Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if his Department's officials are involved in meetings to discuss sectoral plans or responses to Brexit. [6904/18]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Brexit Issues
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if his Department has engaged in meetings regarding sectoral plans in response to Brexit. [8337/18]
Brendan Howlin
Question:3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of officials in his Department in preparing for Brexit; and the number and roles of those officials dedicated solely to Brexit planning. [8575/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The international, EU and Northern Ireland division of my Department covers work on all international, EU and British-Irish and Northern Ireland affairs within the Department, including issues relating to Brexit. This division is headed by a Second Secretary General, who also acts as the Irish sherpa for EU business, including Brexit. The total staffing resources of the division, which are kept under ongoing review, currently amount to 24.3 whole-time equivalent staff across a full range of policy areas. The division also supports me in respect of Government consideration of Brexit issues, including the negotiation process, both on the issues that are of unique or particular concern to Ireland and, more generally, the work of Cabinet committee C, which deals with EU affairs and Brexit. The division also supports me in my international role and in all of my international engagements, and provides advice and support to me in respect of Northern Ireland affairs, British-Irish relations and Brexit issues in that context. Staff in other divisions of the Department, notably the economic division, also contribute to Brexit-related work as necessary.
The overall co-ordination of the Government’s preparedness for the UK’s exit from the EU is led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who also has special responsibility for Brexit. A wide range of co-ordination structures are in place and officials from my Department participate in many of these, as required. The Government is continuing to plan and refine its analysis, building on the range of reports and analysis already produced by Departments, State agencies and the ERSI on the implications of Brexit at the macro level and also at the sectoral level. This ongoing work reflects extensive stakeholder engagement across all sectors. Of course, the exact impacts of Brexit on specific sectors will depend on the negotiations and the nature and scope of the final agreement on the new relationship that exists between the EU and the UK.
Significant measures were announced in budget 2018 and these build on those introduced in budget 2017. They include: €300 million for a Brexit loan scheme for business; increased funding for Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation; a €25 million Brexit response loan scheme for the agrifood sector; and additional supports for capital investment in the food industry and Bord Bia marketing and promotion activities, amounting to over €50 million in total. Increased funding has also been allocated to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including the opening of six new diplomatic missions this year. The budget also allocated an additional capital expenditure of €4.3 billion over four years to allow the State and its agencies to properly plan major infrastructure projects, particularly in transport, while ensuring that communities and businesses can plan ahead. Other measures highlighted in the budget which will help to mitigate Brexit risks include the establishment of a rainy day fund and increased investment in higher education. The public consultation on the rainy day fund is now under way.
Given the scale of the challenge of Brexit, it is of course taken account of in all Government policy areas. For example, Brexit is one of the priority themes in the 2018 Action Plan for Jobs, which will be published shortly and which will include actions to ensure we are Brexit-prepared at both national and enterprise level. Project Ireland 2040, the Government’s national planning framework and national development plan published last Friday, takes full account of the challenges presented by Brexit and will ensure that Ireland is best placed to ensure growth on a sustainable basis into the future.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Last week, he accepted that planning for a position where the United Kingdom is not in the Single Market and customs union is required. Having previously said that there are more than enough impact studies, he also accepted that the most recent impact study, of which we have only seen a summary, shows evidence of serious sectoral impacts which must be planned for. I am sure the Taoiseach will have noticed that the Dutch Government confirmed in recent days that it has identified the number of extra customs officials it will require, depending on different Brexit outcomes, and has begun hiring up to 900 new people on the assumption that the softest outcome will be a free trade agreement with the UK. The Netherlands and other countries appear to have completed very detailed planning and are now moving on to implementation. Even the British Government has got around to some concrete planning, although, so far, it has simply confirmed that it does not currently have the capacity to manage controls outside the customs union in particular and it is unlikely to have this capacity for some years.
