asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the reported breakdown of relations between him and some of his most senior staff, the reasons he decided to depart from the accepted norms in regard to the promotion of staff, the measures, if any, he intends to take to repair relations with staff and undo the damage to morale; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Departmental Staff.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason established procedures for the appointment of diplomats and senior civil servants at the Department of Foreign Affairs have been departed from; and the reason his Departmental Secretary General has had to write to him to seek a meeting to discuss the matter.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to explain the circumstances which led to him giving written directions for the promotion of three officials of his Department which are the subject of current public controversy; whether those appointments were made in breach of long established procedures and were contrary to the recommendations of his Department's management advisory committee; if so, the reasons for acting contrary to official advice; whether he is on normal speaking terms with the Secretary General of his Department; the proposals, if any, he has for the improvement of staff morale within his Department to repair any damage to its ability to effectively represent the international interest of the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he agrees that the impasse that has developed within his Department arising from the apparent breakdown in relationships and communications between himself and his senior civil servants should never have been allowed to develop and the fact that it has reflects badly on the level of diplomatic skills that he has brought to bear on the management of his Department.
I propose to take the Private Notice Questions of Deputies de Rossa, Mitchell, Spring and Sargent together. I welcome this opportunity to explain to the House the background to some of the issues that appeared in the media yesterday and today in relation to my Department and to me.
The last year has been one of great achievement in which the hard working and dedicated officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs played a central role, and I am extremely happy with the progress that has been made since coming into Government. I will mention a few of the areas in which they have been involved. Without their work there would not have been a British-Irish Agreement. A few months ago Ireland joined seven other countries to bring forward an initiative within the framework of nuclear disarmament. The ideas for that initiative emerged from within my Department. My officials have also been intimately involved in the crucially important Agenda 2000 and EU enlargement negotiations.
Last week I visited New York and Washington. In New York I spoke to the United Nations General Assembly and also had 25 meetings with individual Foreign Ministers, either by direct invitation or on the margin. Among other things I was pursuing the Government's desire to win a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. In Washington I briefed the President's senior policy adviser on Northern Ireland on the latest developments in the peace process. These are but a few of many examples of how my Department and I were able to represent very effectively Ireland's international interest during the past year, which has been generously acknowledged.
This contradicts the assertions that there is a breakdown of relations between me and some of my most senior staff. There have been strains between the Secretary General and me. Such strains can occur in any relationship. I assure the House that I have very good relations with all the other senior staff in my Department and I am in constant contact with the heads of the various divisions including Anglo Irish, economic, political, administration, development co-operation and so on across the broad spectrum of the organisational framework of the Department.
In relation to the matters that have been raised, I will clarify the issues. There are two issues involved: ambassadorial appointments and promotions within the Department. Ambassadorial appointments are decided by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is advised by the Secretary General. Nothing has changed in this respect and all of the recent appointments were made on this basis.
Regarding promotions, up to the coming into effect of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, a Minister had ultimate responsibility for all promotions in his Department. The Public Service Management Act redefined the respective role of a Minister and a Secretary General in each Department. The Secretary General now has exclusive responsibility for promotions to a certain level — assistant principal. In exercising his powers under the Act a Minister may give written instructions in respect of other promotions.
During this year the Secretary General recommended to me the promotion of six persons to counsellor and three persons to assistant secretary. I accepted all six recommendations on promotion to counsellor, and I also directed that two other first secretaries be promoted to counsellor. I accepted two of the three recommendations on promotion to assistant secretary and directed that another counsellor be promoted to assistant secretary.
I emphasise to the House that these promotions were all decided by me in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, following recommendations made by the Secretary General. In the Department of Foreign Affairs the custom is that these recommendations follow from discussions in the Management Advisory Committee, or MAC, whose function inter alia is to advise the Secretary General in these matters. Four of the promotions to counsellor arise from my decision to upgrade our representation in the United States to meet increasing demands resulting from the Northern Ireland peace process and from Ireland's economic profile in the United States. Another two arise from the decision taken in the light of the British-Irish Agreement to open consulates in Edinburgh and Cardiff. These openings have led to improved career opportunities for the staff of the Department.
