Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 2018

Vol. 966 No. 7

Strategic Communications Unit: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

calls for:

- the immediate disbandment of the Strategic Communications Unit (SCU);

- An Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar TD, and the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts at the earliest possible date to account for the spending of public moneys by the SCU; and

- the establishment of an independent panel, appointed by the Oireachtas, to examine the most effective way of operating Government communications to ensure value for money and freedom from political interference.

Táim ag roinnt mo chuid ama le mo chuid chomhgleacaithe. Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún seo agus molaim é don Teach. The motion before us from Sinn Féin is short and straightforward. It calls for the Government spin unit, the strategic communications unit, SCU, to be disbanded. It calls for the Taoiseach, Martin Fraser, the head of the strategic communications unit, John Concannon, and any other relevant individuals to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to answer questions and account for the spending of public money on what is a vanity project. It calls also for an independent panel to examine and recommend the best method of communicating the work of Government that is above politics and based on value for money.

At its core, the motion is about accountability. Sinn Féin stands for accountability, something that is sorely lacking in this State, but do not just take my word for it. Let us look at some of the facts and what we have come to learn about the SCU to date. The Taoiseach stated in this House when he first revealed the Government’s plans to establish the SCU that the unit will be cost neutral to the Exchequer. These were the bold claims made by the Taoiseach before it turned out that, in fact, the unit would cost some €5 million this year and every other year. Other claims were then made about the wholesome and ethical nature of the unit and they have proven to be false.

Assurances were given that the SCU would be completely free from any and all Government influence, yet media reports over recent weeks have poured cold water on that and disproven it robustly. I refer to the work that was done by a number of journalists, including Ellen Coyne and Hugh O’Connell, who together have done much to expose and unearth the truth about that. It is thanks to them that a myriad of information has now come to light that has revealed that this is a unit which, it turns out, is anything but wholesome or ethical.

In the case of Hugh O’Connell, his pursuits led to the eventual release of documents obtained via freedom of information requests which revealed details of discussions between the Taoiseach and his advisers about the establishment of the strategic communications unit. These documents have shown that the Taoiseach was not only instrumental in setting up the unit but was also involved in directing the unit's activity. The once secret documents also reveal emails which forewarned of the creation of a “vanity project” as well as the need for access to Government decision makers by the SCU.

Today we learn from an article by Juno McEnroe in the Irish Examiner that a parliamentary question tabled by my party colleague, Deputy Maurice Quinlivan, to the then Tánaiste, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, was drafted almost word for word by the strategic communication unit. Indeed, the unit asked that that be the version tabled on the floor of the House. That is outrageous. So much for the assurance from the Taoiseach and from other members of the Cabinet that his spin unit was to be free from interference and would be at arm’s length from Ministers. How can it be at arm's length from Ministers when it is drafting the parliamentary responses to questions Members of this House are putting to Ministers?

Similarly, and equally as worrying, is the exposé by Ellen Coyne recently published in the Ireland edition of The Times, which discovered that with Ireland 2040, as well as with similar advertising campaigns such as Creative Ireland, regional newspapers were specifically instructed to make publicly funded advertisements that promoted not just the Government but Fine Gael election candidates as well to look like organic, independent news stories. By deploying such a tactic, it was clear that those responsible sought to exploit a vulnerable newspaper industry which today, more than ever, is so dependent on such advertising revenue streams for their very survival.

Not only do these actions amount to an abuse of power, they raise a number of serious questions about the behaviour of those involved. It represents a shameful misuse of the public purse because, notwithstanding all the other arguments which may be made, it is abhorrent to think that taxpayers’ money, which could have been spent on schools, hospitals and public housing, was instead used to promote a political party and its agenda. That is wrong, and here today we are calling it out for what it is, namely, a disgusting abuse of power by a Government whose sole interest is not that of ordinary people but of self-preservation and promotion. There is an addiction to spin at the heart of the Varadkar Government. The revelations we heard at the weekend about an attempt to establish a campaign based on Garda figures the Central Statistics Office, CSO, refused to stand over is just the latest example of that.

Five million euro is a lot of money, and Sinn Féin believes that this money could have been put to better use. It could fund 1,000 extra community employment places. It could have reversed the cuts made some years ago to small schools. It could introduce a living wage across the Civil Service. That is what annoys and angers people. They know that money spent on the Leo spin unit is money out of their pockets and money that could be and should have been put into public services. That is the reason, in our motion today, we are calling on the Taoiseach and other public figures to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. That is needed to show that they are not above accountability, and that they must be accountable to this House and to the committees of this Parliament.

The final part of our motion recognises that the Government has a right to communicate with the people. We are proposing, therefore, the establishment of an independent panel, appointed by the Oireachtas, to examine the most effective way of operating Government communications to ensure value for money and freedom from political interference.

At the heart of our motion before the House today is the call for the Government’s strategic communications unit to be disbanded, with immediate effect. Let us put an end to what has been a shameful, callous and deceitful propaganda project. I am calling on all sides to accept this motion so that we may move on and restore some of the faith which has been lost in politics over this botched Fine Gael experiment in self-promotion and deal with the real issues such as health, housing and homelessness, which continue to affect the lives of those we represent, and no spin unit will be able to hide the consequences of such.

It is clear to everybody except Fine Gael that this communications unit is a busted flush. It needs to be disbanded. I hope this motion will be supported by the entire Opposition. That would be a very clear signal from the Opposition that this unit has to go. It is nothing more than a highly expensive public relations, PR, unit for the Taoiseach and Fine Gael at the expense of the taxpayer. It was the brainchild of the Taoiseach and he has to bear responsibility for clear mistakes that were made in the establishment and operation of this communications unit. It is completely unacceptable, which is the reason Sinn Féin has tabled this motion for the unit to be disbanded.

The motion also calls on the Taoiseach and senior civil servants to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. While Deputies can and do make political charges in the House in respect of the use of taxpayers' money by the strategic communications unit, the Committee of Public Accounts is available to examine how taxpayers' money is spent, consider processes and procedures and ascertain whether the logic for establishing the unit which we were told was to save money has been followed. Serious questions have been asked in the media, the Oireachtas and beyond about the operation of the unit which has come under intense scrutiny.

The response from the Taoiseach and the Government in general to genuine and serious questions about the strategic communications unit has been entirely disingenuous. The Government argues that there are more important issues and dismisses concerns in a flippant manner. Of course, housing, health and other issues are important. Sinn Féin has tabled dozens of motions asking the Government to do the right thing on health and housing, build the homes needed and implement our policy proposals, but it has failed to do so. The House will deal with all of these issues again, but none of that excuses the blatant misuse of taxpayers' money by the strategic communications unit.

We need to hear from all of the senior civil servants with responsibility for the strategic communications unit. Mr. Martin Fraser, head of the civil and public service, should appear before the Committee of Public Accounts, as should Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and Mr. John Concannon, head of the strategic communications unit. They will have to answer questions about their role as civil servants. The Taoiseach and others in political life also have questions to answer.

I do not believe the strategic communications unit will survive. Window dressing will not cut it either because the review will not be worth the paper on which it is written as it will be riddled with conflicts of interest. That the people undertaking the review are the very ones who have questions to answer is not an acceptable solution. For Sinn Séin, the only acceptable solution is the disbandment of the unit in order that taxpayers' money is not used to promote the activities of one political party, even if it is in government. All political parties are funded by the State and receive taxpayers' money, which creates a level and fair playing field. Taxpayers' money must not be abused by a specialised communications unit established by a Government to promote political parties as opposed to the work of the civil and public service and the Government. It is for this reason that Sinn Féin tabled the motion.

The Taoiseach announced the establishment of the strategic communications unit during questions to him in July 2017. He did so in response to a question put by the leader of the Labour Party. He informed the House that it would be a small unit in his Department. I indicated in response that a strategic communications unit could be a good idea, provided we knew the strategy that was involved and had more information on the unit, instead of having it dropped in, as it was, in one or two sentences. I also stated I could imagine the unit becoming a Tony Blair-type machine but that it could also look at the main strategic objectives of a Government. They could, I argued, include the delivery of the Good Friday Agreement, Brexit, a united Ireland and how one would secure and win a referendum on Irish unity. Ach ní mar a shíltear a bhítear, a Thánaiste.

My concern that the strategic communications unit would become a spin machine for the Fine Gael Party has been borne out by the debacle surrounding the launch of Project Ireland 2040. It was a shameless public relations strategy of self-promotion by Fine Gael and the Independent Alliance. The deliberate promotion of Fine Gael and Independent Alliance members has grown even beyond that. Keeping citizens informed on the work of government and where their taxes are being spent is one thing but promoting the Taoiseach, his party and others in government is another. It is also an unacceptable and blatant abuse of political power, but this is not the first Government to use Government resources and personnel to promote party political interests. The Fianna Fáil Party is a master in this area. In this instance, however, the line between the Government, the role of the Civil Service and elected representatives has been blurred so significantly that it would make even Fianna Fáil blush. Nonetheless, the Fianna Fáil Party's support for the motion is welcome agus cuirim fáilte roimh sin.

The strategic communications unit was established at significant financial cost. Contrary to the claims made that it would be cost neutral, this Fine Gael promotional, public relations and spin machine is costing the taxpayer €6 million. The motion is about accountability and transparency in government. I urge all Teachtaí to support our call for the unit to be disbanded, those involved with it to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts and an independent panel to be established to examine and recommend the best way of communicating the work of a Government in a manner that is above politics and based on value for money.