While a lot of documents are being issued by the Government, there is nearly no new information about sectoral actions. Will the Taoiseach tell us when he will publish the Government's action plan based on different scenarios? Is it the Government's position that it accepts the estimates by the Copenhagen group and how regularly will this analysis be updated? Now that we have even greater clarity about the huge impact on the agrifood sector, when will we see credible proposals for helping farmers and the food industry to adjust? I would also point out that this is, of course, linked to the multi-annual funding framework which will be discussed at the summit on Friday. The Times, Ireland edition, contains a report to the effect that the bullet-proof backstop will not now be in the actual withdrawal agreement but that it may be in an attached protocol. The Taoiseach might clarify the position in this regard.
For some reason, we do not have statements on the summit that is to be held this week. I hope the Taoiseach will respect the role of the Oireachtas before making commitments on behalf of Ireland regarding matters such as the European Parliament and the choosing of the Commission President. It is a very bad precedent that the Taoiseach is willing to address the European Parliament on these matters but not his own Parliament. It would have been useful to have statements on the forthcoming informal summit.
Yesterday, the British Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said that Brexit would not result in a Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction emerging in Britain. I am not sure where or when it was suggested that it would, although I am sure some people will be relieved by this clarification. There are, however, some hardline Brexiteers who seem to be living on a very different planet from the rest of us. Kate Hoey, MP said yesterday that the Good Friday Agreement was unsustainable. Last week, Owen Paterson, who Deputy Adams once described accurately as "a complete tube", said the Good Friday Agreement had outlived its use. This comes from a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is completely bonkers stuff. These remarks do little to allay the real fears and concerns of people across this island, and in the North in particular, about the Tory Brexit agenda. Not alone are we facing the negative impacts on our economy, our rights and on every aspect of society but now some of them also want to cast aside the Good Friday Agreement.
The Taoiseach will be aware that Deputy McDonald and Michelle O'Neill are in London today, where they will make clear to the Prime Minister, Theresa May, that the attitudes being bandied about are ridiculous and unacceptable. We know that the Good Friday Agreement and its institutions are what is best for all our people, our economy, public services and building reconciliation. Given the collapse of last week's talks, our view is that the best way forward is to embrace the Good Friday Agreement and re-establish the Executive on the basis of equality and respect, as intended. Sinn Féin has tried to do this over the last year. We reached an agreement with the DUP last week but, unfortunately, the DUP walked away and ended the process. The Good Friday Agreement provides for the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to reflect the co-equal and co-guarantor status of the two Governments. The two Governments must initiate this, as a matter of urgency, and move to implement outstanding commitments. That includes the Irish language Act, the release of funds for legacy inquests and the progression of legacy mechanisms. It also includes the safeguarding of rights for all citizens, including the right to marriage equality.
Will the Taoiseach initiate the intergovernmental conference to allow for these issues to be progressed in that forum?
Will the Taoiseach tell Members whether the legal text to codify the agreement he made in December, which he described as bullet-proof, is being prepared at present? Can he indicate what observations or requests for changes Ireland has made to the text and to the EU position documents on the proposed transition agreement and future trading relationship?
The backstop option was the Taoiseach's third option for arrangements regarding the Border in his December statement. Today's Irish edition of The Times reports that a source in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has confirmed that rather than being in the main document, that is, the treaty or agreement that finally emerges, the backstop option will be contained in a protocol agreement to run alongside the main withdrawal deal under draft plans being considered by EU negotiators. It says that it will have the same legal backing as the main agreement but it is likely to be considered a victory for the UK where the Government has tried to explain, badly, how it might deal with the Border. The Border interests are likely to be contained in a protocol, annexe or addendum to the deal. I would regard this as being unsatisfactory in terms of constitutional arrangements in Ireland with respect to the Good Friday Agreement. It is important that the Taoiseach should clarify whether this is likely to be the case.
