them. We do not seek to make those decisions - we merely represent our point of view in the national debate. We seek to bring our concerns to the attention of the State and the people.
I live in Blackrock and am certainly affected by the M50 and the problem with Carrickmines Castle. The answer to the first part of theDeputy's question about Carrickmines is "Yes". We did make representations at the time and asked that the road not be put through the castle. We were concerned and our concerns were ignored. I want to put that on record. We have repeatedly come up with compromise solutions for this debacle. We do believe in the rule of law and the regulations of the system. We work the system that is there and we bring our representations through that system. Once again I must say that we do not make any decisions. Generally we do not, as a matter of policy, bring cases to the courts. We decided many years ago that An Bord Pleanála had the final say in decisions. We have worked to reform the regulations under which the board operates if we were unhappy with the results. However, European legislation is also important here. Where Ireland has occasionally been in breach of European legislation we have seen it as our duty to bring that to the attention of the European Commission. It is European policy that affects matters such as Carrickmines. The narrow way in which the EIS was drawn up is the test case. It is similar to some other cases in which the Irish Government has been before the European courts. There are complex issues involved, but simply as somebody who lives in south Dublin I wish a compromise could be found. I would be in favour of that, as would many in An Taisce, which has many members living in that area. I hope I have answered the questions put to me.
The rural housing debate is about sustainable rural development. That is the nub of this issue. We have been castigated over one-off housing, which is merely one aspect of the sustainable rural development issue. We have a crisis in our countryside, and there is such a crisis across Europe.
I have just been invited to a major conference in Slovenia of all our European partners to discuss the crisis in rural Europe. It is not a unique circumstance in Ireland that farming is declining in profitability and in job creation and job holding. That is leading to a form of abandonment of the land, which is then being followed by adverse, inappropriate development which may copperfasten for future generations the abandonment of that economic base. We are genuinely concerned about the cultural landscape of Europe and about the Irish cultural landscape.
We are concerned that there will not be viable rural communities in the future unless good regulation and planning takes place and we do not waste the assets in the rural economy. Our concerns over the whole one-off housing issue are framed within those concerns. An Taisce will not and cannot appeal every one-off house planning application, nor does it wish to do so. It is looking on a case by case basis and takes every case on its merits. It could not win at local authority level or with An Bord Pleanála if it did not do that. We do not see it as winning, by the way. We could not have our case heard or have any credibility if we did that. We genuinely take on board all of the concerns and wish to see a viable, sustainable rural economy.
Mr. Ian McQuiston
On whether there would be a cost to the Exchequer if legislation of this sort went through, it actually relieves the Exchequer of costs that it might otherwise have to bear. If the State gets a good strong heritage organisation helping it to conserve what is best in Irish heritage, those costs flow through the heritage organisation rather than coming out of the Exchequer's pocket. That has certainly been my experience.
The other point about endowments is that they are fiercely ring-fenced, and certainly within the National Trust, where one might have been tempted to take a little bit out of that fund and spent it on another property, it was absolute forbidden to do so. It was watertight ring-fencing. That developed through bitter experience. The National Trust had a great expansion during the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s and did not have sufficient money accrued to look after the maintenance of those properties. Thus, we have what is called a general fund which helps out the under-endowed properties.
From about the mid-1970s on we realised that any new property coming in had to be fully funded and self-sustaining. Hence it needed an endowment. I will give the committee some figures to give it an idea of the success of a free-standing, not-for-profit organisation raising endowment funding. The last figures I have here for the National Trust, for example, show it to have an annual budget of £200 million. This is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organisation. Of that income of £200 million, 32%, or £63 million, comes from members. Heritage organisations can have members who pay subscriptions. Some 20% comes from legacy income.
Citizens of countries are used to their governments levying taxes, whether income tax, sale tax, property tax, inheritance tax or whatever. They are not inclined to give voluntarily to the Exchequer, but they will give generously to independent not-for-profit heritage organisations, where they can see where the money is going. If one has established a need for a particularly property and need for a certain endowment, people will subscribe to it. One fifth of the National Trust's income comes from legacies, people who remember the trust when they make their will. Perhaps they love the coastline, a piece of woodland or whatever. Whatever they do or say, the National Trust will take it on board and put it into that particular endowment.
We have a formula. We look at the property and work out on a cyclical basis what the costs of repairs are likely to be. It may be a five or ten year cycle, and we add it up, see if there is any income from rentals or visitors and then see what the difference is. There is a formula for making a calculation over a 50-year period, which establishes the need usually for a fairly large sum of money. At least we then know what we are aiming for and can use all sorts of devices to put money into that bin, which is then strictly allocated to looking after that particular property.