Fine Gael cannot help itself when it comes to wasting taxpayers' money, whether it is the millions of euro wasted in the installation of water meters, the continued roll-out of the public services card, an over-the-top social welfare fraud campaign based on false figures, the continued spending on the flawed JobPath scheme or the infamous strategic communications unit. I wonder how it must feel to be trapped in emergency accommodation, sleeping on the streets, struggling to pay rising rents or a mortgage or unable to afford the most basic necessities and then to see the Government spending millions on fancy advertisements and newspaper spreads, self-promoting and spinning a yarn that everything is okay in Leo land. What does this say to all those who struggle every day? What message does it send to them? The Government needs to get its priorities straight. Instead of spending taxpayers’ money on itself and would-be Fine Gael Deputies across the State, it must spend in areas that will be of benefit to taxpayers. Giving people homes in which to live and basic access to health care would be a start. The strategic communications unit will not achieve anything worthwhile for the taxpayer. It will not fix the many problems in society. The Government needs to ask what people want and need. Is it fancy advertisements in newspapers and self-promotion or is it action to tackle the issues that impact on citizens?

It seems that the Taoiseach and his Government want to believe their own propaganda, spun through the strategic communications unit. It may come as a surprise to the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach to learn that people view the new unit as nothing more than a vanity project for the Government and its Ministers. We now know that the unit comes at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. Whereas we were led to believe there would be no cost to the Exchequer, in 2018 alone it will cost approximately €5 million to run the unit. Surely, the competent and experienced civil servants working in it would be better employed elsewhere, rather than acting as the Government's cheerleaders.

The remit of the strategic communications unit when it was established was to place citizens at the centre of its work and increase efficiencies across the public sector when dealing with members of the public. It was not terribly efficient to establish a communications unit when one was already in place, namely, the Government Information Service. The new unit is engaged in spinning issues, rather than finding solutions. Instead of being concerned with image, perhaps the Taoiseach might spend time sorting out everyday problems facing citizens. The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach have been spinning and their strategic communications unit has run its course. It is time to call a halt to it. I call on the Government to end this farce once and for all.

I highlight an issue that was brought to my attention today in an article in the Irish Examiner by the journalist Juno McEnroe. The article is a fine demonstration of public service news reporting. Emails obtained by Mr. McEnroe under the Freedom of Information Act show that the strategic communications unit was asked to draft a response to a parliamentary question I had submitted to the then Tánaiste in October 2017. My question asked "the way in which the new Strategic Communications Unit will be used by the Office of the Tánaiste or her Department; and if staff from the Office of the Tánaiste or her Department will be moved to it".

The Department forwarded my question to the strategic communications unit for answer and its campaign manager, Ms Andrea Pappin, came back with a full drafted answer for the Minister's staff, telling the Department's head of communications she would be "grateful if you could use this version."

I have the response to the parliamentary question from the Minister and the freedom of information request from the Department; there is one different word, where "citizen" is changed to "people". The unit was essentially justifying its own existence, cunningly using the parliamentary question system to hide. When I submit a parliamentary question I am holding the Minister to account and seeking information on a topic from a Minister and Department, not a spin unit. If I want something devoid of substance and dominated by spin, I would read a Government press release instead. It is alarming to think the unit now has a role in the answering of parliamentary questions and this is clear evidence that the unit blurs the line between a neutral Civil Service and the spin of the Fine Gael Party, which is using taxpayers' money to fund this.

I have two questions. Does the unit have any involvement with the answering of other parliamentary questions to other Departments? Do parliamentary question responses now have to be vetted by the unit to ensure they are in line with Fine Gael propaganda? The Taoiseach recently stated that the unit is operating at arm's length from the Government but these answers prove that is not true and an explanation is required as to why I got that response.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this matter. It is curious to hear Sinn Féin spokespersons saying there should not be any involvement in politics or political campaigning by the strategic communications unit, SCU, while at the same time the former leader of Sinn Féin was willing to support the unit on the basis that it might help to win a referendum on Irish unity. That is total hypocrisy.

Good, clear and consistent communication is a virtue of good government. Citizens have a right to know what the Government is doing and why. The strategic communications unit was established earlier this year to bring that consistency, clarity and professionalism to all Government communications. It was not the brainchild of the current Taoiseach. This was raised and recommended on the back of the Global Irish Forum.

That is not true.

They do not like the truth. That is why they are interrupting.

That is misleading and not fair.

Allow the Tánaiste to continue.

That unit was established the following year and it was an international unit to reach the diaspora. The Tánaiste knows that, I am sure.

The point is the Deputy does not like hearing this because he does not want good communications coming from the Government. It does not suit his political agenda.

We need facts instead of spin.

The truth is the concept was about co-ordinating communications across government in a professional manner to ensure money that is spent on communications gets good results. The truth is the Deputies speak about €5 million or €6 million but communications across the Government and its agencies costs in the region of €170 million per year, as the Deputy knows. There are approximately 750 people involved in that communication across multiple organisations, agencies, Departments and so on. The whole point of this was to spend some money to ensure we provided value for money and co-ordination in those efforts. The previous model had every Department and agency working independently of each other. This meant there was no consistent Government branding, leading to confusion among the public as to who was responsible for what. There was no means by which overarching Government activity cutting across a number of Departments could be communicated. There was no structure to share best practice or for professional development for those working in communications in order to enhance skills. I have been in a number of Departments now and I know this. Good public and civil servants are moved from one section to another, sometimes from finance to a press office, for example, without the necessary professional development and training. Their intellect helps them do it but it is hardly best practice.

The previous model resulted in duplication, confusion and lack of cross-governmental coherence. It did not deliver value for money for taxpayers in terms of what is being spent. The establishment of the SCU reflects international best practice and other governments have also looked at this problem, coming up with similar approaches to what we are now adopting. That is about ensuring we have cross-governmental co-ordination in communication. There is a professionalism that delivers results. In other established European democracies it is understood that it is wasteful for every department or state agency to develop its own brand and communications plan while doing its own professional development without any central cohesion. Whether they wish to admit it or not, all Deputies know the importance of good communication and each political party understands it.

The SCU is about supporting Departments and agencies in doing the best possible communications work, ensuring there is work going on across the Government with a common platform that each agency can contribute to in order to ensure a consistency of message. The remit of the SCU is approved by the Government and it includes the commitment to a government-wide capacity-building professional development programme for officials working in communications and a number of proposed cross-government priority campaigns. The way in which some Deputies are choosing to spin this, it is as if a communications unit that improves professional capacity across government is in some way trying to influence different Departments on behalf of the Department of the Taoiseach. It is absolute nonsense.

The Tánaiste is ignoring the facts.

It is spin. It is rubbish.

The spin on this communications unit is coming from the Opposition parties and not the Government.

So they are not involved with parliamentary questions.

We never complained about the information.

The SCU is part of the Civil Service and it is staffed by civil and public servants. They are good people who know about communications.

They are being used.

They are committed to ensuring we have better communications across government and that we spend public money properly to ensure we do that in a way that makes sense and delivers on potential.

We can take a project like Project Ireland 2040. The idea that we would not communicate across government on a project that will commit over the next ten years €115 billion of taxpayers' money, and that we would not create the momentum through good communications on the back of that to ensure there would be private sector investment that would come with the provision of that certainty, would be a huge wasted opportunity. Let us focus on what we are trying to do here, which is a good idea, rather than trying to undermine it for political reasons.

I support the work of the strategic communications unit because each year this Government spends, on behalf of the taxpayer, €60.9 billion. It is the equivalent of over €12,000 for every citizen in our State. Citizens have a right to know how money is being spent on services that can make a difference to their lives and plans that might make a difference to their future. They should know what it will deliver, enhanced services that are available and how they can access them. I understand the need of Sinn Féin to focus on Project Ireland 2040 because it is scared that a plan exists for the future of our country that citizens have a thirst to understand. Of course, I did not hear those Deputies make the same point when the Government used the strategic communications unit to communicate additional benefits that might be made available to the self-employed and when the Government indicated in the aftermath of budget 2018 what additional supports were available to people as a result of decisions of this Dáil. I did not hear them complain about the work of the strategic communications unit when it communicated to families what kinds of additional support were available to them to help with the cost of going back to school.

The reason is that at the heart of the politics of Sinn Féin, there is the creation of an atmosphere of permanent crisis. It is about creating the concept among our citizens that all the services and taxpayers' money made available is not being used for the benefit of citizens, and nothing in our country can get any better. It is why the party is so concerned about the work of the strategic communications unit and the ability of the Government to communicate on behalf of its citizens. It demonstrates how taxpayers' money can be used in such a way as to make a difference to the lives of citizens and communities.

It cuts against the very concept of politics that Sinn Féin offers every day in this Dáil. It is relentless negativity-----

We offer solutions.

-----creating the concept and idea that no services are made available that offer support for people and help families and citizens in their journeys in a changing world. I refer to where Governments of all persuasions try to invest taxpayers' money to put in place good or improving services.