The Government has published several action plans, all of which take Brexit into consideration. I referred to the 2018 Action Plan for Jobs in my initial response, which specifically includes actions to prepare businesses and enterprise for Brexit. It was approved by Cabinet on Tuesday and will be published by the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, in the coming weeks. Ireland 2040, which was published on Friday following a Cabinet meeting in Sligo, includes €116 billion of investment in infrastructure over the next ten years, including projects which will be important in the context of Brexit. This includes ongoing investments in ports in Dublin, Cork and Foynes, in airports, including the new runway in Dublin and a €100 million investment under way in Shannon, as well as the Government's commitment to assisting Ireland West Airport at Knock with its development plans and major road projects such as the one connecting Foynes port to road and railway and to better connect Rosslare to the roads network. Brexit runs through that document and it is strongly Brexit-proofed. Had I more time I would give many more examples, but I have given an adequate number to give people a flavour. There is also investment-----
What about a company with 60% penetration into the UK market?
Companies that are dependent on the UK market will face difficulties.
Stop telling them about 2040.
There is no point in denying that they will face difficulties. No matter who sits in this office or from which side of the House one looks at it, if there is a significant change in the trading relationship between Britain and Ireland, companies that depend on the UK market for exports will face difficulties. We need to help them to prepare, which involves diversifying markets and increasing domestic markets and elsewhere. We have seen some real success in the agrifood sector, for example, even though exports continue to rise to the UK, the percentage of exports is falling. It has decreased from about 45% to 35% in a very short period. That is a good example of how Government is working with industry, particularly agrifood, in successfully diversifying markets. When we have a better idea of what Brexit will really mean and what it will look like in terms of the next trading relationship, we will be able to provide loans and perhaps even State aid to companies to allow them to change what they do in order that they can appeal to new markets.
The Government accepts the Copenhagen Economics report. I will offer one caveat, in that the ESRI produced a similar analysis some months ago that makes slightly different assumptions but, broadly speaking, both analyses project similar outcomes. I do not want to say that one is better than the other, but they use different assumptions, and taking them together I would give them equal weight. There has been some sensationalist reporting of the Copenhagen Economics report, which would lead one to think the report projects that Ireland will go into a recession, that there will be a contraction of the economy, a rise in unemployment and that wages will be cut.
It does not say that.
Of course, the report says none of those things. If one reads it, it says that even in a worst-case scenario, the Irish economy will continue to grow but at a slower rate than it would otherwise.
That is what the reports have said, in fairness.
That is not how it is being reported in the reports that I have seen in the media.
Yes, it has. The Taoiseach cannot control all the media.
I do not control any media. Any reasonable person who looked at the headlines about the Copenhagen Economics report would be forgiven for thinking that the report projected that Ireland would go into recession, that people's pay would be cut and jobs lost.
The coverage did not say that.
It did not.
Please, Deputies.
I am sorry Ceann Comhairle, it is getting a bit silly because they all know what I am saying.
Will we move on to Question No. 4?
We would appreciate answers.
If the Deputies would all stop interrupting, perhaps we would not have this difficulty. Time is up for that group of questions.
I am happy to continue but the Ceann Comhairle is correct that the constant interruptions do make it difficult to answer.
There was very little interruption.
Maybe we could move to Questions Nos. 4 and 5.
Okay.
To be honest to Members, it is great to ask questions but in so doing, they need to give the Taoiseach time to respond.
With respect, I asked a question. I did not interrupt-----
That is true.
-----and because other Members did, I do not get an answer to my question, which is crucial in respect of the peace process.
The Deputy's questions were not covered by Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive.
I asked a question and I have a right to an answer.
Please, let us not have an argument, we will go to Question No. 4.
It may not be of interest to Deputy Martin but it is important.
Why is the Deputy so angry all the time?
Deputies, please.
Deputy Doherty is so angry. I apologise.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet Committee meetings he attended in January 2018. [6906/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet Committee meetings he has attended in 2018. [8336/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
I chaired meetings of Cabinet committees A and G in January, and to date in February I have chaired meetings of committees D, F and C. It is a short answer.
