Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his elucidation of section 6. We would not have a merger without that section being inserted because it is required in order to identify the functions that will transfer. The Minister of State also referred to section 14(1), the purpose of which is to ensure that radiological protection will be prominent in the new structure to be put in place, which will be called the EPA rather than the "environmental and radiological protection agency". The person who is in charge on the dissolution of the RPII shall on that day become a director of the new agency for a term ending not later than 30 April 2016, subject to the same terms and conditions. That appears to have been inserted purely to protect the salaries of the public official involved, which is standard practice in these arrangements. I am not so much concerned about the salary, because people are in unions and have protections in the public service, as by the importance of that functionary and how he or she will be held to account at board level. Why is the termination date set for 30 April 2016? It would be eminently sensible that whomever occupies that position in future should be a director. That in itself would give status to the office of the radiological protection agency. If the individual will become just another executive, staff member or clerk of the EPA, I would be concerned about the diminution of influence of that office.