With reference to the article ‘Compare and contrast (2)’ by Jean Pierre Debono (October 17), it should be clarified that, contrary to what was written, the policy regarding positions of trust and persons of trust, as committed by the Principal Permanent Secretary earlier this year, was published last August.
The said article gave the wrong impression, namely that the engagement of persons in ministerial secretariats is not regulated in anyway whatsoever. In fact, there is the 2013 manual, which was also tabled in Parliament, through which the detailed structures of each position in every single secretariat, be it that of a minister or of a parliamentary secretary, are clearly listed.
Contrary to what was stated in the article, Mario Cutajar is not engaged on a position of trust. He was appointed according to the procedures and processes currently in force – the same ones that were applied in the appointment of every permanent secretary since the 1990s. His appointment was also approved by the Public Service Commission, as it was then composed by the previous administration, and when the commission was still appointed in its entirety by the previous administration.
The article in question might also have given the wrong impression that all those engaged for the organisation of the Chogm were retained in employment within the public service after the Chogm came to an end. As soon as the Chogm was concluded, all of these engagements were terminated.
Therefore, there is no agreement that the temporary engagement of persons of trust should be deemed anti-constitutional. What should be deemed anti-constitutional is the process whereby persons engaged as persons of trust are employed permanently within the public service, without a selection process, as was found to be the case with regard to a number of people prior to the change in administration in 2013.
The lack of correct facts leaves no room for further debate in relation to the arguments in the article, which are themselves based on these clear misconceptions.