asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he has seen Press references to the appointment of an Ambassador from Australia to Ireland and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Australian Diplomatic Appointment.
Mr. O'Higgins
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state why the Government accepted from the British Ambassador credentials addressed to President Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh by name instead of credentials addressed to him as President of Ireland.
Mr. O'Higgins
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether, in view of the refusal of the Australian Government to accredit an Ambassador to Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the Government of Ireland, it is proposed to continue to have Ireland represented in that country by means of an Ambassador.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state (a) if the Australian Government offered to accredit its Ambassador to the President of the Republic of Ireland, and (b) if so, the reasons why the Government refused to accept this form of appointment.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he has fully considered the implications of the action of the Government of Australia in refusing to accredit an Ambassador to the President of Ireland and if he proposes to make a statement to the Dáil on the matter.
Mr. O'Higgins
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state the cost of maintaining an Embassy in Australia.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 together.
As Deputies are aware, the Australian Government decided last month not to proceed with the appointment of Mr. Dominic Paul McGuire as Australian Ambassador at Dublin.
The difficulty arose from inability to find agreement upon the manner in which Mr. McGuire's Letters of Credence should be addressed. Every effort had been made to reach agreement, but unfortunately without success. When the Australian Government sought the Irish Government's assent to Mr. McGuire's nomination in April, 1953, our Ambassador called at the Department of External Affairs in Canberra. He took occasion to point out that the Letters of Credence should be addressed to the President in his constitutional title, "President of Ireland."
The Irish Government gave their assent to Mr. McGuire's nomination and subsequently the Australian Government announced his appointment.
Some weeks after the announcement, however, the Australian Government raised objections to having the Letters of Credence addressed to the President of Ireland and notwithstanding many exchanges of views, no acceptable solution was found.
A suggestion to address the Letters of Credence to the "President of the Republic of Ireland" was made by the Australian Government but was not acceptable as the Government were advised that such letters, following the usual diplomatic practice, should be addressed to the President in his constitutional title, namely, "Uachtarán na hÉireann," or, in English, "President of Ireland." The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which provided for a statutory description of the State did not purport to affect, nor did it indeed affect, the President's constitutional title.
The credentials presented by the British Ambassador addressed to President Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh were accepted because the Government were convinced that as Britain is keeping Ireland partitioned against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people, it was essential for the peaceful solution of that issue that diplomatic relations should be maintained at the highest level. Such relations are necessary to prevent deterioration of the existing position and to help secure the basis for the friendship which should exist between two close neighbours. I need hardly add that the arrangement made between Ireland and Britain is no precedent for two countries which have no quarrel.
In answer to the two questions not already covered, I may say that it is not proposed to make any change in our representation at Canberra, and that the average total cost of our Embassy there is around £9,000 a year.
Would the Minister say whether the Australian Government, which, I understand from his reply, accepted the decision that the Australian Ambassador should be accredited to the President of Ireland, gave any subsequent explanation for the substantial change in its attitude on the second occasion?
As the reply clearly points out, they were told in advance of our Government's agreement that the letters should be addressed to the President in his constitutional title.
And I gather from the Minister that they accepted the decision?
No, I did not say that, but they were fully informed what the requirements would be.
Has the Minister any information that any pressure was exerted on the Australian Government from London to prevent them from issuing Letters of Credence in the manner which was originally decided?
That is a different question.
We have no quarrel with England.
Am I to take it, therefore, when our Ambassador indicated to the Australian Government that their Ambassador should be accredited to the President of Ireland in the first instance, that there was no demur at that stage by the Australian Government?
Our Ambassador called at the Department of External Affairs and saw an official. In order to emphasise the importance that we place upon the matter, he left the official a copy of the Constitution and showed him the Article in which the President's Title "President of Ireland" is contained.