When the Taoiseach changed the names and responsibilities of the Cabinet committees, he stated that they would be focused on driving forward delivery of policies. At around the same time, the Taoiseach talked about making sure the public would see concrete outcomes on specific problems. One striking aspect of what has happened since then is the emphasis has been on talking about process and promises without any concrete link to service targets. Soon after Deputy Harris, for example, took over the Department of Health, he announced that the health strategy, launched by the former Minister, Senator Reilly, and being implemented by Deputy Harris' predecessor, the Taoiseach, was to be abandoned. In its place is due to come an official response to the Sláintecare report. Can the Taoiseach explain how the Government could determine the capital investment needs of the health sector before it has decided on the overall health policies?
More importantly, can the Taoiseach tell us which specific service levels the Government is promising to achieve with the announced investments? In the area of mental health, there has been a sustained failure to deliver on core service commitments. We received absolute assurances from the Taoiseach's predecessor and from the Taoiseach that targets would be met but, unfortunately, they have not been met. All we have heard is the usual hand-wringing from Government and that it is someone else's fault. It is a serious issue in terms of the non-filling of posts across the mental health service. Are there specific service-level commitments which the Taoiseach is willing to stand over because I happen to know that the little due diligence that has been done on some of the physical infrastructure investments has been done in the context of an overall assessment of health needs in given areas, such as chronic illness and the growing ageing demographic. There are very serious issues in terms of how these investments have been announced in the absence of that kind of service level assessment.
The Taoiseach's response was brief.
Last week, the Taoiseach avoided the question put to him in relation to the establishment of a Cabinet committee on Irish unity. He rightly talked about his Government's and his personal commitment to the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Féin is equally committed to the Good Friday Agreement. However, we also believe that we need to prepare for Irish unity. I note the comments of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, during the Fine Gael leadership election where he stated in his policy document, "We need to prepare for the possibility that a United Ireland or shared sovereignty will occur in our lifetime.", and he is dead right. That work should begin as soon as possible. I ask the Taoiseach if he will examine the merit of establishing a dedicated Cabinet committee to discuss this issue in terms of how a new agreed Ireland would look and how we will plan for that.
I also want to ask whether the issue of the money messages has presented itself at any of these Cabinet meetings. As the Taoiseach will be aware, there are 27 pieces of legislation currently that have passed Second Stage in this House, some of them unanimously. These are, as follows, the Banded Hours Contract Bill 2016; the Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill 2016; the Consumer Insurance Contracts Bill 2017; the Coroners Bill 2015; the Criminal Justice (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill 2016; the Education (Amendment) Bill 2015; the Electoral (Amendment) Bill; the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2016; the Flood Insurance Bill 2016; the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill 2017; the Housing (Homeless Families) Bill 2017; the Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017; the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2016; the Local Government (Establishment of Town Councils Commission) Bill 2017; the Mortgage Arrears Resolution (Family Home) Bill 2017; the Multi-Party Actions Bill 2017; the National Famine Commemoration Day Bill 2017; the Online Advertising and Social Media (Transparency) Bill 2017; the Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2017; the Prisons (Solitary Confinement) (Amendment) Bill 2016; the prohibition Bill; the Protection of Employees (Collective Redundancies) Bill 2017; the Public Services and Procurement (Social Value) Bill 2017; the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund (Amendment) Bill 2016; the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2018; the Vacant Housing Refurbishment Bill 2017; and the Waste Reduction Bill 2017. All of those were passed by this House, some of them unanimously. One of those is a Bill that I myself brought forward. To let the Taoiseach know what that Bill does, the Consumer Insurance Contracts Bill 2017 ensures that insurance companies cannot wriggle out of paying a claim. If a person's house, for example, was hit by lightning and burnt to the ground and the assessor found that the burglar alarm was faulty which would have nothing to do with the claim whatsoever, on that basis they can wriggle their way out of it. Why is the Cabinet delaying and subverting the will of the Dáil, which is that these pieces of legislation would proceed to Committee Stage?
