asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government recently nominated any applicant or applicants to the Commission of the European Community for appointment as Director General; and the outcome of any such nomination.

The recent restructuring of the services of the Commission, in so far as it involved Irish citizens, was the subject of the usual contacts between the Commission and the Government. The Government, at different stages, made known their views to the Commission. The Commission, of course, remains responsible for the appointment of its own officials.

My specific question was whether, in the course of the informal consultations, the Irish Government proposed two different names for the same position? Is it not quite clear that it was as a result of mishandling by the Government that neither person was appointed?

No. It is true that two names were submitted, both with Government approval, but the Commission's decision not to appoint either had nothing to do with the two gentlemen or with who had put the names forward.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it is ludicrous, and that it has been recognised as such in Commission circles in Brussels that a Government were proposing that one of their two nominees would be appointed—that a Government should nominate two people for the same position? Will the Parliamentary Secretary not accept that it is as a consequence of that—that the Government could not be united in their own presentation—that neither was appointed?

I do not accept that. That is not the reason why neither was appointed. I do not know what the practice has been heretofore or in other countries but the Deputy may take it as definite that that is not the reason why neither of these gentlemen, both of whom were excellent candidates, was appointed.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why the Government decided to submit two names simultaneously for the same appointment?

I cannot tell the Deputy.

There were two applicants for one job.

The Deputy has made his point. We cannot debate this all day.

We have become the laughing stock of Europe. We lost out on the appointment because of the Government's mishandling.

That is not so.

It is the old Garret FitzGerald ritual.

Members of the House, particularly Ministers, should be referred to by their proper titles.

8.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the appointment of Director General of the Commission of the European Community is determined on an national quota basis; and, if so, if he will state Ireland's entitlement under this system.

Paragraph three of article 27 of the staff regulations of officials of the European Communities states, and I quote:

No posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific member state.

There is, therefore, no national quota system so that the second part of the Deputy's question does not arise.

However, I should point out that although there is no system of national quotas the first paragraph of article 27 of the staff regulations does provide that officials shall be "recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of member states of the Communities". On this basis Ireland can normally expect to hold one post in the Commission at Director General level and in fact we have at all times done so since the time of our accession to the Communities.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the post which, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, Ireland can expect to hold, is that which was held by invitation from another Commissioner in view of the very effective contribution which Mr. Gallagher had made in the negotiations with the OPEC countries and that is outside the proposition of national allocations, and therefore that it is not what one might call the Irish position, that it is there by direct invitation from Commissioner Soames? Therefore, does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that we are now below our appropriate allocation?

I do not accept that. I am glad to join the Deputy in his tributes to Mr. Gallagher but I do not accept that the circumstances of his appointment did not count as an appointment at that level. It does so count and we are glad to recognise it as such.

The Chair would prefer if names were not mentioned.

It is all right if they are used in a complimentary fashion.

The Chair would prefer if neither blame nor praise was attached to persons outside the House.