Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to mention in the first instance the point raised by Deputy Clare Daly on the timeframe and acknowledge on the part of the Government the urgency here as well as the importance. I would be very keen, if we complete Committee Stage today, that we would be ready for Report Stage early next term. Not by way of any reason or excuse for any perceived delay, I acknowledge that many of the people working on the amendments to the legislation and engaging with Deputy Clare Daly and others on the committee are also very much involved in the termination of pregnancy legislation. It may well be reasonable to assume that Bill will be enacted by the end of this year. I assure the committee there will be no delay in proceeding to Report Stage. The intention is that we will be in a position to seek a date with the committee by the end of the first month of next year. I know the urgency on the part of the committee. It is one that is shared by me in the context of issues that have been raised.

On the matter of the amendment, which is important, I want to stress that under the provision I have proposed there are three tests in which the coroner needs to engage. These are consultation with a family member of the deceased woman having due regard to the matters listed in subsection (4), including, of course, the views of the family members of the deceased woman, which is the point raised by Deputy Clare Daly, as to whether the death was natural; the result of any post mortem examination; and that the coroner needs to be satisfied that the death was natural and that an inquest is, therefore, in the circumstances not necessary. If all of these tests are satisfied the coroner has the decision-making capacity on whether to hold an inquest. It is after due and careful consideration.

Deputy Clare Daly really got to the nub of the argument when she mentioned tying the hands of coroners. It is important that we recognise the independent and official capacity of coroners. My concern with regard to the amendment is that we could well tie the hands of a coroner who, irrespective of any considerations, would have to inquest every late maternal death unless a family member of the deceased requested otherwise in writing. I see this as being, in many respects, unduly restrictive of the independent role coroners have in law. I am also of the view that the amendment would create a further issue in that, effectively, the action or inaction of a single family member could exercise a greater level of authority than might in the circumstances be necessary, where an individual family member may be in a position to decide unilaterally whether an exception, which is provided for reasons of public policy, would apply to a maternal death.

While I have some sympathy for the point raised by Deputy Clare Daly in her amendment, my view is that a coroner would be inclined to hold an inquest in any event if a death is clearly unnatural and even if it in a case where it may be unnatural. We have to look at the long-standing approaches that have been taken by coroners under the existing legislation, section 17 of which requires that it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest into a death if the coroner is of the opinion the death may have occurred in an unnatural or violent manner. I stress that in arriving at a decision a coroner is required to have regard to all of the evidence, with specific reference to the proposed section 7(3) on the results of the post mortem, the views of a family member and whether sufficient information was made available at the time. In practice coroners attach considerable importance to the views of the family, and rightly so.

I also note that Deputy Clare Daly's amendment would remove the statutory obligation under section 7(3) that would require a coroner to engage in active consultation with a family member. It is important to acknowledge there may be circumstances where family members might disagree with each other. Often, an individual family member might take a different view from other members of the family.

When such circumstances arise, it is important to acknowledge that, as a matter of general public policy, a coroner acts as an independent public official and never in any capacity as a private individual or in circumstances where there might any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the deceased. It is the coroner who makes the final decision on whether a death that may appear natural should be, in the public interest, the subject of an inquest. That is a fundamental principle of the system and I would be concerned if we moved towards weakening or changing that in a way that might be perceived as being compromised. There is no precedent for making an exception to this principle.

I acknowledge, with sympathy, the point raised by Deputy Clare Daly but I also wish to stress the independent role and function of coroners and the long-standing practice of coroners in any event, as well as the mandatory obligation there will be in respect of consultation.