Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “(ii) of persons whose death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or suddenly and from unknown causes, or”.

These amendments respond to one of the most worrying aspect of the Bill as drafted. As the Minister mentioned on the previous amendment, the Bill is designed to interfere only in instances of manifestly inappropriate burials. This means that even though a young woman or child may have died in unnatural, unknown or suspicious circumstances, that is not, in itself, reason for intervention. This Bill, as my previous amendments outline, always requires inappropriate burials, and there is extensive definition of what constitutes such. Suspicious or unnatural deaths or deaths in unknown instances, are not enough to warrant an intervention. This is simply wrong. Several recommendations in the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report support this including:

5. The scope of the General Scheme be revised to include any burial site where the circumstances surrounding the death and/or body-disposal method warrant an investigation as to their lawfulness.

6. That intervention should give due consideration to suspicious or unlawful deaths as well as the existence of inappropriate burials.

The Bill currently ignores these recommendations and the extensive evidence on which they are based. Several witnesses highlighted international human rights and transitional justice standards should be adopted. I found the general scheme to be lacking in this regard. Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted also fails to meet these standards.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties recommended the use of the UN special rapporteur’s definition of mass grave sites including any burial site "where the circumstances surrounding the death and/or body disposal method warrant an investigation as to their lawfulness". Similarly, the Adoption Rights Alliance noted the current imbalance in the Bill with intervention based on the existence of inappropriate burials rather than suspicious or unlawful deaths.

Witnesses such as the representatives from the Tuam Home Survivor Network and Guernica 37 pointed out that we know about practices of neglect, malnutrition and malpractice in institutions. All deaths associated with these homes are already suspicious and need to be investigated. My amendments have attempted to address the concerns of witnesses by including unnatural death or death by unknown causes as stand-alone reasons to intervene at a site. I have drawn on language from the Coroners Act in this regard.

Is the Minister supportive of the broader principle rather than specific wording? If that is the case, I will consider withdrawing the amendment if he can commit to changing the criteria for intervention to include suspicious or unnatural death as a stand-alone rationale. The Bill has to align with international human rights and transitional justice standards.