James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The problem of coming in at this stage is that much of the ground has been trawled but I will try to be succinct and get to the point without going all round. The Minister said a few times, but I am still not entirely clear, that he briefed the Tánaiste in some detail. He also said he mentioned it to the Tánaiste a few weeks beforehand. Despite briefing the Tánaiste in some detail, he did not mention it to the Taoiseach. I appreciate that the Minister has apologised for that. I take that at face value and in good faith. It is far from ideal for the Cabinet, with collective responsibility etc. The Minister might come to that. I am still lost about why the Tánaiste was briefed when the Taoiseach was not. Is it because of his party? This is a coalition Government and the Cabinet has collective responsibility. I am confused about that and would be concerned if a similar situation were to arise again.

Is this position now defunct? Has it been abandoned? Is it gone or will somebody else be sought for this role? Was it purely a one-off role, unique to the person, or is there still a vacancy? If there is still a vacancy, is there a job description and what is the process to fill that? If it is not to be filled, why was it important if Katherine Zappone did it but not someone else? When the Minister answers about the job description, there are many areas that could benefit from a special envoy for freedom of expression. We see academic freedom under attack in Hungary and judicial freedom under attack in Poland, to mention two within the EU. We are all aware of Belarus. We see Russian and Chinese influence in different jurisdictions in the Middle East and eastern Europe. We see attacks on freedom of expression and opinion, which include judicial opinion, academic opinion and press freedom in many countries. I have given a list of four or five.

I am not sure if those countries were on the list for special envoy Zappone to visit or tackle. Could the Minister confirm whether they were because they seem to be the countries where these issues are at a peak? Alternatively, was it to be a softer role - possibly deployed on the fringes of the UN, etc. - where it could be useful or perhaps less useful?

My last question concerns the process by which Ireland secured a seat on the Security Council. The Minister mentioned that 25 special envoys were appointed at that time. It seems, based on my understanding of the statement and from listening to what has been said today, that Katherine Zappone was the only serving politician to be appointed as an envoy at that time. Other people may have been appointed as envoys but they were diplomats so they were in other roles. Why was Katherine Zappone given this type of role over and above any other Minister, Deputy or Senator? Did she have spare capacity? Did the Minister see her as being particularly suited to it? Was the Department not particularly demanding on her time? Was there a reason the Minister could not have done this job? I do not suggest that I was operating on the same level but I attended an IPU event a few months before that vote. I am sure all Members of the Oireachtas who had the option to travel did so. We made a case to colleagues from elsewhere as we went about our business. I would have thought that this was part and parcel of being a Member of the Oireachtas and serving our country without needing any title to do it. I am bit confused about why, to my knowledge, only one Member of the Oireachtas was appointed as an envoy among the 25. Why did she need that title at the time? What was the point of it all? What was its purpose at that time?