I ask the Taoiseach specifically in relation to the Cabinet committee dealing with health and the Cabinet subcommittee dealing with children. In relation to health, it is difficult to understand, in the context of both Sláintecare which the Government has agreed to and the previous plans, what is happening. For example, the 100-bed unit for older people which was promised to be built in Connolly Hospital has hardly progressed at all. Given that it is in the Taoiseach's constituency and mine, could he tell us what is happening to such projects? We know they are in the grand plan but by now they should be well progressed, and there is a significant demand for the services. Moreover, I visited Connolly Hospital this morning and there is considerable concern among the staff, the patients and their relatives that some of the units dealing with older people are either to be closed or amalgamated. This is entirely at odds with what was laid out in the plan that was put forward when I was in government and the Taoiseach was Minister for Health to have a 100-bed unit. Instead of having more provision, it looks like there will be a closure.
The second question I want to ask is about child care which is raised constantly with me by young families in areas such as Castleknock. In many suburbs, towns and cities, crèche providers are refusing to take part in the second year of the early childhood education and fees for those crèches are being raised. As the young families concerned are also struggling to pay mortgages, in terms of the grandiose long-term plans, the issue is what in the meantime the Government will do in relation to the difficulties being experienced by parents with small children who would use crèches and want to use the first and second year of the early childhood education. They are being left completely bereft of anyone whom they can go to. Has the Government sat down to discuss this major issue for parents with young children right across Ireland?
In relation to the assessment of capital needs in the health sector, that was very much covered by the capacity review that was commissioned by the Minister for Health. The capacity review was in the programme for Government. It is referenced specifically in the Sláintecare report. The capacity review was published in January. It outlines the kind of increase in capacity that we need in terms of acute hospital beds, critical care, social care beds for the elderly and also what is likely to be required in terms of increases in staffing levels in primary care and other areas. That capacity review very much informed the NDP and Project Ireland 2040. In addition, of course, we already know what we need in terms of ICT investment in the health service because that was covered in the eHealth analysis which was published before that.
It is fair to say that what is put in Project Ireland 2040 for health is very much evidence-based and very much based on those reports and reviews. What we see in health is a commitment of almost €11 billion over ten years, doubling the capital expenditure for health over ten years and allowing us to make those game-changing investments that are needed in areas such as information and communication technology which is really in deficit in the health service, the acute hospitals and primary care.
Service level commitments are in the HSE service plan for 2018 but we do not have any long-term service level commitments. Deputy Micheál Martin makes a valid point in that regard. Perhaps that is something that we need to put into the Sláintecare implementation report as to how we believe this ongoing increase in spending and ongoing investment in health infrastructure should result in outcomes for patients because that is what matters most. When we talk about outcomes for patients, it should not only be about waiting lists and overcrowding, important as those issues are. We need to talk about matters such as patient experience and survival rates for cancer which are important too.
In terms of the establishment of a Cabinet committee on Irish unity, that is not a good idea. First, there is not a majority in Northern Ireland at present in favour of a united Ireland.
We are in the middle of very sensitive Brexit negotiations and may continue to be for a number of months, perhaps even more than a year. We are trying to defend the Good Friday Agreement from some who are seeking to undermine it. We are also trying to get the Assembly and the Executive up and running. The establishment now of a Cabinet committee on Irish unity would be unhelpful in our efforts to defend the Good Friday Agreement in that we would be saying we are looking beyond it. We are not. The Good Friday Agreement is the best way forward for Northern Ireland. I also think it would be provocative towards unionism. While there may be occasions on which one may need to provoke people, I would not do it for the sake of setting up a Cabinet committee. It would have to be something that would result in a real outcome for people. This is why I do not favour a Cabinet committee on Irish unity.
