Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

First of all, the comments of Deputy Stanton really sum up why we thought this role was useful and would add value to the work of the Department. It was my judgment that Katherine Zappone was someone who was very suitable for this role. That is the way special envoys are appointed. If there is a role the Department or the Minister thinks needs a new focus or added value, then you pick someone who you think could do a good job. That is what we did in the context of this, initially. As I said in the media, and as the Secretary General said, initially we looked at an LGBTIQ+ special envoy because Ireland is doing, and continues to do, much work in that area, but the view of the Department was that broadening it out would allow that person to be more effective in terms of getting access to countries and raising questions in a broader human rights context. That is why the role developed into what it was.

There was a suggestion earlier that perhaps the Tánaiste had some involvement in the build up to meeting Katherine Zappone in Dublin in terms of getting an appointment across the line or something. I would have spoken to Katherine Zappone long in advance of that to ask her whether she would be interested in taking up this role.

The Department was working on what the job specification might look like and so on. At that stage, I was asking the Secretary General to try to finalise that. This would have been going on for weeks in advance of that. The Merrion event, which I think was on 21 July, had no involvement whatsoever in this process. In fact, I did not even know the event was of any significance. We were trying to finalise this process - ironically, while I was out of the country - in advance of bringing something to Cabinet.

Senator Wilson asked whether there was a memorandum on the agenda for Cabinet. Yes, there was. What often happens when making an appointment is that a memorandum goes to the Government the previous week. Normally, the deadline for that is the Friday before a Tuesday Cabinet meeting. If there are names of persons to be appointed, those names are provided in the couple of days before the Cabinet meeting takes place. Otherwise, names can be leaked and so on. This is why, in the build-up to a Cabinet meeting, the advisers' meetings go through all of these appointments and if there is something controversial, they will raise it, try to solve problems and so on. It was at that point that I should have ensured the Taoiseach or his advisers were aware of this, and the Green Party for that matter. That did not happen. This was a genuine mistake that we will try to ensure is not repeated.

With regard to freedom of information, my understanding is that we want to publish all of the papers in relation to this affair at the same time. Obviously, they can then be shared with the Oireachtas. As to whether the contents of the memorandum were discussed among Secretaries General, I do not think so. Certainly, if the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach knew about this, I am sure he would have raised it with the Taoiseach. This was in my Department and it should have been communicated earlier. As I said, it was my fault.

Is the position now defunct? I hope not, but I would like to come back to the committee and get agreement on how we approach special envoys in the future. This is what I said earlier. Every time I make a suggestion that we should have a special envoy in a certain area, which, by the way, is something virtually every country in the Western world is doing, I do not want it suggested that somehow I am appointing somebody in a way that is inappropriate. I do not want that for future Ministers and I do not want it for my own role either.