Mr. David Cooney:

The ambassadors pay for all the food they eat. There are full-time chefs in several embassies.

They are employed in order that the ambassadors can do their jobs in terms of networking and entertaining from home. When I was the ambassador in London, I had a full-time chef because we did so much entertaining that we were almost running a restaurant. These supports are provided to allow people to do their jobs. They are not offered to allow certain people to have a good time.

Running an embassy is a big responsibility for an ambassador and his or her spouse. They often inhabit an elaborate and old premises that requires considerable care and maintenance. The ambassador and his or spouse are often like janitors. The spouses get no compensation for the work they do of their own volition and on behalf of the State. In regard to the suggestion that ambassadors live a pampered lifestyle, frankly I could take it or leave it. There are pros but also a lot of cons. Having responsibility for looking after a premises abroad is one of the big cons.

I sense that the Deputy is trying to probe whether these people are living a good life at the State's expense. That is not the way my family or I found the experience. There is a huge amount of dislocation, with children being dragged around the world and their education disrupted. We pay school fees for children because they cannot access state schools abroad. That does not work for everybody, however. It is a moot point whether these children would have been better off staying at home and going through the normal school process. It is no picnic. I would prefer to be at home with a beer on a Saturday watching "Match of the Day" than going to some reception or dinner. It can be hard work and disruptive for families. A considerable amount is expected from families and spouses, who get no remuneration. I recognise that the Deputy is doing his job in exploring this area but I am putting the case for the opposition. It is not an easy life.