Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In response to Deputy Clare Daly, I am not sure if the reflection to which she refers will involve her refraining from pressing the amendment now in order to see how best we can accommodate the view that she has expressed in the amendment. If she decides to press the amendment with the support of the members, my concern is that, regardless of whether it is intended, it will have one serious consequence. That is that it would remove the statutory obligation under section 17(3) for the coroner to consult with a family member of the deceased woman. I would be concerned if we are now to insert amendments without the type of reflection that I believe is both appropriate and necessary.

Under the current provision, there is a clear obligation on the coroner to consult, have regard to and be satisfied before making a decision. These thresholds are in-built in the legislation and can adequately deal with the circumstances as outlined. I am prepared to look further to see whether we can reach a meeting of minds on this matter, but I am concerned by a number of weaknesses in the amendment. If the committee was minded to accept it in its entirety, I would have to caution against that.

Regarding the Chairman's question, there is not an appeal. It is an application to the Attorney General to direct that an inquest take place. Notwithstanding this legislation, there is something of a major re-organisation of the coroner system. Members will be familiar with the Bill of some years ago. Enshrined in that proposed Bill was a plan for a chief coroner to examine the matter of appeals. This is an issue on which work continues. It would involve significant organisational restructuring, but it is an issue that is receiving consideration.

The Chairman will be aware that there is a provision whereby a decision of a coroner can be subjected to a judicial review. That is in addition to the application that can be made to the Attorney General.