asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state which of our diplomatic and consular representatives and commercial secretaries have had commercial experience and what such commercial experience has consisted of in each case.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Commercial Experience of Consular Representatives.
As is the practice in most European countries, appointments to Saorstát diplomatic or consular posts have been made from the Civil Service. It is not thought that commercial experience is a necessary qualification for these appointments.
The Commercial Secretary in Paris is the only appointment yet made in the category of commercial secretaries. The present Secretary in Paris has had commercial experience in France and is quite conversant with French commercial conditions.
Can any indication be given of the nature of the commercial experience in France?
In the case of the present Commercial Secretary, he was formerly in the service. He was in France from 1919 to 1923. Prior to that he was in commercial life in France.
Can any indication be given of the kind of commercial life he was in? I am pressing this matter because great stress was laid on that point by the Minister for Agriculture when he was indicating the expanding policy of the Government in the way of opening up foreign markets.
I know of nobody better fitted for the post than the Secretary in question.
Is it a fact that the Commercial Secretary's commercial experience was confined to dress designing? Will the President say whether the dress designing had reference to ladies' evening or morning dresses?
I do not know anything about that.
Is it a fact that in 1925 the gentleman in question was so down and out that he wrote to the Sinn Féin organisation intimating that if he could get a few hundreds from them he would try to start a farm?
That is a type of question that should not be asked.
It is a pity the ex-Minister did not give this gentleman the handling of an arms contract.
Is a Deputy entitled, by way of supplementary question, to villify the character of a man who cannot possibly answer statements made about him?
The Chair has already stated emphatically that the question should not have been asked.
Any question I asked was to the gentleman's benefit.
The statement made by Deputy McGilligan is absolutely untrue.
Then he has had no experience.
May I state that the gentleman in question was not so down and out as some of those who tried to get money out of Army funds?