Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Ó Conchúbhair, le cead an Tigh.

I welcome the introduction of this Private Members' Bill by Deputy Rabbitte and his colleagues in the Labour Party. It has a very specific focus, namely, to address certain deficiencies in the current law pertaining to the conduct of an inquest by a coroner. These deficiencies — the restriction on the number of medical witnesses and the outdated sanction for non-attendance of a witness or juror — have, albeit in a limited number of cases, combined to inhibit the conduct of inquests in a manner sufficient to inform the family and relations of a deceased person and society at large. I join Deputy Rabbitte in stating I appreciate the present law would have rendered a significant injustice if it had not been remedied for the Nowlan family. I was conscious of this when I met the family.

In recent months certain cases have helped to highlight the inadequacies of the current law as contained in the Coroners Act 1962. Since these pertinent cases are still current, the House will appreciate that it would be inappropriate to debate the details of them at this time, except to state they are very sad. They prove the need for a change in the law. I am happy to state the Government has approved my proposal that the principle of the Bill should be supported, subject to some amendments I shall be raising, largely of a technical nature.

The House will be aware that the Government's legislative programme, announced at the beginning of the session, contained a commitment to replace the Coroners Act 1962 with a modern code of law, to establish a coroner service and to transform the organisation of coroners. My proposals for a Bill have been with Departments and the Attorney General for necessary observations and I expect to be in a position to secure Government approval of the details very shortly. I intend to publish the heads, of which there are more than 190, for public consultation purposes during the drafting process.

The coroner service is one of the oldest public offices of the State and its origins date back many hundreds of years. Prior to the Act of 1962 there was a Coroners Act of 1927. My predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, began the current process of reform when he established an expert working group, the coroners review group, to examine all aspects of the coroner service with a view to bringing forward recommendations for reform. The group's report was published in December 2000 and contained 110 recommendations covering a wide range of issues. The work of the group was complemented by the subsequent report of the coroners rules committee, published in November 2003.

The Coroners Society of Ireland, as the body which represents coroners, has been active in the process of reform, for which I thank it. I have met it on a number of occasions in recent years and there continues to be ongoing contact, as well as meetings with departmental officials to advance the process.

The key objectives of the comprehensive Bill which I intend to bring to Government will be to provide for considerable updating and streamlining of the death investigation and post-mortem and inquest procedures so as to ensure a better and more proper service than is currently possible under the 1962 Coroners Act. To achieve these objectives, I am focusing on two critical elements in the reform of the coroner service — the widening of scope of the inquest and the development of optimum structures and administration for a modern coroner service. The central element of a modern death investigation service must be to allow sufficient scope to the coroner to carry out the best possible investigation. The 1962 Act and a subsequent interpretation of its intention and scope by the Supreme Court in the cases of Greene v. McLoughlin 1985 and the Eastern Health Board v. Farrell, provided for a restrictive approach to the examination at an inquest of "how" the person died. The examination is limited to establishing the proximate medical cause of death. Such a limitation is no longer appropriate, given the developments in medical care and treatment since 1962 and increasingly threatens to bring the inquest process into disrepute.

We must now move to expand the scope of the coronial investigation. We must require that the coroner seek to establish, in so far as is practicable, in what circumstances the deceased met his or her death. Widening the scope of the coroner's investigation was recommended by the coroners review group; reflects jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights; and is consistent with developments in other common law jurisdictions. A series of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights must, in development of my own Bill, be taken into account to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. These judgments interpret Article 2 of the convention as providing for a more extensive investigation of the circumstances of death, beyond the strict "how in those particular circumstances" question now posed. They indicate that a certain extension of the scope of an inquest is now required to meet the obligations of the convention.

