Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the excavation, recovery, analysis, identification and dignified reburial of human remains buried in manifestly inappropriate manner. This is the legislative gap that the Bill seeks to fill in order that these interventions can take place at Tuam and at any other site or similar circumstances come to light. For that reason, I am not in a position to accept this group of amendments.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 16, as well as No. 78, seek to alter the definition of principal burial land and the condition for making the Government order so that an intervention can take place which does not relate to burials which are manifestly inappropriate but rather, relates to burials of persons whose deaths may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner or suddenly and of unknown causes. Amendment No. 38 seeks to alter the function of the director in order that he or she would have to arrange for forensic excavation and recovery of human remains where death would have come about in a violent or unnatural manner or suddenly, or from unknown causes. This approach would fundamentally alter the scope of the Bill and would ultimately change the under lying rationale of this legislation.

There are a number of difficulties with what are proposed. First, these amendments would represent a strong interference with the jurisdiction of An Garda Síochána and the coroner. Any intervention or investigation in respect of violent or unnatural death should clearly come under the remit of those two bodies. This is why the Bill rightly provides up front that an order may not be made if an investigation or inquest is already under way and the Garda Commissioner is of the view that it will be premature to make an order for intervention pending the outcome of the investigation. Similarly, the Bill also rightly provides that where an intervention under this legislation is under way, the director of the agency must notify both An Garda Síochána and the coroner of any evidence of violent or unnatural death that comes to light during the intervention and then follow their directions in terms of what to do next. Moreover, it is unclear how within this specific legislation it would be established prior to intervention that a death occurred in a violent, unnatural, sudden and unknown manner. I have stated before that this legislation seeks to complement existing law including the Coroners Act. It is not seeking to replace it. It does not seek to set up a new system. When we moved from the general scheme to this full draft we made a major change and that we moved all restrictions on the jurisdiction of the coroner and that was significant. Furthermore, under this legislation, the director will have to try and identify the circumstances and causes of death of recovered remains and if evidence of violent or natural death emerges the director must then notify the coroner and An Garda Síochána immediately.

Amendment No. 52 is concerned with changing the description of the type of death that must be notified to the coroner and An Garda Síochána. The current wording of “violent or unnatural” would encompass any suspicious deaths where there is potential evidence of same including homicide. In practical terms, it is important that the language that we use in the legislation is aligned with a basis of exhumation in the Coroners Act. More broadly, the director under this legislation would publish a full post-recovery analysis report in respect of all recovered remains and will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the relevant coroner. For that reason, I cannot particularly support that amendment. I believe that the vast majority of what is encompassed in amendment No. 52 is already covered in the text of the legislation.