What was the State's support for An Taisce in the last financial year?
Mr. Ducie
An Taisce receives just one grant, which was the euro equivalent of £55,000. This was a three year programme from 2000 on from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is the only funding the State gives An Taisce directly.
That is contrary to information I received at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts some time ago. I asked that question and got the same answer, but subsequent information passed on to me as I inquired into the matter indicated that the real figure is far in excess of that. What is Mr. Ducie leaving out when he tells me about the £55,000?
Mr. Ducie
We are not leaving out anything. That is the only core funding we receive. We do receive funding towards our green schools programme, our blue flag programme and our environmental education programmes. They are separate budget items. That funding is then matched by industry.
How much is that?
Mr. Ducie
I do not have the figures in front of me. I did not come here to answer questions on those directly but it is some hundreds of thousands of euro. It is a large budget.
It is okay, I have the figures anyway.
Mr. Ducie
I am aware that my colleagues provided those figures to the Committee of Public Accounts.
No, they did not.
Deputy Haughey indicated some time ago that he would like to ask some questions.
I thank An Taisce for its very comprehensive briefing on these issues. I am not sure, for example, that we can go into the topic of one-off housing at this meeting and perhaps it is something to which we might return. An Taisce has made a very good case for heritage trust legislation.
One of the compelling arguments is the funding issue, and I am sure that would appeal to Government at this time also as more funding would be made available for heritage through the establishment of such a trust on a legislative basis. I have two concerns which I hope our guests will be able to address. I am not sure if they have set their sights of State properties at this point. The main argument they make is that they can do it better than the State. Maybe they do not put it as bluntly as that, but they believe there are reasons in some cases, they can do it better than the State. If such legislation is passed, do they envisage down the line that properties now in the control of the State through one form or another - central or local government or governmental agencies - will be transferred to the trust for whatever reason?
This brings me on to one of my concerns. Our guests speak of "sustainable tourism". Obviously nobody could disagree with the concept of sustainable tourism, but is there a danger, for example, that properties which are in some way open to the public at the moment may actually be shut down? Could An Taisce be more concerned with conserving the property than with having tourists coming in en masse to enjoy it? Could our guests give some guarantees that they are not elitist in their thinking when it comes to such properties? Presumably archaeologists would love to wrap Newgrange in cotton wool and let nobody visit it. It is a question of striking a balance. Can our guests give assurances that they will not shut the tourists out? What exactly do they mean by the concept of sustainable tourism?
Deputy Kelleher touched on the other issue of the wish to preserve old houses and the role of commerce in that regard. What is An Taisce's view on finding a viable economic use for various types of property? Are they dead set against it? I see examples where properties are maintained and restored by turning them into commercial units such as golf courses, hotels or offices. Does An Taisce see a conflict there or a role for economic activity in preserving such properties?
Mr. Ducie
There are two parts to the question. I will ask my colleagues to take part of the sustainable answer and show how this works in other jurisdictions. It would be a requirement of the legislation that access to the public would be permitted. That is written into the legislation. The only problem is the management one and that impinges on everybody who manages heritage. Access might have to be by ticket or be restricted in the interests of the preservation of the property in the first place, otherwise one does not have anything to show the following year. It is a management issue.
Regarding State properties, a simple answer is "No". What the State has is what the State has. The State should always be active in this area. There might be potentially a situation where a local authority in ownership of a property would wish to have a national trust type organisation manage it. There are examples of this in Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions, with the most efficient management of the property and opening it to the public. If a local authority has only one property, it is difficult to build up the expertise to keep it. If there is a national organisation with half a dozen properties of the same type, the management expertise is there. It is sensible to provide these types of arrangements.
What is in An Taisce's mind is to deal with the areas that the State is unable to deal with currently. It is a matter for the State in the future to decide what burdens it might wish to put on the trust. It is not in An Taisce's interest or ambition to take on any properties the State currently has. Our interest is to see more done.
There are two experts besides me who will talk about the viable economic uses and the benefits to the economy of National Trust ownership, which has given a substantial shot in the arm for rural Northern Ireland.
Will the new heritage trust be democratically accountable? How will democratic accountability be ensured, given that An Taisce is dealing with the State heritage?
Mr. Ducie
That is why we are proposing a subsidiary of some description for which the State then writes the rules. In other words, we are letting the legislator have a major influence on the constitution of the new body and how the whole board of management is elected, hired and fired. We are asking the State to come in at this point because it is important from the point of view of the future donors that this is clear-cut and strongly worded. We see it in the interest of the whole process that this should take place. We are amenable to all the safeguards that can be put in place to make it democratically accountable. Obviously, it can mean many things, but it must not be prevented from getting on with its job. There are balances in all democratic issues.