Sinn Féin is taking this approach to the strategic communications unit because it is a part of its agenda to show that no Government service or improvement can make a difference to the lives of citizens. I have listened as Sinn Féin has called for civil servants and for colleagues to go in front of the Committee of Public Accounts. It already has its mind made up and decided before anybody has appeared in front of an Oireachtas committee-----

Except the Government's representatives.

-----or any report is offered on behalf of Government. The Taoiseach made it clear that, in setting up the strategic communications unit and in looking at work that happened, there are a number of things now that we, as a Government, accept should have been done differently. That is why there is a review in place and it will be presented to Cabinet. We will look at the work of the strategic communications unit and at the need for any Government to be able to communicate to its citizens. We will see how this work can be changed and how we can take account of issues that have been raised and are of concern. That is what we have an obligation to do. However, we also have an obligation to be able to show citizens that their money is being used in such a way that it will benefit them. That is what this communications work is about. I refer to the €150 million or €170 million of taxpayers' money spent each year to communicate how services are in place and how that money can be used better and more efficiently.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Dooley, Calleary and MacSharry. Given the scale of current problems in vital areas such as hospital waiting lists, homelessness, non-functioning Northern institutions and Brexit, it is indeed to be regretted that we have to spend parliamentary time discussing Government communications. However, there is no alternative because the Taoiseach's approach to this issue is central to how he is running the Government and to the Government's efforts to push media coverage away from more serious issues.

We have had nine months of this behaviour and it is time for it to end. As we saw yet again this morning, this is a Government which is absolutely obsessed with spinning everything. There is almost no issue where it will not try to pre-empt coverage by planting a soft, one-sided story in a newspaper. It even sought to twist coverage of today's debate by briefing about the likely outcome of the internal review. The journalist was told this shows there is no real problem and there have been simply a few teething errors.

We will have to come back to this wider problem of an obsession with trying to manage the media. Even though this is a Government with the weakest ever popular mandate when compared with recent decades, it is actually the Government least likely to consult people before taking decisions. It is also, increasingly, the most arrogant Government in decades when it comes to attacking the right of others to question its actions. The petulance and aggression, which are coming to define its approach to being challenged, is there for even the most naive to see. We saw some of it earlier on Leader's Questions again.

Previous Governments, of different make-ups, followed a far more open approach to briefings on matters such as Northern Ireland and Europe with parties that shared the same basic approach. There is, effectively, no recent example of something being discussed in confidential briefings in advance of Government spinning the media. We have actually lost count of the number of occasions where we were informed through the media that we were apparently engaged in discussing matters such as future budgets even though no such discussions existed. This morning another piece of political posturing about fiscal responsibility was briefed. Given the Taoiseach spent nearly all of last year talking about the need for massive cuts to higher income tax, it proves that consistency is not something the Government is too concerned with.

This type of game playing is corrosive. It is long past time for Fine Gael to understand that this is catching up with it. Within days of the announcement, also via an anonymous briefing, that the Taoiseach intended setting up a new unit, and it was the Taoiseach who said he was establishing the new unit, we began raising questions about its role, scale and politicisation of basic public information. Since then, the Government has ignored basic legitimate questions and ploughed ahead regardless. This unit is the personal project of the Taoiseach. At any global forum it is the personal project of the Taoiseach. The emails in The Sunday Business Post story by Hugh O'Connell reveal all of that.

The Taoiseach asked that it be established. He said that here in the Dáil. He recommended its head and essentially selected and appointed him. He said that here in the Dáil as well. He also secured its budget. In addition, he has followed a policy of giving as little information as possible to the Dáil and his Department has tried to withhold basic information, when sought, through the freedom of information process. The entire purpose of this unit is political. It has been set up and given unprecedented staffing, resources and political access for the sole purpose of promoting the political message of the Government. Remember the four marginal constituencies, four newspapers and four advertorials advertising the Fine Gael candidates in those four marginal constituencies. That is the bottom line. It happened. We are not making it up.

What constituencies are not marginal?

So the constituencies are marginal. You are admitting it.

He has admitted it there. He has of course.

Every constituency is marginal.

He has just admitted it.

Can we talk about constituencies on another occasion?

Why do we not talk about them next?

While the clear abuse evident in the launch of the national development plan brought this controversy to a head, the reality is that all of the unit's work serves the same goal. The squalid reality is that the Government has sought to use public money to compromise the boundary between public information and propaganda. We have seen that revealed with a Minister sitting at her desk deciding how much money should be given to individual media outlets. When the ever-changing justifications for the unit are reviewed, using the information withheld from the Dáil but obtained by freedom of information, the truth is that every justification has been disproven.

It has been claimed that the unit is about streamlining Government communications and saving public money. The facts show this is nonsense. When the Taoiseach sought €5 million for this year's budget, the Department of Finance asked that this be subject to other Departments reducing their advertising budgets by this amount to prove the savings. The Taoiseach rejected this and insisted on the full extra budget.

It has also been claimed that the public is confused because there are so many different public bodies advertising and that a single unified identity is required to address this. Again, the documents released under freedom of information show a different picture. There is no evidence whatsoever of the public having such a concern and there is no evidence supporting the aggressive branding of stories with a new Government of Ireland identity. In fact, the research commissioned last December actually sought information on whether the public is confused and what is understood as representing the Government. That research has not been published, nor had it been produced before any campaign had started.

It has also been claimed this unit is required to provide public information. This is transparent nonsense because the unit only provides information on the political priorities of the Government. It only provides information which is positive and distances the Government from anything that is negative. This is why there is a situation where the Government of Ireland advertises an increase in the minimum wage, which was actually decided on by the Low Pay Commission established by the Oireachtas. However, the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment advertises a request that people pay their television licences.

The unit is also cherry-picking official statistics to promote. In the nine months since its establishment, the unit has never once drawn attention to a statistic, fact or action which suggests there are any problems in our country. Is that not staggering? Since the unit was established, homelessness is up by an astonishing 15%. Today, there are more than 3,200 homeless children. However, according to the Government, this is not something people want to know about.

A further claim for the unit is that it is really not that different from what everyone has been doing for years. We are supposed to believe we need a radical expansion and centralisation in staffing and funding to do more of the same. This is, of course, ridiculous. No one has attempted to direct all Government resources into a relentless attempt to brand and sell a political narrative. No one has ever tried to take an approach once limited to rare initiatives and embed it in daily ongoing activity, which this unit is doing.

It has been claimed that the unit is needed to move Ireland up the United Nations eGovernment rankings to the same level as the United Kingdom. It is claimed as part of this that a single branding and unified web portal are simply international best practice.

However, when one takes the time to check, the reality is very different. The United Nations e-government report shows the biggest difference between us and the United Kingdom is actually the availability of broadband. The Government's record on this issue is one of its signature failures. There is no independent evidence supporting the idea that the United Kingdom's approach is best practice or appropriate to a country of Ireland's size and its governance structures.

It has been claimed, of course, that there is no political agenda or inappropriate attempt to influence the media. As we have said many times before, we support the idea of the Government supporting a strong and independent indigenous media at both local and national level. What we strongly oppose, however, is the idea of it being politicised through linking it with promoting a political agenda and highly questionable procedures for allocating funding. Documents reveal that the head of the strategic communications unit has met the most senior personnel in the print and broadcast media. I accept that journalists have not been involved and influenced by these discussions. However, the fact is that privileged briefings have been given to some outlets and some non-Government individuals, but no such briefings have been made available to the Oireachtas. In fact, the Taoiseach's staff fought the release of information up to the level of the Information Commissioner. It is a point of extreme concern that the documents reveal in freedom of information requests that allocations for advertising Creative Ireland, a priority of the unit, were personally decided by a Minister.

On the Taoiseach's accusation that we have been slandering people, he is the one who has led this from the beginning. He is the one who has asked civil servants to promote political priorities with an unprecedented marketing campaign. He is the one who has failed to be open with the Dáil. He is the one who calculated falsely that the hope of an advertising windfall would stop the story from gaining traction in the media. He is the one who is happy to have the unit promote a launch in his constituency. If the Government simply wants to improve the communication of non-political information, why did it refuse to consult? Why did it refuse to first ask the public what it wanted to see advertised? Why did it withhold information from the Oireachtas? Why did it attack the reporting of individual journalists when they exposed the politicisation of paid advertising? Why did it establish a review which excluded any independent input?

The simple reality is that the Government does not respect the legitimate difference between political agendas and the public service agenda.

That is rubbish.

The strategic communications unit should never have been established in the way it was. It should now be disbanded. If the Government is confident in its argument, it should submit it to an independent review process. The motion will most likely pass with a strong majority of the House. The issue then for the Taoiseach will be whether he is willing to respect the will of Parliament or if he will carry on regardless. He can show some basic humility and acknowledge that the unit has been irredeemably compromised by the road on which he set it or he can try to tough it out. If he chooses the latter course, he must remember that the House still has significant powers through committees and through its deciding role in dealing with departmental Estimates. If he wants, he can end this controversy immediately by respecting the majority decision. If he is sincere in wanting to talk about substance rather than spin, he should close down his new marketing unit and devote the staffing and funding to tackling real issues. Alternatively, he can allow the controversy to drag on. It is his choice.

