Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not have a strong view but the section says it is up to the director general. The legal obligation is on the director general to satisfy himself that the complainant has not pursued the complaint. In law, we are putting a test of reasonableness on the director general before he strikes out the complaint. The way in which he chooses to exercise that test of reasonableness is the one we know about. I do not necessarily see why we should prescribe specific ways in which he could satisfy himself. This is what he can choose to do. In deference to the Senators, we will consider it but it is reasonable. The director general is trying to run an efficient office and should be given discretion. The obligation is on the director general, who must ultimately show that he behaved in a reasonable way in deciding to strike it out. The way in which he does this is perfectly reasonable to me, sending a registered letter. I do not think we need to prescribe it in law. This is a service in which we are trying to take out legalistic practices and to use administrative good sense. However, this practice is still subject to review. I will speak to the people who have familiarity with how the process is done but I feel the Oireachtas should not be excessively prescriptive when putting in place a director general to run an office in an efficient way. If something has been dormant for ages, we entrust the director general with an obligation to satisfy himself. I tend to take a more reasonable and less legalistic view than the Senators. What we have is reasonable and the way it is to be conducted is reasonable.