Regarding the Good Friday Agreement more generally, the Government is absolutely committed to the agreement. It is an international agreement. It is in part made up of the British-Irish Agreement, after all, between two sovereign states. I have noted that some hardline Brexiteers, albeit not members of the British Government, have sought to undermine the Good Friday Agreement in recent weeks. I further note that these are the same people who insist that we must respect the result of their referendum, which was approximately 52% to 48% in favour of Brexit, and we do respect that. However, I remind them that we had a referendum as well on the Good Friday Agreement, for which 94% of people in this jurisdiction and 71% of people in Northern Ireland voted. I therefore ask these people to respect our referendums and the sovereign and democratic will of people in Northern Ireland and Ireland with regard to the Good Friday Agreement. I very much welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, in the House of Commons yesterday in which she boldly stated that the UK Government is steadfast behind the Good Friday Agreement, whatever some other people may say.
I think there is a problem with money messages. A huge amount of legislation of variable quality is coming through this House and no money has been voted by the Oireachtas to implement any of it. We have a huge disparity between the quality of legislation that comes from Government and that which comes from the Opposition and the rules in this regard. An Opposition Member, or a Private Member sitting on the Government benches, can produce a Bill on Thursday, publish it on Friday and have it debated in the Dáil and passed through Second Stage the following week. The Government cannot do that. It must ordinarily produce heads, then draft the legislation in consultation with the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, have the Bill go through pre-legislative scrutiny, publish the Bill and have it debated in this House. That is the proper way to do things, and there should be equality of standards between what is produced as a Private Members' Bill and what is produced as a Government Bill. We should not accept a lower standard of legislation from the Opposition or from Private Members than we expect from our Government. A former Secretary General, Mr. Dunning, did a report in which he put forward very workable proposals as to how we can improve things in order that we have less legislation coming through but legislation of a quality that could become law. I encourage those parties that have not yet accepted that report to do so. We will then be able to make changes and get more Private Members' legislation through and I will be in a position to issue money messages.
I will have to follow up on the 100-bed unit for older people in Connolly. I am not sure what is the up-to-date picture. My recollection is the same as Deputy Burton's, that is, that it was to be built and that the older units would not be closed until it was built, but I welcome the reminder about this important local issue and I will definitely follow up on it today.
Deputy Martin mentioned earlier the issue of the selection of the President of the European Commission. I support the Spitzenkandidat system. It is a good system. I think it is more democratic to allow the outcome-----
We have had no debate on it here.
I do not think it requires a protracted debate-----
We have had none.
-----but it is a good system. We used it the last time and we should use it again.
Do we have time for the third grouping of questions?
I would certainly welcome Deputy Martin's views and the views of other parties on the matter. I believe the results of the European Parliament elections should be reflected in the selection of the Commission President.
I thank the Taoiseach. We need to move to the third grouping of questions, beginning with Question No. 6.
Strategic Communications Unit
Brendan Howlin
Question:6. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the activities of the strategic communications unit and the number of staff now in place. [7231/18]
Micheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in the Government Information Service. [7444/18]
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the partnership arrangements the strategic communications unit in his Department has with a newspaper (details supplied). [8469/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:9. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the strategic communications unit; the number of staff now employed by the unit; and the responsibilities and positions of each. [8490/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:10. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department attached to the Government Information Service. [8492/18]
Brendan Howlin
Question:11. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the tender for market research by his Department; and when the research that was commissioned will be published. [8574/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.
The remit of the strategic communications unit is to bring consistency, clarity and professionalism to all Government communications. Its focus is to treat communications as a whole-of-Government activity and to speak to our citizens in a way that they understand and so they can be aware of the Government services available to them and the actions that Government is taking on their behalf.
The focus of the work of the SCU comprises three work streams: first, streamlining communications to the citizen, including the roll-out of a single unified Government of Ireland identity programme and the migration to the consolidated Government platform of gov.ie, which will produce financial savings in the medium term; second, running and supporting cross-Government priority information campaigns; and, third, implementing a capacity-building professional development programme for officials working in communications across the Civil Service. Staff in the unit share responsibilities across these three work streams to deliver on the unit's work programme.