These are the basic facts. I welcome the concern expressed by Deputies about the morale of officers in my Department. Many of these officers have been at their current grades for a very long time. The vast majority of the 94 first secretaries and 11 assistant principals are very capable of serving in a higher grade. The upgrading of the consul general posts in the United States also provided a promotional outlet for some of these long serving and dedicated officers. It would be my intention to seek further promotions in the Department of Foreign Affairs through the development co-operation offices throughout Africa. It would also be my intention to examine the possibility of reopening our embassy in Nairobi. These are some of the efforts I have made and continue to progress in the Department in terms of improving morale and strengthening and providing promotional opportunities. I will continue on that road as long as I am in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Association of Higher Civil Servants wrote to the Secretary General in July saying that it warmly welcomed the personal initiative I took to upgrade the consul general posts in the United States of America. The Secretary General also wrote to me saying that it was a positive development and that he and his colleagues on the management advisory committee were very appreciative.
Deputies will be aware that appointments at senior level in the Department of Foreign Affairs are handled in a different way from those in most Departments in the Civil Service and are not done on the recommendations of the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC. I wish to clarify that such appointments do not involve the Civil Service Commission. Discussions have taken place on introducing a TLAC type system in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Government agreed in April last that this should be positively explored and there have been some consultations at senior level in that regard. I am awaiting a progress report in respect of that.
I am sure all Deputies share my regret that the names of individual civil servants, all of whom have given long and outstanding service to the State, have been mentioned in the media.
I do not know why the Minister regrets that names have come into the public arena. Under the Freedom of Information Act, civil servants will have to become used to the fact that their names will be in the media on a regular basis. Their obligation to come before Dáil committees also guarantees that they will be increasingly mentioned in the media.
No one objects to civil servants being promoted. That is not the issue and I hope the Minister finds ways of promoting more deserving civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs. What is at issue is the manner in which the Minister seems to have overridden the recommendations of the MAC.
Is the Deputy suggesting there is something illegal?
We know that law is the last thing to which one should resort in industrial relations. Were any of the three people whom the Minister directed the Secretary General to promote considered for appointment by the Department's management advisory committee, and what were the recommendations in each case? Has the Minister on any previous occasions directed the Secretary General to promote a member of staff of the Department? Prior to directing the Secretary General to promote the three persons in question, did the Minister interview them? If not, on what basis did he judge them to be more appropriate for appointment than any of the other 1,000 staff in the Department?
Regarding the three individuals concerned, I have known them intimately for many years. Unlike the Deputy, I will not name them. If he wants to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their names, he is entitled to do so and he should avail of that facility if he wishes. I have an old-fashioned view that one does not name people who cannot defend or represent themselves and I stick to that convention. The Deputy wants to know the three individuals concerned.
I do not.
He wants to know the qualities of the three individuals concerned.
I want to know if the Minister interviewed them.
One of them happened to be my private secretary——
Did the Minister interview them?
——the last time I was in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Regarding the second individual, I knew his reputation, what he had done, that he had been in hardship posts, what were his qualifications and that he had been stuck in the position of first secretary for 18 years. That is the type of problem I am trying to resolve in the Department of Foreign Affairs, people being stuck for years at third secretary or first secretary level. In this instance, the individual concerned served 16 to 18 years at first secretary level. Is that fair? As for the third individual, the assistant secretary, I have known him for a long time on a personal basis. I know his qualities and have seen him operate, welcoming Presidents, Ministers and groups of Dáil Deputies visiting the countries in which he has served.
I did not interview the people concerned but I knew their qualities for a long time and that is the way I bring my judgment to bear on people.
Does the Minister intend to dispense with the procedures within the Department of Foreign Affairs for the promotion of staff and apply his own insight, feelings and experience of individual staff members as a means of promoting staff in general? Does he feel it will create good industrial relations within his Department? If he feels staff who deserve promotion are not getting it, would it not be more appropriate for him to seek to change the system of selection rather than interfering personally on the basis of his feelings and experience? How does he think that makes staff feel who have not had the opportunity of being in his company?
I am entitled to do that under law. I also point out that I accepted all six recommendations on promotion to counsellor. I decided in my wisdom that there were three deserving individuals who had unfairly been stuck for a long time at certain positions in the Department. The Deputy mentioned the Association of Higher Civil Servants. I have a letter from the association addressed to the Secretary General and copied to me which gives a rounded and fair assessment of how it views my actions. I will not leave anything out. The letter states:
I am writing to place on record the views of the Committee of the Foreign Affairs Branch of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants in relation to the recent round of promotions and upgradings and to future developments in relation to such matters, in so far as they affect the interests of our members of First Secretary/Assistant Principal or Counsellor grade.