Deputy Haughey referred to large houses becoming commercially viable through golf courses and so on.
Mr. Ducie
We must recognise that not every heritage property is suitable for this kind of development. A heritage trust will hold a tiny percentage of the total heritage of any particular type of property. The best examples are those that one wants to retain in a non-commercial way and keep them running as they were historically. That said, they are economically viable to create jobs and attract a great deal of tourism into the area, which of course the golf course hotel development feeds off down the road. The core product must be protected. What the Heritage Trust is about is protecting that core product.
If one has one great house that is kept as a museum piece with coffee shops and tea gardens, and then down the road one has the golf course hotel bringing the visitors in. The reason they are coming is that both properties are available to them. There is a great danger in Ireland of overdeveloping every one of our heritage properties to the point that in 20 years' time there will not be an 18th century landscape demesne for tourists to visit, but each one will be a Greg Norman type golf course. There is a concern there and we have to strike the balance.
Mr. McQuiston
To round off that point about the value of heritage organisations, the National Trust in Northern Ireland puts £5 million each year into the economy. It wrestles constantly in the debate between access and conservation. If one looks at the fundamental reason for the National Trust's existence, it is permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation. It is that word "permanent" with which we wrestle. One can open up everything, push the punters through, get much short-term income, but run the risk of spoiling the very thing people want to enjoy. One is always trying to find the balance between enhancing and optimising the value of the assets without destroying the goose that laid the golden egg. There are many management devices that can allow one to increase numbers without losing the fundamental asset.
Mr. David Owen
The term "sustainable tourism" is being used in so many different guises that people are getting confused as to what it means. It is now more commonly considered as a view on responsible tourism from a long-term perspective. That is not looking only at the way the property is used, but also the way opportunities are accessed in the local area. One is trying to keep the benefits as local as possible. One is trying to employ local people, especially in rural areas where one tries to maintain social capital. That is why responsible tourism plays such an important role in rural areas as it can hold and maintain people in those parts.
We are not just looking at big old houses and demesnes. We are also looking at coastlines and landscapes. In the North, 30% of the coastline is protected under the National Trust. There are serious problems in Ireland with impacts on the coastline that are not being addressed. This is an opportunity to look at it from a heritage trust perspective.
Mr. Ducie
I would cite the example of the Giants Causeway coastline which attracts 500,000 visitors a year that rural region of Northern Ireland, thanks to the activities of the National Trust in keeping those paths open. They have acquired a narrow coastal strip, allowing farming to continue, the walks are accessible and the tourists are coming from far away. The problems we are having here with access to the countryside are overcome through a simple method of ownership of the piece of land that is causing the problem.
On the role of An Taisce in the planning legislation, it is mentioned that An Taisce is part-funded by the Government. How much funding was spent by An Taisce last year in planning appeals and what did they receive from the Government?
Mr. Ducie
I must apologise as I did not prepare to answer such questions at the committee today, and I do not have the figures. We do most of our work in this area through voluntary effort. We were doing all of this prior to 2000 totally with voluntary effort. The idea behind the funding given to us was to enable us to address issues such as this one today, so the extra money which we have got from Government has allowed us to address other aspects of our remit and to use some of our voluntary money to do that. We have been able to inflate the boat slightly and can thus address issues like property ownership, which really were on the back burner because we were under this enormous weight which the State placed upon us.
By prescribing us under this legislation we are required to respond. The post box for An Taisce is continually massive with planning referrals. With voluntary effort we plough through them, with a small paid staff. We respond to the best of our ability and it is our duty to do so. We would do this whether the State paid for it or not, whether we were prescribed or not. Other non-Governmental organisations in Ireland are trying to do this. The idea of prescribing us back in 1963 and onwards was that, if that body of expertise is available to the national debate, through property ownership, education, as with the build-up of expertise which is in An Taisce, it should be made available to the planning process. The idea was that it is in the interests of everyone concerned that this voice should be facilitated in the interests of democracy, and indeed of sustainable development and good planning. This is why we are prescribed. We want to do this job because it is what we were founded to do. We are advocates for good management of the environment.
Does An Taisce see any conflict between the setting up of An Taisce and its role in the planning legislation, or is it a role which An Taisce would prefer to have the Government appoint an independent body to carry out?
Mr. Ducie
We are an independent body and we do not see any such conflict. Many of our European equivalents are what are described as statutory consultees in the planning process. An Taisce is a statutory consultee in the planning process. We use the term "prescribed" because that is what the legislation says. If one wants to put it into "international speak" it is statutory consultee.
