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

I am happy to answer the question on timelines. I have provided a number of timelines in the context of the first conversation I had with my Secretary General on 24 February. A food-for-thought paper was then prepared in the context of the Department's responsibilities and the implementation of the national LGBTI+ inclusion strategy. That food-for-thought paper, which followed the conversation with the Secretary General, was published on 25 March. An overview of practice in other EU member states, the UK and the US, in respect of the appointment of ambassadors and envoys with human rights responsibilities, was then prepared on 29 March. There was an exchange between different divisions within the Department and with our team in Geneva, which is where our expertise is on human rights, and a concept note setting out the rationale and scope for the appointment of an envoy in the human rights space was prepared on 18 April.

I had a conversation at the end of February. A process was taking place within the Department and I was getting on with other things. This issue was under consideration and I was waiting for people to come back to me. There is nothing unusual about that. Towards the end of the process, in the build-up to a Government decision on 27 July, I felt it would be useful to try to bring it to a conclusion for that meeting because, in effect, it was the final Government meeting of the term. Moreover, we were appointing a series of ambassadors, so I thought it was a good time to appoint this special envoy role. On 19 July, I asked the Secretary General to discuss the proposed role with Katherine Zappone and he met her in order to do so. A process was under way and it had nothing to do with any other Ministers or anybody else. This was a process under way between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Katherine Zappone. What happened at the Merrion Hotel and all of that is a completely separate issue, which is why I did not take any notice of it. I was out of the country and had no involvement or interest in it one way or the other. On 22 July, a special envoy terms-of-reference paper was prepared on the rationale, tasking, timeframe and support, and my understanding is that was shared with the committee. The mandate and appointment was approved by me on 24 July in order that we could put together the Government memo before the Government meeting on 27 July.

That is the timeframe people are asking for. This was a process under way in parallel with all the other things going on at the same time.

There are some inferences that somehow something inappropriate was going on. That was not the case, which is why I brought it to Cabinet for approval. What I should have done is had the conversation in advance of Cabinet to make sure that the other two parties in government knew about that. I raised it with my own colleagues, effectively for the first time in any detail, including with the Tánaiste in any detail, in the meeting before the Cabinet when I explained what the job was about, how it came about and so on. I had not gone through it in any detail with anyone before that.

Senator Craughwell's commented that if one is in the club, one gets appointments. Senator Craughwell seems to be raising a concern in terms of how we appoint ambassadors. We announced the appointment of new ambassadors to London, Paris, Washington and the UN. These are all very senior roles. It is absolute normal practice in the Department that one would announce ambassadors in terms of transitions, particularly for big appointments as all of those appointments are, months in advance before they actually happen because then people, essentially, change their lives. They have got to bring their families with them and in many cases, they are moving to a different part of the world for the first time. That process takes time and one needs to give people notice. There is not anything unusual about that. I really do not want the appointment of ambassadors to be somehow rolled into the appointment of a special envoy here because they are entirely different processes.

As I say, the whole point of the special envoy role is that there is flexibility. If one has a specific task that one wants done and one has someone who has the skill set to do it, then the Minister can appoint a special envoy to get that job done. That is what happened here. There were not other considerations involved.