Any proposed extension of the role of the coroner's investigation would have to be balanced by maintaining the prohibition on explicit determination of questions of criminal liability at an inquest which applies under our law currently. From any widening of the scope of the coroner's inquiry, there would follow a series of developments which would include: no arbitrary restriction on the number and type of medical or other witnesses who can be summoned to appear and testify at an inquest; increased sanctions for those who refuse to co-operate with a coroner's investigation into a death; powers of compellability for the coroner akin to those available to a tribunal of inquiry; expressly stated powers for a coroner of control of the body of the deceased and other things, including power of entry and seizure; greater involvement of the coroner in the movement of bodies into and out of the State; and in a case where the coroner is concerned, that a fact of death certificate be held by an undertaker before disposal of a body. In the wake of the Shipman events in England we must be conscious that our law is deficient in some respects.

The coroners review group envisaged certain powers for the coroner akin to those available to a tribunal of inquiry. It is suggested procedures relating to evidence, access to documents, etc. will have to be developed in that regard in respect of the coroner's inquest. The right of access to documentation by all the parties concerned could become a critical point, especially regarding hospital, Garda or other State agency reports. There would clearly be a need to respect the constitutional and legal rights of witnesses similar to the conditions at a tribunal. This need to ensure better, consistent and efficient procedures in light of a new legal scenario would have resource implications; it could not be assured under the current coronial system.

The primary concern of the coroners review group was to ensure a high quality coroner service with optimal resources and supports would be developed. To achieve this outcome, it recommended a comprehensive overhaul and modernisation of the service. As regards the number of coroners, it envisaged an evolution to a regionalised structure where there would be fewer than the current 48 coronial districts provided for in the 1962 Act. I am satisfied that the current organisation of coroners must be reformed. The proposed Bill I have advanced for consideration by the Government will address all the policy issues, which include best practice in the law on coroners, their organisation and support structures.

I was, in effect, confronted by a choice. I could have chosen to table a Bill along the lines now being considered or I could have presented a full Bill of the type being finalised. As Deputy Rabbitte pointed out, the chances of the full Bill being enacted prior to the taking of the cases with which Deputies Rabbitte and O'Connor, as well as others and I, are concerned are slim. It seemed unlikely that this Dáil would deal with two coroners Bills in its lifetime. I doubt whether a Bill of this kind tabled by me would have survived the inevitable criticism of any sensible person that I was not addressing the wider issues of radical reform. I welcome this Bill as an agreed remedial measure which allows the major reform project to advance also. I hope both Bills become law before the next general election.

The short Bill, tabled by Deputy Rabbitte, can benefit from some technical amendments with which he has signalled agreement. It might facilitate the House if I were to indicate briefly the contents of those amendments. They are technical in nature, except in respect of the new sanctions for non-appearance as a witness or juror.

I will propose an additional provision in the Bill that will allow delivery of a witness or juror summons by registered post. I will propose sanctions on those persons, be they jurors or witnesses, summoned to attend at an inquest, namely, to fine jurors €500 for non-attendance on summary conviction and witnesses who fail to attend or co-operate at an inquest, €3,000, and/or impose a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. I will also propose a transitional provision to ensure the new sanctions will apply only to offences committed after the enactment of this Bill because the Constitution prohibits retrospective criminalisation.

The Bill proposes the provision of increased powers for the coroner to compel attendance as a witness or a juror. Unfortunately, following consultation with the Attorney General's office, I will propose to delete the relevant sections from the Bill because without further development this aspect is somewhat problematic. If we had had another week or two to work on this, I would have been able to do as Deputy Rabbitte suggests but time was limited. I will address this issue in my proposals for new comprehensive coroners' legislation. We should, however, be prudent at this stage and not include something which is defective or suspect. I am confident that the abolition of the restriction on the number of witnesses and the increased level of sanctions will enable proper interim compliance with the coroner's requests in the investigation into deaths as a short-term measure.

The Committee Stage amendments I have outlined have been drafted and will become available to Deputies as soon as possible after Second Stage. In a spirit of co-operation, I understand the amendments, in so far as they are known to the proposer of the Bill, may be acceptable and should facilitate the early passage of the Bill as desired by the Members of this House and the Government.

I thank Deputy Rabbitte for getting me out of a difficult situation. It was, therefore, a pleasure to propose to my colleagues in the Government that we accept the Bill and expedite its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

See this speech in context