The media are an integral part of public life. The Fourth Estate plays a crucial role in Irish democratic life. At its best, it holds the institutions of the State and others to account in the interests of the people. The media hold up politicians to public scrutiny, while increasing transparency and strengthening democracy. They inform and educate citizens, providing an important platform for citizens to rally around causes. Quality journalism, the underpinner of democracy and the bedrock on which people are informed to make decisions for themselves, is being jeopardised by a significant downturn in revenues for news publishers, caused by several factors which include a decrease in print circulation and the print advertising spend and the increasing share of digital advertising revenues enjoyed by the major digital platforms. It is against this backdrop that the strategic communications unit was created. It was embedded into the heart of the Government's communications in an effort to exploit the situation in which the national media found themselves. One only has to look at the way which it has been used and abused. I take what the Minister for Finance said with a grain of salt. While it may have been the intention, the facts are very different. We saw how the recent storm was utilised by the strategic communications unit. One wonders why the Taoiseach needed to be flanked by an Army officer on one side and a garda on the other at press conferences?

That is nonsense.

Good communications save lives.

When the nation tuned into RTE, TV3 and other broadcast media, why did we have to listen to the Taoiseach first and, on some occasions, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, before we got to listen to Mr. Seán Hogan, head of the National Emergency Coordination Group?

It was because I was the Minister responsible. We had to make a big decision on closing the country in the common good.

With respect, if the Minister allows me to finish, I wanted to hear from Mr. Hogan, not from him or the Taoiseach.

The Deputy did hear from Mr. Hogan.

All the Minister and the Taoiseach were doing was regurgitating information which had been provided by the co-ordination group. The strategic communications unit was carrying out an exercise to promote the Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister. Who we really needed to hear from were the experts.

That is nonsense.

We have been told that the strategic communications unit has been involved in developing a campaign around the proposed national children's hospital and how it might be sold to the people. When the hospital is open, the children who will need access to it will get there through professional channels. The public does not need to be enlightened on a project way into the future. However, where the Government has been light is in campaigns dealing with climate change and to have people change their behaviour which can improve our requirements under various climate change objectives or in how we dispose of waste. We have had little by way of public information or advertising communications in that regard.

Up to 20% of the capital investment will be used to deal with climate change in the next ten years. However, the Deputy does not want to hear about it.

Where the spending of the money could have some benefit, the Government has failed. That is because it does not create an aura, an image or a gloss around Fine Gael as a political party. It might be of benefit to the environment or in meeting our requirements under climate change objectives, but the Government is not interested in doing that.

I am interested in tackling climate change.

The Government is only interested in presenting and pushing itself. We are supporting the motion for obvious reasons. The strategic communications unit is not focusing on changing behaviour but on attempting to change people's voting patterns.

It shows the Government's priorities that the Tánaiste used the word "virtue" when referring to the Government’s communications. We have yet to see the actual business case made, the facts and figures to show how the strategic communications unit will save money. So far, it has not and there is no indication that it ever will. Is it a virtue that instead of dealing with one of the biggest crises facing An Garda Síochána and the verifiability of its statistics for drink-driving and crime, that the Taoiseach wanted a communications campaign surrounding the role of the Garda? In that context atmosphere, a senior official in the Department of Justice and Equality felt free to suggest the communications campaign could align with Garda operations and be used to impinge on the independent authorities investigating the Garda. Is it a virtue that when record homelessness and housing waiting lists are published, no Minister is seen to take questions or deal with the actual issues on the ground? Is it a virtue that when we seek to table questions about the strategic communications unit, we must go to the Information Commissioner to have them answered? These are not communications. It is what it has been exposed as, namely, a political partisan project. It is a tribute to members of the mainstream media, Ms Ellen Coyne, Mr. Hugh O'Connell and Mr. Juno McEnroe, as well as regional journalists who fed through the information, despite the fear and threat about revenues and future advertising. At a time when mainstream media are under such pressure, the campaign is a tribute to those and other members who have fought the fight.

The reason we are here is to get information. To date, the Government has refused to give answers to the House. If it has confidence in its case, the Taoiseach, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Concannon should go before the Committee of Public Accounts to take the questions from any member. The reason we are debating this issue is the Government is running away from it in the hope it will go away. It may hope, but we will not let it go away.

The Tánaiste referred to cohesion, centralisation, cost-saving and the consolidation of websites. These are all admirable matters which do not cost €5 million. We are all for good communications, telling the truth, as well as portraying and giving the truth the complexion it deserves. Since its establishment, the strategic communications unit has used a new tagline, “A Government of Ireland Announcement”. The first announcement I heard was on the disability pension. It amounted to a dishonest abuse of taxpayers’ money to give the complexion of political ownership of the people's entitlements. It was wrong on every level.

I have nothing personal against the director of the strategic communications unit. In fact, I know him personally and all of his family as he comes from Sligo.

The only difference is this is not a business. This is not about creating a complexion of ownership of the people's entitlements, which this is doing in terms of creating a complexion of Fine Gael's and the Taoiseach's, Deputy Leo Varadkar's, ownership of what the people were getting and entitled to long before he was finished school, never mind at the dizzy heights of being flanked, as my colleague said, like the commander in chief - all that was missing was Camp David and Marine One outside the door. No, we do not need that; we need the truth.

The issue here is an abuse. It is putting a marketeer's branding on people's entitlements: "We own this - a Government of Ireland announcement". I was at the cinema with my girls on Sunday. My six year old saw the ad for Project Ireland 2040 and she thought it was a great cartoon and it was then followed by "Tomb Raider". Both were immensely entertaining but, sadly, equally far-fetched. "Tomb Raider" was made by a studio. That particular cartoon, with those lovely pine aircraft flying around Sligo, where we do not have an airport any more, thanks to you guys-----

That cost taxpayers' money. There is no level of morality associated with the "Leo the Vain" unit. This is €5 million of taxpayers' money. I will not even begin to list off the umpteen things Deputy Tony McLoughlin would like to do in Sligo with €5 million. Deputy Martin Kenny and I also have our list of things to do, as do all Deputies in the House. Deputy Micheál Martin and others have mentioned trolleys, mental health waiting lists and child waiting lists, but we are more interested in the image and the presentation. There is no doubt about it: John Concannon is the best in the business, except this is not a business. This is about being honest with the people and giving them a sense of ownership of the policy platform, not spinning lies to make them feel like the Government is endowing them with entitlements that they are getting whether Fine Gael is in power or not.

The Deputy should be careful with what he is saying. Nobody is spinning lies and the Deputy should not be naming people in association with that.

The sooner it abolishes this unit, the better.

The Deputy's time is up.

I will conclude on this point. With regard to the launch in Sligo, which the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, said I was not even at, let me tell him I was there. Deputies, former Tánaistí and so on were there, stuck at the back - we were sitting at tables - while Fine Gael's known and respected supporters were shown to their seats.

The Deputy should conclude.

We then had schoolchildren in from the local schools, which was fantastic, and they were given questions to ask. How do I know this? My niece was one of them. It was stage managed to a tee. This must end.

I wish to share time with Deputy Joan Burton.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

We are supporting this motion. By virtue of the fact we are supporting the Sinn Féin motion, and it would appear Fianna Fáil is also supporting it, one senses there is a trend towards the motion being successful. While I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the vote on Thursday, if it is the case that the Sinn Féin motion is successful, will the Government recognise the voice of this House in terms of what the motion seeks to do and will it act accordingly? We have noted a trend of late, when motions come before this House and the Government is defeated, that there is inaction and the voice of the House is not recognised. I want to restate that we are supporting the motion and we hope that, should it be successful, it will be respected.

The Tánaiste in his speech stated that the establishment of a strategic communications unit in the Department of the Taoiseach was to create a communications programme led by the Taoiseach under the auspices of the Global Irish Economic Forum. I believe he is taking the justification for the establishment of that so-called SCU out of context. That recommendation was made in 2011, when we were in the maelstrom of a global downturn and in a situation where 350,000 people had lost their jobs between 2008 and 2011. The context in which he is using that justification, I contend, is utterly out of context. I think there is a bit of fake news going on and a little bit of spin. He is justifying the establishment of an SCU based on a Global Irish Economic Forum, which many of us have attended, but that was at a time when we were quite literally on our knees economically. If it was the case that an SCU was to be established, that was with a view to messaging outwards and in a global context. It was not for the purpose of taking out two-page advertorials, with soft journalism quoting only from Fine Gael representatives in newspapers like The Corkman. It is disingenuous for the Tánaiste to come to the House and say that was the reasoning behind it.

We have yet to ascertain just how much was paid by the Government and, by extension, the taxpayer for these advertorials which only quoted from Fine Gael or Government representatives. They were pitched as hard news when, in fact, the only thing one could see that was a nod to the fact they were advertorials was that the pieces were headed, "Project Ireland 2040 - in partnership with Rialtas na hÉireann". It is a classic piece of propaganda. If we were told at the outset that this is what they were going to do, we might have understood the need to communicate. Every Government has the right to communicate and political communication is absolutely appropriate when one is in government. It is advisable that the work of the State and of the Government should be communicated to the people so they know what is happening on matters that pertain to their everyday lives. Nobody would argue against that premise. However, what we had here was a blatant and political use of taxpayers' funding to present a message in a way that was favourable to members of the Government down to the most local level. That is plain wrong.

We wish that, through this motion, should it be successful and if the will of this House is such that it seeks to abandon or abolish the strategic communications unit, the Government would adhere to the wishes of this House.