At present, there are 15 staff working in the unit: one director, who is paid at assistant secretary level; one principal officer; four assistant principal officers; two higher executive officers; three administrative officers; three communications and media assistants; and one executive officer. The former MerrionStreet, or Government information service, GIS, function has been integrated into this new structure. The Government press office continues to operate as before in dealing with day-to-day media queries under the direction of the Government press secretary, Nick Miller. The salaries of the staff in the SCU are met from my Department's administrative salary budget, which was reduced in 2018.
As I have already stated to the House, a research tender with an estimated cost of €130,000, excluding VAT, was published on 18 September 2017 to commission an initial report of the Government and its services and a rolling tracker of attitudes towards it. The tender was awarded to Behaviour & Attitudes and the final results are expected to be available in late spring. These results will be published.
All media, both traditional and social, are utilised in the course of the delivery of campaigns by the unit. The choice of media is informed by the nature, subject and reach of the campaign. In some cases, media content partnerships with national and local media form part of campaigns in order to fully explain to citizens the various Government initiatives and actions and how they will impact their lives.
I thank the Taoiseach for his answer. He said "all media". We heard yesterday that his Government is running advertising in cinemas, presumably directed largely at younger audiences. Does this mean that some of the advertising will also go to TV and radio? We need a clear answer on this because the concern, I think, of all Opposition Members is that the distinction between a party in government, or a governing party, and the Government is very clear in our Constitution. We asked the Taoiseach about this yesterday. He seems to be hell-bent on blurring the distinction between the two, and Fine Gael as a political party gets funding both in terms of the leader's allowance and the payments made to the party. I said to him yesterday this is a fundamental issue for our democracy and our Constitution, and the fudging in the end will not do anyone any good.
The Taoiseach's press releases are no longer published on his Department website. Why is this? He has told us he is very interested in direct communication through social media, which is fair enough, but I think there is also a requirement for the text of what the Taoiseach is saying to be available. Will he also tell us about the outcome of the tender for the market research element of the contracts he advised us of last week and in earlier weeks? When will he publish the results? We are aware that Behaviour & Attitudes have apparently won the contract and we know about a number of other contracts that were won, including the one concerning the identity research to which his Government has committed and which he has not quite explained to us yet.
Is this just classification of segments into different age groups?
We need to move on.
What is involved is incredibly similar to political deep-market background research, which includes the use of panels and survey groups.
If we do not conclude the questions we will not have time for the answers.
Yesterday's conversation on the marketing unit was helpful because it allowed time to fact-check some of the Government's statements. Approximately €340,000 was the amount spent on the launch of the 2007 plan. I checked a parliamentary question tabled at the time by Ruairí Quinn. This does not compare with the amount spent on Friday's launch, which was by far the most expensive and extensive ever by a Government.
In the context of the relationship with the media and the matter of the unit's political activity, the national development plan was formally adopted by the Government last Friday but sectoral groups were fully briefed on Thursday. When it was announced, Fine Gael put up a new website with enormous detail of the plan, including exact wording and a county-by-county list of promises not published by the Government. This can only have come from direct political engagement with the unit. How does that fit with the Civil Service code?
On the media content partnership, the Taoiseach must accept that there is something ethically dubious at the very least about one arm of the his Department seeking coverage for so-called exclusives about the plan while another is discussing major advertising spending with the same media outlets. The Taoiseach has said he wanted to get the media to run fewer negative stories. If we look at pages 24 and 25 of the Irish Independent - the position is the same in the The Irish Times - we can see articles marked as being in partnership with the Government. They are presented as articles but should we take it that they are actually advertisements? I have no issue with the Government advertising services in the media but these are political advertisements. They are articles placing the Government in a good light in terms of these issues. Every regional newspaper will have the biggest advertisement it has received in many years, block booked well in advance. This is saturation of good news stories presented in that manner by the media. There is an issue in terms of the health of our democracy and the ethical nature of the engagement of the Taoiseach and the Department in all of this. The blurring of the lines is genuinely very worrying from the point of view of parliamentary democracy. The Taoiseach will say that he is promoting the Government, but the dogs in the street know he is using taxpayers' money to promote Fine Gael politically. That is the end of the story.