First of all, it should be emphasised that we deplore the media coverage of these developments. I wish to assure you that no member of the committee has conveyed any view or information to any of the journals which have reported or commented on these matters.
We warmly welcome the personal initiative taken by the Minister to upgrade the posts and consulates in the United States. The association has long held that selective upgradings of this kind are not only objectively justified in the national interest, but also have the potential to contribute significantly to the easing of career blockages within the Department, in particular at First Secretary level, which have had a serious impact on morale in recent years.
Ninety seven people are stuck at this level. The letter continues:
We would welcome further such upgrading and other positive developments which would help to restore the morale of the officers.
Of course, we are also anxious that consequent transfers to, from or within the US should be effected in a flexible and sensitive manner, with full account taken of the individual personal and professional circumstances of the officers affected, and following adequate consultation with them.
Account was taken of these considerations. There was a suggestion that the upgrading of the offices would affect the people in situ. There was also a suggestion that they remain for one or two years. I suggested 18 months and that was acceptable. I thought it was the decent thing to do.
The letter continues:
However, it would appear that two of the promotions arising from these upgradings were decided upon by a procedure which departed from the usual practices. This is a matter of considerable concern.
The association favours a transparent and equitable promotion system based on specified criteria and procedures. This approach was set out in our operational conclusions paper of February 1995 (a copy of the document is attached for ease of reference). In particular, and irrespective of what particular procedures may be employed, we believe that all promotions should be determined in a consistent and uniform fashion, and would urge that this approach be maintained in all future cases.
The question of whether a new system preferable to that which was customarily operated, and which would be acceptable both to our members and to the Department, could be devised is, in our view, one to which the association and the Department should urgently return in the early autumn, with a view to resolving the matter as soon as possible thereafter.
What is the date of the letter?
The letter is dated 21 July 1998.
I have no problem putting this letter or any other material on the record of the House. The letter concludes: "However, in the light inter alia of developments in other Departments and in inter-departmental competitions, we believe that this issue should be revisited”. The issue will be revisited to the advantage of the Department of Foreign Affairs and those individuals stuck at a particular level.
Is the Minister aware that section 2 of the Public Services Management Act provides for staff issues to be dealt with by the Secretary General, while section 7 provides for the Minister to deal with policy issues? This is the first time I have heard of a Minister creating positions in the Civil Service. That usually comes about from civil servants seeking these posts.
Is it not time the Minister took charge? I am not a rubber stamp.
Why did the Secretary General of the Department say to the Minister on 14 May that the Management Advisory Committee also agreed to the offer of promotion of a named first secretary consequent on the departure? This is not just about senior people. MAC also agreed to the promotion of a first secretary.
The Minister says that the morale of the Civil Service has not been dealt a blow. Is he aware that the Secretary General wrote to him on 26 May stating:
In view of the deep unhappiness and concern expressed in writing by the majority of officers involved, I respectfully request you to inform the Taoiseach of the reaction to the transfers envisaged. It is unprecedented that so many senior officers in this Department should be transferred or appointed unwillingly to positions despite their formal misgivings.
Will the Minister agree his actions have destroyed morale in the Department of Foreign Affairs? We are pursuing a seat on the UN Security Council; EU enlargement is on the horizon; we are in the latter stages of preparation for EMU; we are negotiating Agenda 2000 involving Structural and Cohesion Funds and the Common Agricultural Policy, and Northern Ireland is at a crucial stage. Will the Minister agree that at such a time it is extraordinary that he and the Secretary General of the Department have to correspond in such a manner and that the most senior civil servant in the Department must seek an appointment with the Minister to discuss matters which are his responsibility under section 2 of the Act and does not receive a reply?
