At a time when Mr David Andrews should be basking in the positive afterglow of the Belfast Agreement, the Minister for Foreign Affairs finds himself under pressure concerning controversial middle-management appointments he forced through his Department. Not only that, the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Ms Harney, has confirmed that representations of a sort were made by her in relation to one of the three positions filled. She offered full support and approval to the beleaguered Minister. It is a situation that does credit to neither of them. Recommendations from the promotional system within the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Management Advisory Committee (MAC), in favour of certain officials were rejected by Mr Andrews in favour of individuals known personally to him. Put bluntly, it is blatant political interference in the tried and tested promotional system.
Nobody doubts that the individuals promoted by Ministerial directive are civil servants of considerable ability, with records of hard work and high initiative, who have devoted much of their lives to the service of this State. The problem is that a promotional bottleneck has existed within the Department of Foreign Affairs for some years. And the Minister has intervened to favour individuals known personally to him. In the formal selection process, the individuals concerned were assessed by MAC and were, in Mr Andrews's own words, "not considered up to the mark". Only then did the Minister direct that they be promoted.
Successive governments have contrived over a number of years to reduce, if not to eliminate, ministerial interference within the public service where appointments are concerned. In light of that, this action by Mr Andrews must be seen as regressive. The political favouritism displayed has had a damaging effect on morale within the Department and has generated "considerable concern" within the Association for Higher Civil Servants. Worse than that, the Minister's determination to have his own way, against the protestations of his most senior civil servant, has practically eliminated any useful working relationship between them. From what the Minister told the Dail, it would seem he and his Secretary General have not communicated on a face-to-face basis since last July.
It is an intolerable situation. And judging by Mr Andrews' attempts at self-justification yesterday, he sees its possible resolution in the resignation of Mr Padraic MacKernan as Secretary General. Such a bullying approach cannot and should not be countenanced. Mr MacKernan has acted to protect the integrity of the established promotional system. The Minister may not have done anything "illegal", as he has protested. But he has certainly broken with precedent in making these appointments. And Mr Andrews's blustering Dail performance, in which he envisaged making more such appointments and issuing further directives to Mr MacKernan only promises further travail.
There may be an element of bruised ego in all of this. Having scored a few spectacular "own goals" in his handling of Northern Ireland issues, especially in relation to Articles 2 and 3 and the powers of North/South bodies, Mr Andrews may have been attempting to reassert his authority within the Department. Mr MacKernan's suggestion that the promotional issue be referred to the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, clearly rankled. Mr Andrews told the Dail he was advised to "run off to see the Taoiseach and to be a good boy". He was not, the Minister insisted, and would not become "a rubber stamp". Nobody wishes to see a "rubber stamp" installed at the Department of Foreign Affairs. But the Minister's truculent and erratic behaviour leaves much to be desired.