Ireland's European Commissioner, David Byrne, has my unqualified and sincere good wishes on his appointment. I hope he is given an important and interesting portfolio and that he will enjoy a very busy life in the complex environment he will find as a member of the Commission.

In the nature of things, such appointments are highly political and almost invariably stay "in the family". On the one occasion when that general rule was departed from (when C.J. Haughey appointed Dick Burke from the Opposition benches in 1982), the ploy went disastrously wrong when Fine Gael held the seat in the ensuing by-election.

Accordingly, I never believed that there was the remotest prospect that Dick Spring or I would be considered for the position, in spite of a lot of well-meaning comments from various political pundits and media experts.

It is, however, my firm view that commissioners should have hands-on experience of the rough and tumble of political life. The Commission is an intensely political place. The institution's role in and for the European Union is intensely political. Clearly, the governments of the other member-states all take that view.

As far as I can see, all the other commissioners are politicians. Pascal Lamy was Jacques Delors's chef de cabinet - a very political post.

With two possible exceptions, all the other commissioners have had ministerial experience. David Byrne, therefore, will be starting off some distance behind the pack. This will present him with some difficulties, not least in negotiating a portfolio.

The President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, will make some changes in Commission portfolios. How big they will be is anybody's guess. I have heard him say there are 18 important portfolios in the Commission. As I understand it, he believes eight of them are more important than others. Getting one of those eight will be no easy task, even for somebody who starts out at the head of the pack.

This is an important issue for individual commissioners and for the new Commission as a body, but there is a further dimension to it which will be crucially important in the future. There is a strong body of opinion that during the course of further reforms linked to EU enlargement, the size of the Commission should be curbed and that it should not necessarily have a member from each member-state. My belief is that that view is erroneous.

It is vital for the Commission to have a fully functioning member from each member-state, not to "represent" each member-state, but for two other reasons, each of them of considerable importance.

First, the Commission must have instant access to somebody who has a deep insight into the political, economic and social cultures of each member-state. Former ministers who have distinguished themselves in their countries of origin meet that requirement.

Second, it is essential that member-states have a feeling of "ownership" of EU policy and of the body which uniquely has the right of initiative on policy matters, even when it takes initiatives of which member-states do not particularly approve.

The Commission is a key part of the EU structure and its relationship with the member-states is crucial to the success of the enterprise. If they were to feel detached from the Commission in the way they would in the absence of one of their citizens from the college, I believe that the cohesion of the EU would suffer.

The relationship between the Commission and the Council of Ministers can often be difficult and contentious. A Commission composed of people with ministerial experience seems to me to have the best chance of successfully managing that relationship.

The relationship between the Commission and the European Parliament has always been important, but it has become more important than ever with the extension of the parliament's powers since the Maastricht Treaty. Jacques Santer's failure to understand this was the downfall of the last Commission.

Clearly, even former ministers can get that wrong, but people with no ministerial experience will be even more accident-prone.

In light of all this, it was unwise on the Taoiseach's part not to appoint a minister or a former minister to the position. The appointment of a serving minister would clearly create a problem, given the current Dail arithmetic, (although it should be remembered that such an appointment would simply restore the status quo as before the untimely death of Pat Upton).

The Taoiseach did have the option of appointing a former minister in Maire Geoghegan-Quinn. Her record in European affairs, transport and communications and justice is good (and praise from an opposition deputy is praise indeed). She has the toughness a Commissioner needs and she has in abundance the subtlety and craft needed to make headway both within the pressure-cooker of the Commission and with other institutions and the member-states.

If what we read is true, it is astonishing that the Tanaiste, Mary Harney, and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Liz O'Donnell, should have blocked the appointment of a person so suited to the position. The junior government partner has given the lie to its self-conferred title as the "policy-driven party" and destroyed any claim it might have had to being "gender-concerned".

It seems that pique over one of the attributes of a good commissioner - straight talking - counts for more than a hard-headed view of reality. Was it more a concern to bring the prodigal son back as Attorney General or has the Taoiseach hidden his own pique behind the PD banner?

Whatever the explanation, the decision is bad. It has put a decent man into a difficult position and lessened the chances of the Commissioner from Ireland being one of the heavy hitters, a la Sutherland, Mac Sharry or (even) Pee Flynn.

Alan Dukes TD is the Fine Gael spokesman for environment and local government