Will the Minister agree that, far from upsetting some alleged old boy network, as he has implied, he has politicised that network? I would not be so upset if the Minister stated that he had promoted people in technical grades and given them opportunities. He has not replaced an old boy network, he has politicised that network.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Why has the Minister swept aside the normal criteria for assessment such as communication skills, personal effectiveness and managing resources which were voted on by
MAC? This is in the documentation released. Why was this done without transparency? When we sought information we got 36 pages, 12 completely blank with marks through them and 12 partially blank. Is this how any Minister should appoint civil servants? Where is the transparency in the appointment of civil servants to fairly administer the affairs of the State?
As regards the blanks to which the Deputy referred, he will be aware that an officer has been appointed within the Department under the Freedom of Information Act. I had nothing to do with the publication of that information. In this case the information was sought by the chairman of Fine Gael for reasons better known to himself. He got as much information as was required to be given by the appointed officer. I saw the response when it was issued but I had no hand, act or part in it.
I received a letter from the Secretary General advising me to see the Taoiseach, to be a good boy and take on board the concerns expressed about the locations to which people were to be sent. I should read the correspondence. However, if I put some of that correspondence on the record of the House it would come as a surprise and a disappointment to the Deputy. I do not intend opening that correspondence.
Why not?
Because that would be unfair to the individuals concerned. It would damage them. I had to make my own valued judgment on that correspondence. As regards the recommendation from MAC, I accepted most of the recommendations, there were some which I did not accept. The people whom I sent to the various missions have outstanding commitment and ability. Those who have gone to other missions are officers who will serve the State with the utmost integrity. I have no problems in that and I have no apologies to offer. If the same happens next May or June I will take the same position and will not change. I saw what was required. With great respect, a politician brings a broader view to matters and problems of this nature and I brought that view to it.
Did the Minister speak with the Taoiseach as suggested?
I brought the names to Government and, without demur, they were accepted.
I will ask a number of questions and I do so out of tremendous respect for the Department and the work it has done and continues to do in all our interests in terms of the United Nations, the Security Council and Northern Ireland. Has the Minister communicated with the individuals who were recommended by the management committee and whose recommendation he did not accept? In relation to his recommendations for ambassadorial reassignments, did members of staff refuse to accept his recommendations in the initial stages? The Minister said there was no breakdown in the relationships, but from what he has just said it is obvious there is an extreme degree of breakdown in his relationship with the Secretary General's Department. The Secretary General has served this country with dignity in both Washington, Brussels and in the Department. What steps does he intend——
So did I.
That is in the Minister's opinion.
That is in my opinion and the opinion of 13,500 people in successive elections.
What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure one of the most vital relationships can be re-established? Will the Minister stop muttering under his breath, I did not do it to him, I listened carefully to what he had to say.
I am listening carefully.
Given the usual disdain he has for this House it was good of him to come in. Has the Minister at any time since his appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs either offered his resignation or threatened to resign?
If not, why not?
I do not know from where the Deputy is getting his information but I can only speculate. When the Deputy speaks about honour and so on, one can think of other words but we will not go down that route. On the question of being concerned about the individual who was suggested by the MAC to be assistant secretary, he is now in Cairo. I felt the position in Ankara deserved somebody of the very highest quality and reputation and a man who had served this country well in other missions and I appointed the head of protocol to Ankara. We have an immensely successful diplomat in that mission. In the meantime the individual in Cairo who was promoted to be ambassador in Cairo is next in line for an assistant secretary post. I have undertaken to make that appointment and I understand it is acceptable to him. In the meantime, I have called another individual, whom I appointed as assistant secretary, to be the new head of protocol. What is wrong with that? I had to get somebody to go to Ankara and I had to make this judgment myself. The individual I sent to Ankara has accepted the position and I genuinely believe I have the best man for the job. He has served in other difficult missions in the past. I am not suggesting Ankara is a picnic but I do not think it can be seen as a hardship post.
Why was it necessary for a senior civil servant who is supposed to be working closely with the Minister to write repeatedly to secure a simple meeting? When was the last time the Minister had an ordinary conversation with the Secretary General? Will he agree it is particularly damaging that the Department of Foreign Affairs is the most notable where diplomatic relations have broken down? This is a sad message to send out. Will he agree the genesis of much of the problem, to which he alludes, of people being stuck in various positions over a period, has to do with the large intake of personnel in 1979-80 which has had a knock-on effect of many civil servants being stuck in apprenticeships? Is it only those among that cohort of civil servants who happen to be friendly with politicians who can aspire to promotion when that person assumes office? That is an important question.
