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

I cannot accept these two amendments. Deputy Ward is absolutely right as regards the complexity of the work that will have to take place for the recovery of these remains. Following on from the pre-legislative scrutiny process where this issue was flagged extensively with us, the provision in the general scheme was significantly revised to ensure that appropriately qualified persons deliver excavation and post-recovery analysis in line with international standards and according to professional rules and guidelines.

It is clear that the work needs input from a range of disciplines and only a multidisciplinary approach can meet the international standards and deliver the required work. The Government has made a commitment to a multidisciplinary approach. I reassure the Deputies that in my mind that is the only way we can achieve what is required, particularly in the Tuam site.

The Coroners Act does not regulate investigation. For this reason, it is unclear to me why investigation and post-recovery analysis under this legislation needs to be implemented in accordance with the Coroners Act. Of course, it is critical that if evidence of violence and unnatural death emerges, the coroner is notified and that is permitted under this legislation but I also highlight the definition at the start of the Bill, which specifies that forensic investigation and recovery means excavation and recovery "in a manner sufficient to satisfy legal requirements regarding the use and storage of evidence in connection with the identification of human remains, including in criminal proceedings". Therefore, the legislation commits to applying forensic standards so that any evidence gathered through the process can be used in proceedings, including criminal ones. This places a clear obligation on the director when arranging for excavation and recovery of remains under section 35.

These proposals do not strengthen the Bill but weaken it and slightly confuse the range of roles.