I was surprised to see the very well written story in the Irish Examiner this morning about the launch of the satellite wing of the children's hospital in Blanchardstown. I wondered when I attended that event why it was such a cloak and dagger event, with relatively few public representatives of other parties there, given that all of the parties in Dublin West have worked to see that development achieved. That is the way with most big public programmes like the children's hospital in that all of the parties in the House have supported them.

One could have knocked me down with a feather when I heard the name of it was going to be the Phoenix. I said to the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, who were there, that I did not think it was a particularly good name. I noted it had international associations, not to mention the Phoenix Park being just beside it. Be that as it may, it gained huge publicity that day, and for a number of days it was practically the lead story in almost all the broadcast media and the newspapers. Therefore, it did what a media obsessed Taoiseach wanted: it got him the coverage, even though a couple of weeks later the Minister, Deputy Harris, had to announce a clanger, namely, it really was not on to call it the Phoenix children's hospital. I suggested it should be called the Dr. Kathleen Lynn hospital and I am not sure if the Taoiseach is still chewing on that or if he has now agreed to call it after a really prominent woman of 1916.

There was another story this morning, perhaps more sinister, that a proposal to have a publicity campaign in regard to the Garda was to be wheeled out by the strategic communications unit or was being examined by it.

Does this now mean that when a wrongdoer is caught, the Taoiseach will front the press conference, rather than the Garda Commissioner or those gardaí who acted in the matter? As we have seen in recent weeks, the Taoiseach has an array of nice jackets in which to appear, depending on the weather. If it is bad, the jacket looks warm. When the sun shines, perhaps the Taoiseach might be more casual. It is a media image that seeks to make the business of government to be about one person, one party and one Government. In Greek mythology hubris is followed by nemesis. If the Taoiseach flies too close to the sun with publicity seeking kites, he should not be surprised if, down the road, people instinctively begin to reject them. They are not on what the people's money is meant to be spent. It is given in taxation to be spent properly on the essential goods and services they require.

We will support the motion and its idea of disbanding the strategic communications unit. It was ironic that, despite spending €5 million on slick PR and gathering the best and brightest minds in communications and social media, the Taoiseach revealed in a few minutes of hubris in Washington the reality of how the Government and the elite worked. Either the Government is not spending enough on the spin department or it should look for a refund from Mr. Concannon and company.

I also note that the review of the strategic communications unit set up by the Taoiseach and presided over by Mr. Martin Fraser is due to reveal its findings at the end of the week, but not many of us will be holding our breath for a review conducted by a top civil servant in the Department of the Taoiseach to find anything damning or critical of the Taoiseach's decisions or his spin unit. We do not believe the unit operates at arm's length from the Government or the Civil Service. As the Irish Examiner revealed today, it is woven into the heart of government. It has drafted parliamentary replies on behalf of the Government and promoted the PPS card in the event that it received critical public attention.

What I am puzzled by is the mock outrage in some quarters that the strategic communications unit is politicising the Civil Service. I am not referring to the ordinary rank and file civil servants with whom we deal in Leinster House on a daily basis, but does anyone believe the highest level of the Civil Service is not politicised and that, at the very top, permanent officials in the various Departments do not hold the same world view as the Tánaiste's party and Fianna Fáil, the two largest parties in the country, and that they do not hold the same commitment to the economic and social order and policies both parties advocate and advance? We certainly do not believe it. The idea that the top levels of the Civil Service are non-political and above party politics is farcical. Equally, the idea that the regional newspapers were not leaned on to present the national development plan in a certain light is also farcical. They were leaned on. It was an opportunity to present certain Fine Gael candidates in a good light.

No one is fooled by the review or the Taoiseach's protest that "Fianna Fáil did it in the past." I do not doubt that it did, but when one's defence is that Fianna Fáil did something, one is really in trouble. However, I agree with one thing that has been stated, namely, that this issue is distracting from the work of the Government. I would go further and say the national development plan and Project Ireland 2040 are also about distracting from the reality of the work in which this and previous Governments have failed us. I look forward to considering Project Ireland 2040 and its fantasy of a bright future, as I am sure many people do as they wait in the queue for health services and public transport, as they wait on gridlocked motorways in trying to travel to and from work and as those who are homeless and living in hotel accommodation wait for homes. It will, undoubtedly, comfort them that, at some point in the future, the Taoiseach and company have a great little country planned for them, one that will be built and financed by their friends in the private sector who build the homes for which we pay lucratively but never own and one that is guaranteed to make plenty of money for those who own private health companies or are private providers of public transport services.

None of the Government's plan will deliver the services that we need now or will need in 2040. The spin unit cannot spin that reality or spin away the reality of homelessness, full buses, crowded hospitals, etc. It will need much more than €5 million to fool all of the people all of the time.

This issue has inspired me to verse.

Here goes:

For Ministers it is not wise to get caught telling porky pies,

So now they fix you with a grin and package it all up with spin.

The Taoiseach built a spin machine. He tried to build it strong and lean,

Though when he took it for a spin, the spin backfired and did him in.

He thought he would spin without a care, but look at what happened to Tony Blair.

For spinners spin and get caught out, and lose the game without a doubt.

Whether we are discussing the spin of Tony Blair, President Donald Trump or the Taoiseach or the spin we see on our television screens in "House of Cards" or "The Thick of It", there is no doubt that the dark arts of media manipulation, deceit and spin are an important part of establishment politics. They are, first and foremost, to disguise the fact that politicians in the political establishment are serving the interests of the 1%, not those of the majority.

Sometimes it is not easy to spin when one is in a tight corner. Many must be scratching their heads and asking what is the point of a €5 million strategic communications unit in the light of what happened in Washington in recent days. Many years ago someone in Hollywood made a movie called "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Let us hope someone never makes a movie called "Mr. Varadkar Goes to Washington". Would it be a horror movie, a comedy, a farce or a tragedy? The Taoiseach stated he would speak truth to power and challenge racism and sexism. Instead, he acted like a toady and told lame jokes about the Irish planning system.

Everyone knows that there is spin to protect the interests of the powerful, but what is often not commented on as much is the way in which it is used to work against the interests of the powerless. The way in which the Government has communicated publicly on the issue of homelessness is a classic example of such spin. On 11 November the Taoiseach stated Ireland had one of the lowest levels of homelessness internationally. Two days later the head of the Housing Agency stated homelessness was normal, that it happened. The following day a senior official in the Dublin Region Homeless Executive stated it took years of bad behaviour to become homeless. The day after that the Minister of State, Deputy Damien English, claimed that it was damaging to Ireland's international reputation when referring to criticism of the homelessness statistics. On 27 February information was released through the media that the number of people who were homeless had reached record levels and exceeded 9,000 for the first time. Is it any coincidence that the figure was released the afternoon before the beast from the east met Storm Emma and covered the country in snow? It was a Blairite spinner, Ms Jo Moore, who said the day of the collapse of the Twin Towers was a good one on which to bury bad news. With the €5 million spent on the strategic communications unit one could employ 1,000 nurses or teachers.

I will conclude with the words of a fomer American President: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." We will support the motion.

I am happy to speak to the motion which I will support. From the day the so-called strategic communications unit was announced, I have called for its abolition. The sheer arrogance of the Government to treat itself to a €5 million strategic communications unit on budget day last October was appalling. The same budget failed to make any real change in dealing with the ongoing housing and homelessness crises.

The same budget failed to address and make any real change to HSE waiting lists or the trolley crisis. It was €5 million that would not have totally fixed it but would have gone a very long way to improving the ongoing issues that face ordinary Irish people. The use of public funds to pay for party political promotions and general Fine Gael spin is totally unacceptable. I would like to see the finances scrutinised by the Committee of Public Accounts. The Government's ability to pay independent, local and small scale news providers to publish advertisements but have them appear as articles is truly scary. It is a manipulation of the Ireland 2040 plan. It is totally unethical. It is not the fault of the small businesses which accepted such demands. The blame should be put on the Government, which pressured them into doing it. The Government's promotion of its own party colleagues and candidates in regional newspapers was total exploitation and an absolute abuse of power. It is important to acknowledge and commend the journalists who worked to uncover such despicable behaviour. Their promise that the spin unit would be a totally independent, trustworthy and ethical working group has proven to be a lie. It is yet another reason why the ordinary people, who are paying for this propaganda in taxes, are furious with the Government. There are many areas that would have benefitted hugely from a more strategic plan. The €5 million funds could have been put into health, housing, carer's benefit, home help, education, rural roads or reducing small business rates. The list is endless. I hope the Minister and his Government can understand the frustration of the Opposition with the constant spin by the Government. Its obsession with looking popular and relating to the ordinary people is not fooling anyone. There is no justification for the continuation of the Fine Gael spin machine and for those reasons I wholly support today's motion. As I said earlier, the Government went to a new low with the spin around the 2040 plan. I looked through it and no matter how much spin and how much money is spent on spin, there was not one thing for Cork South-West in that plan. If only the €5 million was given to filling potholes in west Cork, it would have done some good for the people of this country.