On the question of the Secretary General writing to me on a Wednesday requesting a meeting on the basis of his need to discharge his position, I responded to that request by meeting him at 8 o'clock the following Monday. I recall vividly the purpose of that meeting which was to discuss with him the whole question of the upgrading of the consulates and whether we should keep the individuals in charge there for a year or two years; I suggested 18 months, as I have already said in response to an earlier question. The second part of our conversation dealt with the position of the press officer in New York, in the light of the upgrading. The third part of the equation dealt with the matter of Ankara and who would go there. In fairness to the Secretary General he proposed a number of options which I did not find acceptable and I asked him to go back and find more options.
So far as keeping in touch with the Secretary General is concerned, the Secretary General, like the rest of us, takes his holidays during the month of August. He returned from his holidays in August and went to do his duty with the President who was visiting Australia for two weeks. He subsequently visited China with the Taoiseach, the secretary to the Government and the other entourage that follows him, including the media. The Secretary General was out of the country for a long time. When he returned, I went to the United Nations general assembly for a week and, coincidentally, I am no longer back than I am off for a few days only with the President at the beginning of her Canadian visit. That is the sort of Department it is. I was in touch with the Secretary General, through a high official in the Department, during his travels on a number of occasions.
Did the Minister speak with him?
No, I did not speak with him but I communicated with him.
It is clear the Minister is explaining to the House he took these decisions as a result of jet-lag. Will he agree that the Secretary General wrote to him on 2 July saying he noted the Minister's wish to promote two named officials and that: "I would like to request a meeting as soon as possible to discuss with you the measures necessary to give effect to this and to discuss with you your ideas regarding options for the position of ambassador to Ankara", to which the Secretary General got a one line reply: "I direct that Mr. X and Mr. Y be promoted to consular rank. David Andrews. 2 July". Will the Minister agree he was telling the House on the same day, 2 July, at Question Time, that he did not want to cause a revolution in the Department of Foreign Affairs——
It is not appropriate to quote at Question Time. I want to facilitate Deputy De Rossa for a final supplementary.
I am not quoting.
The Deputy is quoting from a letter.
Will the Minister agree that on 2 July he told the House he did not want to cause a revolution in the Department of Foreign Affairs which might well happen if he proposed what Deputy Timmins said he proposed. He said he thought he might find himself being ducked in the pond in St. Stephen's Green. Does the Minister agree he has caused a revolution in his Department? Was the Taoiseach informed by the Minister of the deep concern of the Secretary General, as requested, and of the concern of officials in the Department regarding their unwillingness to serve? Was the Tánaiste involved at any stage in these decisions? Did the Taoiseach respond either directly or indirectly to the Secretary General when made aware of the concerns? Was the Tánaiste informed by the Minister of the deep concern of the Secretary General? Did Mr. MacKernan and senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs at any stage threaten resignation because of the Minister's procedures in this regard? Did the Tánaiste make representations to the Minister regarding any of the decisions? Does the Minister agree that given the serious departure from the practices set out by law in the Public Service Management Act, 1997, it would be appropriate in the circumstances for the person charged with staff matters, namely, the Secretary General of the Department, to appear before the Committee on Foreign Affairs to answer questions so that Members can hear both sides of the story before deciding what is behind the politicisation of Civil Service promotions?
I deny there is any question of politicisation in relation to promotions through the MAC or the three directives I gave to the Secretary General. I have no doubt I may have to give further directives to the Secretary General on other matters in future.
Deputy Timmins, who spoke of starting a revolution in the Department of Foreign Affairs, was proposing at that time that Deputy Albert Reynolds should be appointed as a roving ambassador. I have the greatest regard and respect for Deputy Reynolds. He gave me an opportunity which I gratefully accepted. It was my first opening having served on the back-benches for 13 years. However, in the circumstances I could not approve his nomination.
The Minister knew him personally.
I never met the man in my life. However, I knew of his qualities.
Was he suitable for the job?
Of course he was suitable for the job. However, I did not want to start a revolution by bringing in an outsider. Even I could not get away with that.
This is the first time the question of people in the Department threatening to resign has come to my attention. There were people who did not wish to be transferred to areas to which they were transferred and we have correspondence, some of which is very strange, proving this.
