Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Sinn Féin fully supports the Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005 and thanks the Labour Party Deputies for introducing it. The problems it seeks to rectify have been allowed to persist for far too long, with the terrible consequence that families have been denied justice, and the court has been restricted in its ability to identity recommendations to prevent further fatalities. We join in commending the Bill to the House and urging all to support it. This State's legislation on coroners has not been updated for more than 40 years, although the case for reform of the Coroners Act 1962 is convincing. It is undeniable.

The coroners law and rules must be brought into line with internationally recognised standards for the conduct of inquests, and I wonder if any of the drafters on the Labour Party side or the Minister has read the book Melancholy Madness, which was an account of the coroner's courts in Monaghan over a protracted period quite some time back. It was not what one would expect to be bedtime reading, but it was a very interesting book, and I commend it to anyone interested in the history of the Coroner's Court.

Sinn Féin advocates radical reform and regrets the Government has failed to publish a comprehensive Bill for the replacement of the existing Act, despite recognition of the necessity for wide-ranging legislative reform as far back as 2000. We believe a failure to introduce a proper investigatory role for inquests violates international law and constitutional rights.

Witnesses should be compellable, and in disputed circumstances coroners should always sit with a jury, which should not be limited to findings of fact but have full powers to bring in appropriate verdicts, including apportioning responsibility for disputed deaths in general terms and making recommendations to prevent further ones where appropriate.

The parties should have a right to examine witnesses and challenge jurors. Full legal aid should be available to families for that purpose and to cover the services of expert witnesses. All evidence, including autopsy reports, witness statements and other documents should be made available to families and their legal advisers as a right, with adequate time to prepare for the inquest. Inquests should be held promptly in a manner accessible to families, and adjournments kept to a minimum.

I note that, according to the Government legislative programme, the publication of a Bill to replace the Act is scheduled for 2006. I wonder whether I would be wrong to say I should not hold my breath. In the meantime, the proposed Bill represents a worthy effort to address some of the priority concerns identified by the working group that reviewed the coroners service and by the unfortunate families that have been let down by the inquest process. It will eliminate the restriction on the number of medical witnesses and make them compellable. That must be done as a matter of urgency. However, without wishing to delay the Bill unnecessarily, Sinn Féin submitted two very reasonable amendments to address further priorities we have identified. The Bill, as proposed, does not cover two very important issues. In light of the goodwill in the House, I urge Deputies to consider improving the Bill by ensuring that it puts mandatory inquests into deaths occurring in and following custody on a legislative basis. The need is clearly illustrated by the tragic death of Brian Rossiter.

The Bill would also be greatly improved by including a provision enshrining the public interest as a positive principle underpinning the purpose of the Coroner's Court. The court should be encouraged to make general recommendations where that could prevent future fatalities, particularly in custody and hospital settings. To achieve this, the Coroners Act 1962 must be reformed to allow a broader interpretation of the purpose of the coroner's court, thereby allowing it to ask all the necessary questions.

In the tragic case of young Frances Sheridan, who died following her discharge from Cavan General Hospital, the court was not allowed to ask questions necessary to understand the causes of her death fully and hence make recommendations aimed at preventing further fatalities. The court should be able to examine the under staffing, under funding and mismanagement of health services that tragically contribute to preventible deaths.

See this speech in context