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk on this motion. It is not fair especially to smaller parties and Independents. It is a blatant attempt by the Government's party to boost its chances of retaining power and increasing power at the next election. The spin in the 2040 document and the announcement in Sligo at which the Government had all its candidates from the neighbouring constituencies out front was a blatant attempt to drive other small parties and Independents into the ground. Shame on the Government for trying that stunt. In the long term, it will hurt the Government. Perhaps it is too blind to see that at present. I will remind the Minister what was written in that 2040 plan, which there was so much talk about, in very small writing. It said planning in rural areas will be allowed if it does not distract from larger towns and cities. That is what the Government proposes to do in the plan. It needs to be highlighted for the people out there in rural places who always built and paid for their own houses. That is in the 2040 plan. There is a lot of talk and spin here about reports and strategies to build houses for people. These people wanted nothing but planning to be allowed to build the houses for themselves. They will not be allowed to do that. Before the Government gets away with it, there will be many other battles here, there and everywhere because it is people's democratic right to build a house for themselves. The €5 million for the spin machine would help to provide more beds for people in places like Kerry General Hospital where there are 30 or 40 people on trolleys every day even at this time of year. They are the things we need to address. The 2040 plan left a whole lot of rural Ireland out, including rural parts of Kerry. There was no mention of any town or village in it. I am very sorry but the truth is the truth and that is what I have to tell the Government.

I am happy to speak on the motion. As far as I am concerned it is high time the Taoiseach's spin factory was consigned to history. The Taoiseach comes into the Chamber and tries to persuade us that black is white and white is black. It is not a spin unit. He tells us it is all about informing the people, but he is sadly wrong. We have an educated electorate that can see what is going on; it can see it a mile away. Let us be blunt about it. This is just a piece of equipment for Saint Leo to use at his discretion. It has one function, which is to get Fine Gael back into government. I said before the last election that they were waiting in the long grass and they are. They are waiting in the long grass. It is spin and more spin. The only one I can compliment is Oliver Callan on the great job he does. It is a farce; it is utter nonsense. There are many projects that need to be given a few bob here and there. We have people today from all over Ireland asking about the Tús schemes and the rural social schemes. Small money in each community would be wonderful but instead there is €5 million for this and that and €50 million for the other and nothing for ordinary people. My two colleagues are bussing people up to Belfast on nearly a weekly basis to get cataracts, knees and hips done. I have a few going up myself. They cannot be done by the HSE here. There is a wonderful local institution in Clogheen in south Tipperary, St. Theresa's Hospital. It is affectionately known as that. The community raised €500,000 over five or six years and the HSE cannot put another €400,000 with it to complete another hospice room and to do the work that HIQA wants. We want to keep that hospital. It is a fabulous step-down facility and many people have recovered. There are many other issues. We met people up there with the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, when he was Minister. I call them the little people, na daoine beaga. They were looking for their treatment but it could not be afforded. The drugs companies were blamed. Where is the Government's moral compass? Is it sitting or standing on it? It is one or the other but it is not in the Government's mind or vision. It has lost it completely. We sent him off out to America and he was an embarrassment. I have no problem with him ringing anybody about planning if we want foreign investment in our country. That is fine. I have a problem with the story he made up. Dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi go raibh fear i gContae an Chláir ag lorg cead pleanála. He did not know what he was saying because he said so much and then he apologised. He cannot be left alone. The Government thought when it got rid of Deputy Enda Kenny that it was safe, that it was in a safe pair of hands. He cannot be let off without his spin machine. He is like a spinning top we had when we were young, on top of the desk at school. It spun off it, spun onto the floor and we were called up to the top of the classroom by the múinteoir for being a buachaill dána. That is what it is like now. The Government keeps using it but it will spin it into oblivion. The Government deserves to be no place else.

I fully appreciate and understand the need for political parties and politicians to communicate effectively with the public. Political communication is an important part of the functioning of democracy and is correctly prioritised by many of us working in politics. That should not be questioned. However, there should be a significant difference between what constitutes political communication and propaganda. This is particularly important for the governing party. A balance must be struck between self-promotion and party advertising and a Government's role providing responsible and accurate information to citizens.

I should have said that I am sharing time with Deputy Ryan.

The balance has been tilted and in doing so, irreparable damage has been done and continues to be done to citizens' trust in the political process in this country. The general sense of spin replacing substance has been amplified and most people one talks to will take some of the Government campaigns with a pinch of salt so it is defeating the purpose and undermining politics. Many people felt rightly aggrieved that they had read things in their local papers and assumed they were reading a local news story only to find out, thanks to the work of Ellen Coyne in The Times, Ireland edition, that they were subject to advertisements dressed up as news. This sort of underhand falsification of politics does nothing but further entrench the belief that the political system is not to be trusted. The way in which the Civil Service has effectively been politicised through the strategic communication unit is yet another serious blow to the trust placed in political and public institutions. When a senior civil servant in the Department of the Taoiseach raises concerns about political impartiality in the strategic communications unit, then surely it should be enough to force a change. Instead there continues to be a blurring of the lines between the Civil Service and the governing party and this fundamentally impacts on the basis of democracy.

There is stage-managed spin, designed to hide the shocking homelessness statistics, and there have been revelations about the unit's agenda to generate good news at regional level. Ironically, it has even ignored some things from the national development plan. For example, the DART underground is missing completely but we only have to look at this city to see that the surface capacity cannot deal with it. Such things have been left behind in the rush to regional good news. I wholeheartedly support a call for senior officials within the strategic communications unit to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts and I actually sought this. The official who made the business case to the Accounting Officer in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is required to appear in front of us to explain the budgeting process and I hope it will happen quite quickly.

Notwithstanding all the budgetary, ethical and political considerations, when assessing whether the strategic communications unit should be scrapped I suggest the Taoiseach takes a look at the number of high-profile gaffes by himself, and senior Ministers lately, and asks himself if he is getting value for money. We will support this motion and it should be respected when the vote is called on Thursday.

This afternoon I had the great honour of meeting a colleague of mine, Christine Milne, the former head of the Australian Greens and a Senator in the Australian upper house for many years, who is in the Gallery. We considered the role of the Civil Service and she said Australia, which is a very similar country to ours in a range of areas, had made a big mistake in recent years by replacing the independent civil service with a contracted civil service, particularly at senior management level, whose members could be fired if they did not deliver on the objectives of the government of the day. She believes that doing so undermined the strength of the civil service because an independent civil service can argue against government. Civil servants here do a superb job in managing the Oireachtas and sometimes we have different views, leading sometimes to a tension. When I was first appointed as a Minister, the Secretary General of the Department gave me the full box set of "Yes, Minister" to teach me how the tension worked.

We do not need to keep the service ossified as it was in 1915 but there is a concern that we have had too many generalists in the Civil Service and now need specialised services. There is a case for a specialised communications capability and for efficiencies in how it works and is developed but there is real concern that what Fine Gael is doing goes beyond getting a more effective Civil Service. Rather than being about efficiency and developing specialisation, it blurs the lines between Government and the Civil Service and, indeed, between the State and Fine Gael. Maybe Fine Gael has a tendency to do this because it was one of the parties around at the foundation of the State and sees the institutions of the State as an extension of itself but in this House it is a party like any other. It is not guaranteed continued power and if its members were in opposition, I am sure that if Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil or any other party set up a communications unit to promote the Government, they would be shouting "Foul". They would say it blurred the line as regards one of our strengths, which is a Civil Service that is independent in every way. We have seen the effects of this in the way Project Ireland 2040 was developed. The unit may bring certain efficiencies but there are questions about how the local newspaper advertorials were done.

There was criticism recently of the communications relating to the Taoiseach's visit to the United States, and not just relating to the political aspect of his visit. Perhaps there was something in the old-fashioned Civil Service way, where they did not blow their trumpet as if they were involved in marketing, PR and branding and perhaps it is no harm to have a slightly more cautious Civil Service, which is understated and uses language that is not as brash. Some of the videos we saw from the US trip, such as the "Ireland, Here We Live" video, set the wrong tone, one of overconfidence and over-reaching itself. For that reason alone, the Government should reconsider and step back a bit.

The functioning of the relationship between politicians and civil servants is extremely important for a healthy and transparent democracy and each has a separate role in the formulation and delivery of policy. The separateness of functions is critical and it is not the responsibility of a civil servant to be a partisan arm of a political party in Government. Today, the Irish Examiner reports that the strategic communications unit has been involved in training civil servants, inputting directly into departmental management board meetings and drawing in senior officials for the communications strategy. If this is true it would mark a serious blurring of the lines between the political elements of Government and civil servants. It would mark the wholesale subversion of what should be a healthy Government function.

The Government's political record should be the fuel of its political campaigning but civil servants should not be. The drafting of parliamentary answers by the SCU subverts the purpose of parliamentary questions. The purpose of parliamentary questions is to shed light on, and add transparency to, the functioning of Government. How does spin help that? Civil servants are entitled to career progression training for their own development and for the development of the State but now there is a serious concern that the strategic communications unit has been training qualified civil servants in the delivery of the Fine Gael political message. If this is true it would be the corruption of the independence of the Civil Service.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, stated at the launch of the SCU that a democracy is only as strong as the relationship of trust between Government and citizens. I agree with that but can anybody say that this whole sorry mess has increased the trust of citizens? The purpose of the strategic communications unit is to get the Government message out there but the strategic communications unit is the news cycle at the moment. How is the Government getting its message out there? By any measure, this is a failure. The political karma of Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, getting tripped up by his own €5 million spin factory is lost on no one.