Our colleagues in Northern Ireland are heavily involved in the planning process, but in a different way. The British equivalent organisations are perhaps the only such organisations, or among the few, which have not got that arrangement "written in". Our Finnish colleagues are heavily involved in the planning area. The Dutch are heavily involved in it, their role is written in, and they respond as we do. When a development is taking place in a heritage property, or has environmental implications - and everything has environmental implications nowadays, one way or another - they are invited to voice their concerns.
One of the things that is perhaps different in some of the other jurisdictions is a far better paid State response service, a much stronger body equivalent to what Dúchas was, so that the voluntary organisation is not left struggling with the burden. It is the civil servants who get on with doing that job of responding and putting forward expert opinions. The purpose is to have the maximum amount of expertise available to the decision-maker.
There is an issue regarding right of access. Some people would claim that rural Ireland is not being made available to hill walkers, for example, and others who just want to enjoy the scenery. What role can national trust legislation give An Taisce with regard to the purchase of rights of way, for example? Is that primarily where An Taisce sees itself operating, perhaps purchasing rights of way and access? For example, who owns the Giants Causeway?
Mr. McQuiston
The National Trust.
Yes. Obviously there are difficulties with access. Did the organisation have to purchase land to ensure that people could go there without hindrance or annoyance to other people?
Mr. McQuiston
Until 1961, I believe, the Giants Causeway area was privately owned by a small consortium of businessmen and had a rather tall, unsightly fence with barbed wire at the top, and a turnstile. This was right beside the causeway, beside the stones. The British Government asked the National Trust if it would be prepared to take on the site, restore it and return it to its natural appearance. We did that, and it is now freely accessible, at no charge. It is once again a wild, natural area. There are problems of access, as Mr. Ducie alluded to earlier, with half a million people visiting annually, a figure that is rising. That creates management challenges.
Obviously you would be looking at the likes of the Burren or the Wexford sloblands as something you would be interested in.
Mr. McQuiston
Newgrange was mentioned and as someone who visited recently I compliment members on the solution there, which allows for managed access, yet maintains a fantastic heritage place.
An Taisce would have no compulsory purchase order rights, acting on behalf of the State.
Mr. Ducie
Obviously the State has the compulsory purchase order rights. Clearly, no voluntary body should ever have such a power.
It would have to be done on behalf of the State.
Mr. Ducie
It would have to be done in conjunction with the State. If the State wished to make a compulsory purchase and put the property into the management of the trust, that would be another issue altogether.
Regarding the accessibility issue, the Neptune fund, which the National Trust operates, has targeted and bought sections of coastline. That is how it built up its coastline holding. On a number of occasions it bought a farm or a field when available, and just retained the coastal strip, returning the rest to private ownership. Then it resolved the problem of the management of the walkers' route. The National Trust wardens can patrol, manage and remove litter from it, and it is not a burden on the farmer. It is all very well for us to talk about access to the countryside, and I understand what the farmers are saying, but who is going to pay for this, if it is all going to be a burden on them, and they are not seeing any benefits in terms of tourism?
This is really a tourism issue. The countryside is an asset for tourism. Ireland is by all accounts losing out dramatically in the international market for hill and countryside walking, because of access issues. We are not making our landscape available. If one goes to Wales or Scotland, or even to Northern Ireland, one will find much more accessibility, thanks to the National Trust's operations there.
There is of course a difference in common law between Ireland and Britain. Northern Ireland has that difference as well. It is operating with similar lack of right of access to the countryside, which is different from the British concept. They have managed to overcome this by buying the key pieces and entering into management agreements. Mr. McQuiston can tell the committee more about that. Through this process, practically the whole of the Antrim coast is open to walk along. Can one walk the entire coast of a county anywhere in the Republic?
I am sure one can.
Mr. Ducie
Not with ease, and not without a farmer approaching and shaking something at one. That is damaging our tourist industry.
I will bring our discussion to a close. On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. Ducie, Mr. Owen and Mr. McQuiston for their presentation and the manner in which they have dealt with the questions. Their purpose in addressing us here today was to inform us of the need for heritage trust legislation, and they have made an exceptionally good case. We are a lot wiser as a result of their presentation, and we will certainly follow it up later.
Mr. Ducie
If we may, when we have a draft back from our parliamentary counsel - we are paying parliamentary counsel for drafting of legislation based on best international practice - we will bring that back to the committee and present it. Obviously we want the committee's input. We are not presuming to draw up the legislation but trying to speed up the process as best we can.
I thank Mr. Ducie.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.13 p.m.sine die.