This question is on the position of the Russian ambassador. Many people ask me what the point is of having a Russian ambassador put there by a dictator who will effectively just do what he is told to do. There is an argument that he should have been expelled when Russia invaded Ukraine. What is the use, if any, of having the ambassador still in situ ?

I answered this question earlier. It is useful to have a channel of communication that allows us to communicate in no uncertain terms what we think of Russia's position on Ukraine and its aggression and invasion of a sovereign neighbour. We called the Russian ambassador into the Department on 3 October to make it very clear that we will never support the referendum results across four regions of Ukraine. They were effectively sham referendums held at gunpoint by Russia. We also have Irish citizens in Russia and across neighbouring countries who are supported from our embassy in Moscow.

On a decision to expel the Russian ambassador, while I completely understand the sentiment, frustration and anger that Irish people have in the context of what Russia is currently doing, I believe having a channel of communication open is what diplomacy is all about, even with countries with which we may have a fundamental disagreement. It is noteworthy that no other country in the EU is expelling Russian ambassadors - even countries that border Russia and are more deeply impacted by this war than we are. International diplomacy matters even when a war is going on and when we have a fundamental disagreement with a country as we have with Russia now. Keeping channels of communication open makes sense. If we have a consular incident in Russia, Members will look to me to solve it and I will need channels of communication. I will need an embassy in Moscow that can respond to that. I believe it is worth keeping that diplomatic infrastructure in place, despite the very fundamental problem we have with Russia's aggression and illegal activity in Ukraine at present.

We are over time. The Deputy has 30 seconds.

My understanding is that Lithuania expelled its Russian ambassador in April. Perhaps I may-----

However, it kept the Russian Embassy open.

It kept the embassy open but expelled the ambassador. Would that be an option for us? People ask me what the point is.

Why have this guy who is effectively a puppet put in there to spout desperate propaganda? That infamous interview with Sarah McInerney will go down in history as one of the most insulting interviews that ever happened in Irish broadcasting.

I call on the Minister to respond.

What is the point? Is there a point at which it becomes-----

We are over time.

I do not see where the benefit is, apart from perhaps getting some satisfaction out of it. Expelling the Russian ambassador would mean the Russian Embassy in Dublin would close, the Irish Embassy in Moscow would close and we would cut off all diplomatic channels between Ireland and Russia. Despite our frustration and the communication of protest that would give in the short term, while I understand the sentiment expressed, what it would do is cut off all diplomatic channels. People ask me what Ireland is doing to promote peace and to bring the conflict to an end. I believe that diplomatic channels are important, even in extreme and difficult circumstances like those we are currently experiencing, triggered by Russian aggression in Ukraine. As a result, I believe those diplomatic channels should remain open.