Like many other Deputies in this Chamber, I am very concerned by the use of millions of euro of taxpayers' money to fund what appears to be little more than a Fine Gael propaganda department. In October, the Taoiseach promised that this unit would not be involved in promoting political parties or in producing political adverts. That was clearly fake news. A month later the Taoiseach pledged to create a republic of opportunity but I think what he meant by that was a republic of photo opportunities, for himself and his party’s candidates.

Some of the paid-for adverts for the Project Ireland 2040 plan were designed to look like regular news stories which included pictures of Fine Gael general election candidates. It was a blatant attempt to get certain candidates’ faces into photos and to get the public to associate a vote for that person with the completion of new infrastructure or new public transport services.

It was parish pump politics at its worst. Not only that, it was a sly and underhanded approach aimed at deceiving the general public.

It is time for the Taoiseach's personal spin unit to be closed down. Public money should not be spent on promoting Fine Gael and its candidates. The use of this money should also be scrutinised by the Committee of Public Accounts as soon as possible.

I welcome this motion. I heard the defence by the Tánaiste earlier on. I think he is either confused or deliberately missing the point. Communications, political or otherwise, must not be about confusion, contradiction or concealment. They must be about clarity and facts. Leo's good news department was not created for clarity and truth but for confusion. We now have this unit at a cost of €5 million to the taxpayer which is basically being used as a Fine Gael propaganda machine to hoodwink taxpayers using their own money. This unit is about filtering the Taoiseach's party's true politics and its lack of achievement in housing, workers' rights, health, climate change and so on. There are basic strands to a democratic open state. One is that the State puts across the truth of its actions and that they can be openly debated. This Government unit has spent more than €182,000 of the €5 million allocated to it to distort that. I have seen huge two-page spreads in the local media in County Laois on the national planning framework where old news is passed off as "new happy stories" from Leo's good news department. The crux of the matter was that there was no advertising and advertorial label. There is nothing wrong with a Government communicating its message and communicating it effectively but it must do so in such a way that the public knows what it is. I checked the spreads many times and found no advertorial or advertising label on them. The content was passed off as reportage, which was the problem with it.

If we look at what was announced in it, we can see an announcement about the completion of the Portlaoise orbital route, which was announced by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport months ago. All local Deputies, including the Deputy from Fine Gael, welcomed this. In addition, there was information about the new psychiatric unit and the new court house, both of which have been doing the rounds for many years at this point. There was no need to spend taxpayers' money telling people what was already announced. This was clearly an attempt by the Taoiseach and Fine Gael to promote themselves with taxpayers' money. This unit is on a dangerous path. It must be disbanded and we must stop spending taxpayers' money on the Taoiseach's vanity projects. We can see that the unit is the Taoiseach's vanity project. He set it up when he came into office. Members of Fine Gael need to look closely at this. It should be disbanded.

I listened with interest to the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform and his characterisation of my party as being somehow opposed to good news. Of course, the truth is that if there was any good news on housing, health or even some of the infrastructure projects, we would welcome it, as we have done. We have been consistently constructive in our approach. However, we will not join in the back-slapping festival that seems to be heralded by the Government and we will not be silent when taxpayers' money is used to somehow promote the narrow political interests of one party. That is not acceptable. I commend Deputy Pearse Doherty for bringing forward this motion.

I also want to say a word of thanks to journalists like Ellen Coyne and Hugh O'Connell who have been derided by An Taoiseach and others in Fine Gael for simply doing their job. Their job is not to promote the Government or to continually high five the establishment parties. Their job is to critically report the news and this is what they do and do well. They should be commended in this instance for what they have done in highlighting this issue.

Either directly or indirectly, the strategic communications unit sought to encourage and sponsor the dissemination of uncritical subjective opinion pieces as objective news, which they clearly were not. The Government knows that there is a problem. It has advised that there will be a review. There would not be a review if there was not an acknowledgement on that side of the House that there is a problem. We see reports in the media today that the review is likely to find that the strategic communications unit is doing a good job. I think Jack Horgan-Jones of The Sunday Business Post said this was like a student who sets and supervises their own examination announcing that they are confident of getting a high grade. There is not much faith on this side of the House in the review. We have called for the strategic communications unit to be disbanded. I do not want to pre-empt the result of the vote but in all likelihood, it will be supported by the House. The question we ask is this: will the Government support the will of the House and if this motion is passed, will it acknowledge that the strategic communications unit should be disbanded?

I oppose the motion. I welcome this opportunity to put some facts on the record for those interested in them. The establishment of the strategic communications unit, SCU, as a Civil Service unit in my Department was approved by Cabinet in September. A budget of €5 million from within my Department's existing envelope was allocated in October and a work programme was agreed by Cabinet in December. This was all done transparently. Approximately €170 million is spent per year on communications and public relations by Government agencies, Departments and public bodies comprising about 700 staff and many hundreds of external contracts. Often this is very well done but not always. Sometimes it is fragmented, there is duplication, it is expensive or it is unclear whether or not it is a Government-supported or Government-funded campaign. There are too many silos, too many cooks and too many empires and there is a compelling case for reform.

The remit of the 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 directly so they can be aware of Government services and policies and the actions Government is taking on their behalf. The SCU's output comprises three work streams: streamlining communications to the citizen, including the roll-out of a single unified Government of Ireland identity, which is well advanced alongside the gov.ie website; running cross-Government and cross-Department information campaigns such as the back to school, Healthy Ireland, self-employment and Project Ireland 2040 campaigns, which are ongoing; and implementing a capacity-building professional development programme for officials working in communications across the Civil Service. Contrary to some recent reports, upskilling and training civil servants is part of the stated remit and is no revelation. It is one of a number of Civil Service units that provide training for other civil servants in specialised areas. This type of cross-governmental collaboration is common sense and is increasingly the norm across Europe. The public is not best served by having Government communications hived off to different silos, having multiple confusing brands and having communication activities carried out by those without the training or experience to do it. I very much believe in joined-up Government and part of my job as Taoiseach and head of Government, and that of my Department as Department of the Taoiseach, is to put joined-up Government into effect. This applies to policy, implementation and communications among other things. Communication is, always has been and should be part of the work of Government just as it is for any large organisation. It should also be effective, modern and professional. The long-term benefit to the public service of the unit will be particularly evident from the capacity-building element of its work. I believe it will deliver financial savings to the taxpayer.

I would like to take this opportunity to bust some myths. First of all, the SCU does not run any of my Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts. It does not record or promote my weekly video or decide what I wear. It has minimal input into my speeches, press releases and preparation for interviews. These are all done by me with the help of my political staff. My communication style is different. It is more direct, more personal, more present and more modern. Some people do not like it. I accept that. Other people do like it and I accept that too. Some would prefer a more traditional model. Either way, it is who I am and it is not going to change - SCU or no SCU.

As Deputies are well aware, with regard to concerns about advertorials for Project Ireland 2040, specific instruction was issued to the media buyer by the SCU that all content should be identified as being "in partnership with the Government of Ireland" or "in association with the Government of Ireland".

It is disappointing and disingenuous, if not inaccurate, that some have conflated instructions related to the Creative Ireland campaign with Project Ireland 2040. As Deputies should know, Creative Ireland predates the existence of the SCU. While some of the players were the same, it is conjecture to say that the instruction was the same when it seems it was not.

The SCU supplied each media unit with facts about Project Ireland 2040. However, the decision on editorial style was left to each media organisation. This explains why there was such a wide variation in the presentation and content from one newspaper to the next. The SCU had no input in selecting or contacting any external or third persons for interview. No political spokespeople, Government Senators or backbenchers were recommended for interview in any of the partnerships with regional media organisations. Any suggestions to the contrary are purely in the realm of conspiracy theory and have not been supported by any evidence to date.

Decisions about what organisations and individuals would be asked for comment were again left to each media organisation. The SCU did not sign off on final copy. However, given the reasonable concerns that have been raised, I previously informed the House that in future any sponsored or paid-for feature article should continue to be clearly identifiable. This is best done by including the Government of Ireland logo and such features should also state that the copy is advertorial, advertisement, sponsored or special feature. If media partnerships or agencies are used in future, final editorial control or sign-off must be by the Department or the SCU. Anyone interviewed for an advertorial or an infomercial should be informed of the purpose and their permission sought. Politicians and public representatives should not feature in any paid-for content by Government other than relevant officeholders, that is, Ministers. The SCU is part of a Department and is therefore staffed by civil servants. Like any other unit or section, it prepares replies to parliamentary questions on its role and functions. This is the norm. This is standard practice. It is not a revelation.

The suggestion that officials or staff in the Tánaiste's office should prepare replies to queries about the SCU is barmy. It is akin to suggesting that staff in my office would prepare, unaided, speaking notes on the office of patient safety in the Department of Health or on the building unit in the Department of Education and Skills. That is simply not how it works.

Regarding constituency functions, the sod turning for the satellite centre for the new national children's hospital was, of course, a national event even though it was in my constituency. In any case it is actually part of the normal functions of the Civil Service to support attendance of Ministers and the Taoiseach of the day at any public event, provided it is not a party political function. This is part of the daily work of civil servants in the diary office, the press office, the protocol section if there is one and the private office of every Department. It has been the standard practice for decades, if not since the foundation of the State. Neither crosses or blurs any lines. That would only be the case if the event was a party political event or a purely personal one.

