Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I rise to 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 and it is unclear as it whether or not it is a Government-supported or funded campaign. There are too many silos, too many cooks and too many empires and there is a compelling case for reform in my view.

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.iewebsite; running cross-government and cross-Department information campaigns such as the back to school, Healthy Ireland and the self-employed campaigns and Project Ireland 2040, which is 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. This 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, or 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-----

See this speech in context