There is a very fine line in all of this and it is clear that the Government has stepped over it. There are probably legal issues in terms of a Government of Ireland initiative, and some of them actually require the approval of the Dáil. The question that arises relates to whose initiative is this really. These issues were dealt with at length yesterday and I do not want to rehash what was said. In the context of the budget set aside for the advertisements on the national development plan, we know they are running across various media, including radio, print, online and in cinemas. There is a valid debate to be had in respect of whether the advertisements are about making the Government look good - in my view, this is what they are - or whether they are about public information. Ultimately, public money is being spent and clarity is required and would be welcomed. How much money has been approved for these advertisements under the national development plan? It is important that this information is put on the table.
People of all age groups attend the cinema. When I go to the cinema, I see people of all age groups, although I suppose it depends on what movie one goes to see. I imagine that younger people attend different movies to middle-aged people and older people. It is a good way to speak to a broad section of the community.
To clarify, I do not have any role in designing any advertisements or deciding which medium is used and I am not consulted on this. I have asked not to be constructed on it. I have also asked not to see any advertisements before they are placed and I do not see them before they are placed.
That was not the question.
I am not aware of any plans to use television advertising. There is, of course, no mention of political parties in any of these advertisements. In fact, there is no mention of the political parties in the Constitution. I note Deputy Burton spoke about the Constitution having a distinction between Oireachtas, Government and political parties. An interesting point about Bunreacht na hÉireann is that it does not acknowledge the existence of political parties, but that is an aside. Certainly, any advertising or information campaign material will not mention any political parties, groups of Independents or particular Independents and it certainly will not involve any call to vote in a particular way. This is in full respect of the McKenna judgment.
Research will be published after it has been completed and it will be up to the director and the Secretary General to do this once it is done. There should not be any undue delay in publishing it once it is available.
Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned the function on the Fine Gael website, which is very good. I would certainly encourage people to take a look at it and see how Project Ireland 2040 will impact on their counties. People can scroll down, choose their counties and see a full breakdown of how the plan will they will be affected. I encourage people to look at it.
That was not the question.
To answer the question, there is no contact between civil servants in the unit or any part of my Department and party officials, and nor should there be.
So they just magic it up.
Of course, there is contact between serving politicians and their parties. I speak to Fine Gael and I do so very regularly, as do special advisers. The total budget for the unit is €5 million for this year and it is up to the directors to determine how it is best spent and spread across the various campaigns.
That concludes questions to the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach did not give an answer on the national development plan promotion.
Will the Taoiseach give us a report on the media content partnership in a fully transparent manner? Will he give me a paper on it?
I do not have it.
Of course the Taoiseach has it. The information is in his Department.
Can we get an answer to the question? If the information is not available, will it be submitted-----
If Deputy Micheál Martin writes to the Secretary General, I am sure he will give it to him.
That is not the answer.
I will have to see the information first.
This is a parliamentary democracy. I am asking a question and the media partnership is something on which we should get an answer. That is all. What is the nature of the partnership and how does it work?
Will the Taoiseach see if he can respond?
I do not even know if it exists.
I asked a specific question and I understand the Taoiseach does not have the specific answer. Will he furnish the information to us? The question relates to the cost of the promotion of the national development plan through the unit.
That will not be known until the campaign is finished.
Stop, this is outrageous.
A budget will have been approved for it and that is the information we require.
The Taoiseach should be able to tell us the cost-----
We have concluded questions.
-----of the cinema advertisements and the other advertisements.
Please Deputies, we have concluded questions.
The Taoiseach has information on all the costs because the deed has been done. A person would not get into the cinema without paying his or her money upfront.
Please.
I will be happy to provide it.
I thank the Taoiseach.
I appreciate that.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.