On the question of the Tánaiste making representations, it is fair to say she knew one of the individuals concerned. While not in this incidence, the names of others involved in diplomatic moves at ambassadorial level come to the attention of the Government.
The plot thickens.
When I got the letter from the Secretary General of the Department urging me to raise the matter with the Taoiseach, I brought the list of my proposals for deploying ambassadors to a Cabinet meeting.
Was it the Tánaiste's list or the Minister's own list?
I explained some of the problems to members of the Cabinet, including the Tánaiste. I very clearly outlined the views of the Secretary General, something which is clear from the record of Government minutes. The whole matter was carried out above board from beginning to end. I am the Minister and not a rubber stamp, something I refuse to be.
Has the Minister confidence in the management committee of the Department of Foreign Affairs, in its workings and in what it is doing on behalf of the Department? Do I take it from an earlier reply that the Minister did not threaten to resign or offer his resignation since his appointment?
The management advisory committee is unusual. It is made up of the heads of various sections in the Department and is populated by people of the very highest quality of character and integrity. I pay the deepest tribute to the dedication of the Department of Foreign Affairs and its officials. I believe that those appointed to diplomatic posts, including those who are the subject of this unnecessary controversy, are patriotic and good Irish people. They have done a good job for their country in other posts and will do an excellent job in the posts to which I have sent them and to which the MAC has recommended — and I accepted — they be sent.
Regarding resignation, Deputy Spring must have some information of which I am unaware and have no recollection. I can only speculate on who the individual is until such time as he or she openly and categorically state he or she threatened to resign.
At what stage of implementation is the strategic management initiative in the Department of Foreign Affairs? I understand the thrust of it is——
I ask the Deputy to put a question to the Minister as I want to provide time for the Minister to reply and the Deputy's colleagues to ask questions.
Does the Minister agree the thrust of the SMI is to get away from the Minister taking so much responsibility and ensuring such responsibility lies with civil servants?
The Minister is still in charge of the Department.
Does the Minister agree this is a reversal in the trend?
It would be a very serious reversal if it was turned the other way around.
It is difficult to ask a question when another Minister is interrupting. Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs agree the current situation is very worrying in that a long standing personal relationship seems to be sufficient and valid grounds for promotion? This matter should be questioned and such procedure should not be allowed continue.
If the Minister does not answer the questions I ask I will try to ask them again. I do not intend leaving the House without getting some replies. Were any of the people whom the Minister directed the Secretary General to promote considered for appointment by the Department's management advisory committee? What were the recommendations in each case? Alternatively, did the Minister ask the MAC to consider the three people he felt should be promoted? Does he not consider the other 97 people he overlooked in his grand gesture are also efficient, patriotic and good Irish people——
The Minister said that.
——and that they equally have a right to be considered for promotion? Does he agree that introducing this type of personal preferment undermines the idea of how to run an efficient Civil Service? It is grossly interfering with the procedures within the Civil Service and if the Minister wishes to change them he should bring forward proposals to do so.
I wish to ask a question which should be asked on all occasions such as this. Is there any other matter about which the House should be informed but has not been because Members have failed to ask the right questions?
I would never charge Deputy Currie with failing to ask the right questions. Deputy Sargent asked about the SMI which has been completed in the Department of Foreign Affairs and does not depart greatly from the White Paper on foreign affairs, produced by Deputy Spring, which is a valuable document. Perhaps the Deputy would remind me of the second part of his question.
I asked whether the Minister felt that a long-standing personal relationship was a good basis on which to make a promotion.
Yes, I think it was. The person in question was a terribly efficient private secretary who served his country very honourably in Boston. Members of the House will be aware of the person to whom I am referring and will have been treated extremely efficiently and well by him. Trade delegations which have visited Boston have sent notes of gratitude for the work he has done. He served as my private secretary for a long time and I found him to be hugely efficient. One of his principal wishes at all times was to serve every Deputy who approached him in the Department. He will now represent this country in the new consulate in Cardiff which is a deserved reward for his work on behalf of this country. The three people to whom the Deputy referred were considered by the then MAC which did not consider any of them to be up to the mark. I would like to think that, within the next 12 months, there will be a huge added value programme in the Department of Foreign Affairs as far as promotions are concerned. I will do my utmost to improve morale in the Department and believe I can do so successfully.