I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter. A decision has been taken and formally announced since I initiated this request for an Adjournment debate. I ask the Minister to respond to the concerns expressed to me by people working in the heritage sector who are employed by the Government. As I intend to refer to a document prepared by the trade union IMPACT, I should declare an interest by stating that I was once a member of the original LGPSU, the forerunner of IMPACT.
IMPACT has claimed that the decision to re-organise heritage functions flies in the face of the Government's heritage plan, published last year. The decision has been unanimously opposed by senior Dúchas managers and all staff unions in the area. The Minister's decision to proceed with the changes ignores the recommendations of his officials and the best professional advice. IMPACT has called on the Minister and the Cabinet to recognise the damage that this decision will cause to the long-term protection of our valuable heritage, our standing in an international context and our valued tourism economy. The union has asked the Minister not to proceed with the plan. If I outline the union's concerns, perhaps the Minister will be able to respond to them, although I am sure he is familiar with some of the concerns that have been expressed.
IMPACT considers that the Minister's decision will cause long-term damage to the built and natural environments. The value of an integrated service in the heritage area is recognised in many jurisdictions and the principle has been enshrined in the European landscape convention, which was ratified by Ireland in March 2002. Ireland has been a leader in this field in the recent past and has been held up as a model by many practitioners in Europe, in particular. The increased inefficiencies and complicated working arrangements which will result from the Minister's decision will, it is claimed, result in legislative confusion and uncertainty in relation to our obligations under EU and Irish law and the prosecution of cases, and thus less effective conservation and protection. The plans will lead to a slower decision-making process for planning and protection issues and a loss of efficiency in the implementation of conservation projects and the management of sites on behalf of the State.
IMPACT's second concern is that it contends that the proposed break-up of the heritage service comes at a difficult economic period for the country. The immediate costs in terms of organisational change and the creation of new bodies, purely in terms of note paper signage, vehicles, publications and public relations work, etc., are estimated at over €2 million.
IMPACT is also concerned that the decision will damage the tourism industry. I support the union's assertion that the development of the Dúchas brand and the conservation and presentation of heritage sites has been a central to the development of the Irish tourism industry in recent years. Dúchas sites are recognised as brand leaders in heritage site presentation and interpretation. The investment of time and taxpayers' money in creating this brand is now proposed to be discarded. National heritage is, apparently, no longer to have a coherent image, nor the kind of co-ordinated, multidisciplinary management developed under the Dúchas banner. This will be the third disruptive reconfiguration of State-managed heritage in nine years. Such erratic mismanagement of our heritage by the Government can only damage a key sector of the tourism economy at a vulnerable period and reflects poorly on the aspiration to quality customer care enshrined in the national agreements.
I can hear echoes of an old battle from the Office of Public Works, which was reluctant to see the responsibilities I have discussed transferred to the former Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht when Deputy Michael D. Higgins was the relevant Minister. I wonder if the legacy of that bitter battle with certain officials has, in part, informed this decision. People whom I know and respect, who are at the coalface of the delivery of heritage services, feel betrayed and ignored by the manner in which this decision has been taken and the manner in which they have been, as they see it, excluded from the process.