As the SCU is part of the Civil Service, it, of course, provides input into the Department's management board, as all Civil Service offices do through their relevant assistant secretary or Secretary General. That is where decisions in Departments are made and signed off.

A review of the strategic communications unit is under way. It is being carried out by the Secretary General to the Government. No limitations have been placed on what the review can or cannot propose. The review will be completed before the end of March. That is the right and proper way to examine such issues. I do not believe it is proper for the Dáil to seek to redesign the internal structure of a Department. That, I believe, is blurring the lines between politics and the Civil Service, as is the suggestion from the main Opposition party that politicians should adjudicate on what is released under freedom of information rather than officials as is currently the case. Those two stances are somewhat hypocritical.

The behaviour of Opposition Members on this matter does not reflect well either on their sincerity or their standards. Mud is slung simply in the hope that some of it will stick. Decent hard-working civil servants and public servants have had their probity questioned. They have even been accused of corruption and involvement in party politics-----

That is completely untrue. The Taoiseach is putting them into that position.

-----even though there is no evidence to support that. Allegations are thrown around in a "make them deny it" sense. Conspiracy theories are put about because, of course, conspiracy theories require no proof. Innuendo is passed off as analysis or even fact. The Government was compared to Nazis by the deputy leader of the Labour Party and yet no sanctions or dissociation from his party or his leader have come, even though that leader demands the highest standards from others almost every day.

Why is this happening? Why does the Opposition have a relentless focus on public relations and communications? The reason is quite simple. Opposition Members do not want to talk about issues of substance. They do not want to talk about Project Ireland 2040 because they know it is a good piece of work and a good plan. They do not want to talk about budget 2018 because they know they would not reverse it. They do not want to talk about the welfare and pension increases coming into effect next week, which will benefit almost 2 million people. They do not want to talk about Brexit. They do not want to talk about the public sector pay deal. They do not want to talk about the most important work the Dáil did the week before last, which is the legislation on the abortion referendum and the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I could go on but I think it is obvious the Opposition has no substance, has few alternative policies and even fewer solutions. As there is no alternative to this Government, they just go on the attack instead.

That is an alternative theory

We all acknowledge that the strategic communications unit has been a disaster from day one and the Government will eventually be forced to acknowledge it - the sooner the better. A communications unit is supposed to make news, it is not supposed to be the news. Initially we were told the unit would not cost the State a cent. Those were the Taoiseach's words. Subsequently, we discovered that it would cost in the region of €5 million annually. For that €5 million taxpayers have witnessed a series of blunders. Chief among those blunders was the Project Ireland 2040 launch where the communications unit thought it would be appropriate to use taxpayers' money to build profiles for Fine Gael candidates. We know the Taoiseach is all about self-promotion and publicity stunts. There is no real substance to his leadership. It is all spin. We also know that this spin unit was the Taoiseach's creation, his baby. However, he cannot even get his spin right.

If the Government were doing its job properly, it would not be necessary to have such an over-the-top spin propaganda operation that costs the taxpayer €5 million a year to get its message across. The delivery of its work would speak for itself. The media would not have to be paid to cover it. However, this is what happens when the Taoiseach gives jobs to his friends as he has done with the head of the strategic communications unit, Mr. John Concannon. As Sinn Féin spokesperson for tourism, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Mr. Concannon was director of market development at Fáilte Ireland at the time that the Taoiseach-----

It is not appropriate to mention names of those who are not in the House. The Deputy can refer to them in another way.

This particular person was director of market development at Fáilte Ireland at the time the Taoiseach, as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, took it upon himself to lobby on foot of a phone call from Donald Trump. Is the Taoiseach 100% sure that he did not ring Clare County Council? Can he state that categorically? We have two different views and both of them are the Taoiseach's. Was his humorous anecdote simply him telling lies or did he know he had an ally in his friend, the director of market development at Fáilte Ireland? Did he know that was an ally? Did he take comfort in the fact that he had an ally in that friend? If he changed his story, was the Taoiseach comfortable that if he changed his story from lobbying the council to lobbying Fáilte Ireland he would have a certain level of protection? Was that his reason for doing it? Was it that friend of the Taoiseach's who advised him to change the story for that very reason? Which was it? He has yet to answer those questions. I think it is time - everyone knows this - for the Taoiseach to disband his spin unit. It has been an abysmal failure. It is fooling nobody. He should do it before he is shamed into it.

The Tánaiste said in the House today that the strategic communications unit was set up to communicate with the electorate. Instead it has turned out to be a Fine Gael propaganda unit. We should call it the "huff and puff and do nothing" unit at a cost of €5 million to the taxpayer.

This certainly was a mistake. They say that a bad law is an unjust law. The strategic communications unit, SCU, is unjust. The €5 million cost of the SCU could go a long way towards providing extra special needs assistants, SNAs. It could help in the areas of health or housing. It could be used to assist people with special needs and the elderly. It could help provide for a special wheelchair for a three-year-old child in east Cork, which another Deputy mentioned recently. I sourced two wheelchairs for constituents last week. That says a lot about how bad this country is. We need a reality check on this. The €5 million could fund aspects of mental health care. It could help to pay our Garda and members of the Defence Forces. It could help fill potholes in east Cork. Money can be spent in much better ways, but this Government prefers political spin over investing in the very people it is supposed to represent. The money could be spent on redress for the survivors of the mother and baby homes.

The SCU is a mistake. It must be disbanded. We must use taxpayers' money wisely and invest it to assist people and not spend it on political spin. I urge the House to support the Sinn Féin motion.

I would like to respond briefly to some of the arguments put forward by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, in defence of the SCU. We are told that the purpose of the unit is to streamline Government communications, to co-ordinate, train and promote best practice. How much of the time of the 14 members of this unit is dedicated to that? How much of the €5 million budget is dedicated to those specific tasks? The only bit of work reported in the public domain which relates to that part of the function, which the Taoiseach says is integral, is an audit of the unit which is very light in terms of actual recommendations on how to co-ordinate, streamline, train or share best practice. I do not believe for a second that is its primary function. I am not even sure that it will do that at all.

The Tánaiste told us earlier that the SCU also helps to attract private sector finance for Project Ireland 2040, as if somehow advertisements in The Corkman or in local cinemas will influence decision-makers in the private sector. That is probably the most spurious argument I have heard to date.

We were also told earlier that somehow the €1.5 million investment in Project Ireland 2040 is comparable to informing people about benefits for the self-employed or back to education supports. Those two campaigns were telling people about things they could access today. If one looks at the detail of Project Ireland 2040 it does nothing of the kind.

Probably the most spurious argument made by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and again by the Taoiseach, is the idea that we do not want to talk about the real issues. We talk about the real issues every single day. We present alternative proposals to the Government, which it ignores. The only relentless negativity is the negative impact bad Government policies are having on people's lives. I have heard nothing from the Government to support this unit and it should be disbanded immediately.

I thank all the Deputies who spoke in favour of this motion. All political parties, with the exception of Fine Gael and the Independent Alliance, have supported the motion and I believe that speaks volumes. The Taoiseach indicated that he is likely just to disregard the democratic will of the Dáil, and that also speaks volumes. I want to extend my appreciation on behalf of my party to everybody who has recognised that the SCU was an error made by Fine Gael. The spin is continuing.

A number of claims were made by the Taoiseach. He said that it was cost-neutral. We now know it cost €5 million. He said that it would be at arm's length from the Taoiseach's office, yet from freedom of information requests which have now been published by Hugh O'Connell and others we now know that the Taoiseach was involved in the establishment of the SCU and suggested the type of campaigns that it would operate. He said it would be at arm's length from Government Ministers, yet we now know that answers to direct questions to Ministers are being drafted word for word - with the exception of one word - by the SCU. The Taoiseach, in response to previous questions, claimed that the SCU was a recommendation of the Global Irish Civic Forum in 2011, and the Tánaiste repeated that claim today. That is not true. The one year update of the Global Irish Civic Forum is online: the Government should read. It originally recommended the establishment of a strategic international communications unit in the Department of the Taoiseach. The update, one year later, says that the unit has been established to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the reputation and business efforts across Departments and agencies to develop a message about Ireland for international audiences. That is very clear, but that claim is still made by the Government.

From freedom of information requests it is very clear that the Taoiseach was involved in instructing and directing the SCU. Indeed, in one email he says:

This is good. Notified Cabinet last Thursday. I think key campaigns coming up should also include the new childcare subsidy. Again, should be a thing that Government is doing for you, not the Department of Children and Youth [Affairs].

The Taoiseach's email address is blanked out in that email. Why was that done? Government email addresses are always published. Why is it redacted in that email? The email that was sent to the Taoiseach - I am assuming, because it is the same length - does not feature the Taoiseach's name. A blanked out email address has been CC'd. Is that a private email?

Did the strategic communications unit, and indeed senior civil servants in the Department of the Taoiseach, communicate privately with the Taoiseach on the establishment of this unit? Was the direction given to them relating to the childcare campaign sent from the Taoiseach's private email? Is that how business is operating here? I would like clarification on these issues, to put our minds at rest and to confirm that he is not avoiding public scrutiny of the Taoiseach's little vanity project, his spin project, and that this is all being conducted in a transparent way. It is about communication, after all.

Question put.

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 22 March 2018.

Top
Share