When was envoy job created, did Zappone lobby for it and why delete texts?

What are the questions Simon Coveney will face at the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs on Tuesday?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has consistently denied that the job of UN special envoy for freedom of expression was invented for former minister Katherine Zappone. In an interview on RTÉ when the controversy first arose, he was emphatic on the point; some people, he said, had suggested it was a "makey-up job to do a favour for Katherine Zappone. It was nothing of the sort".

Records released on Monday by his department certainly show that she was looking for a role. The first exchange between Coveney and Zappone is on February 22nd of this year, where she is alerting him to her desire to get an introduction to Irish woman Samantha Power, head of US AID, about the possibility of getting a job with the US government's aid agency. She expects some future engagement with the Minister: "I look forward to hearing from you," she concludes.

The next message comes a few days later after a call between the two, in which Zappone is now trumpeting her own qualifications and contacts with UN agencies. “Anything else you need from me let me know. Thanks very much Simon.”

British government rolls over Brexit protocol grace period

---

More than 150 documents relating to Zappone to be published online

---

Donnelly expects remaining Covid restrictions to be lifted before Christmas

---

Government vows to deliver 300,000 housing units by 2030

---

In the next communication, on March 4th, she thanks Coveney “for this incredible opportunity”. It is clear she believes she has the job.

It's not until three weeks later, on March 23rd, that senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs make the first mention of the role, when political director Sonja Hyland seeks a meeting with colleagues to discuss "a possible envoy in the human rights space".

So, on the evidence of the documents published on Monday, the job was offered before officials had even begun to draw up the specifications of the role.

This would seem to contradict the assertion by the Minister in July when he said the role was not created for Zappone, and that it was only after the job was decided upon that he asked her if she would be willing to do it.

If that is true, then Coveney must have concluded a fully-formed idea of the role in a few days at the end of February and then decided that she would be ideal for it. If he hasn’t made up the role for her, he has – by his own admission – conceived the role and then decided to offer it to her within a short space of time. But for some months afterwards, his officials were discussing the nature and extent of the job. Zappone, meanwhile, was pressing Coveney and his officials for news on the job she believed she had been promised.

In fairness to the Minister – although it did not form part of the documents issued on Monday – the now former secretary general of his department Niall Burgess, told the Oireachtas committee last week that he had “one brief conversation [with Coveney] after February 24th, 2021. This was because a colleague told me that the Biden administration was going to appoint a special envoy for LGTBI+ rights. I remember mentioning that to the Minister in an informal conversation shortly afterwards”. The two men did not have any further conversations on the issue for another two months, he said.

Coveney is likely to face questions on how he had decided about the role, and who should fill it, long before his officials begin to design the role.

The second point on which Coveney is likely to face questions at the committee is how he can continue to insist that Zappone did not lobby for the position when the documents published on Monday show her constantly seeking to progress the appointment for herself. The exchanges begin with Zappone seeking help in getting a job with US AID, but this soon turns into discussions about a special envoy role for the Irish Government.

In a series of text messages, she sent repeated requests to Coveney for information about the progress in creating the role she was to fill.

On April 9th, she texted the Minister: “Have heard in the background that Department may be ready to discuss proposals with you for my work? Look forward to hearing from you.”

A month later, she again texted Coveney, this time noting that the Minister has suggested that she could start in the special envoy role in June: “Hi Simon, hope all well. Any news yet? You had mentioned June as start time.”

In June, Zappone made contact with the ambassador to the United Nations, Geraldine Byrne-Nason, to press her case. "She [Zappone] asked me what had happened to her nomination as LTGTBQ [sic] envoy. She said there is radio silence from the Minister with whom she had been in touch," Byrne-Nason noted after Zappone's representation.

The question for Coveney is: in light of these constant representations from Zappone to push forward her appointment, how can he claim she did not lobby?

The third point on which Coveney is likely to face questioning at the committee is not covered by the documents released on Monday. It’s the question of deleting texts from his phone. As the messages published show, not all texts were deleted. But Coveney has said that he cleared messages for security reasons. If the Minister deleted texts that were the subject of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, he may have committed an offence.