Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this legislation from Deputy Clare Daly. We have often been told in other debates that our maternity services are the safest in the world and, clearly, in the majority of cases, they are, but when deaths occur, they are highlighted very often on television and in court proceedings. Coming from Galway, we all know about the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar in the very recent past.

This seems to be a very sensible Bill, and I welcome the Government's support for it, but what could be a simple change to the existing Coroners Act is being delayed because of the welcome necessity for a complete overhaul of the entire coroner system. That is regrettable, because an automatic inquest in the case of maternal deaths, as outlined in Deputy Clare Daly's Bill, seems very sensible and something that should be done automatically.

I know that a complete overhaul of the coroner system is being examined. I have been led to believe there will be an increased emphasis on delivering leaner, better integrated and more customer-focused public services. I will address better integrated and more customer-focused public services in respect of Part 7 of the Bill, which concerns the conduct of an inquest. Section 47 states that:

A coroner shall, whether by post or such other means as he or she considers suitable, arrange for the notification of any or all of the following persons—(a) a family member of the deceased,

(b) any witness whose presence is required, and

(c) any interested person of whom the coroner may be aware and who, in the opinion of the coroner, ought to be notified, at least 14 days before an inquest is to be held, of the date, time, place and subject of the inquest.

I want to speak about this not in respect of maternal deaths but in respect of a particular case.

To protect the privacy of the individuals involved, I will not name names but I want to highlight the situation that arose. I discussed the matter previously with the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, and the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, at an internal meeting. A constituent came to me - we will call her Mary - who had lost her mother. Her father had passed away previously and she had no siblings. Her mother died at home, alone in a town some miles away from Mary. Like any death, there was the grief and everything that goes with it. There was an autopsy and pathology examinations. What followed that was a very long period of waiting for the pathology results to come through. I have checked with colleagues here who are doctors and they say normally it should not take more than a couple of months. This went on for months and months. Meanwhile, I had contacted the coroner, who was very helpful but said the pathology reports were still awaited and that an inquest could not be ordered until they arrived. Mary herself was on to the coroner and it was the same story. The coroner eventually rang Mary to say they were still waiting for the pathology report. That was coming up to a year after Mary's mother's death.

Subsequently, a friend of Mary happened to be in town one day and by chance met Mary's mother's carer. The carer expressed shock that Mary had not been at the inquest into her mother's death. Mary was not at the inquest because she had not been notified of it. She did not have a clue that inquest was going ahead a year after her mother's death. This put Mary into another period of shock and grieving as she dearly wanted to be at the inquest. She had things to say, which I will not get into, about care and mental services in particular. Further to that, when she went looking for a copy of the inquest report, she was charged for it. She subsequently had the charge overturned on appeal but it was a further annoyance. Mary was deeply upset that while she was at work one day an inquest into her own mother's death was taking place and she did not have a clue about it. When she contacted the coroner subsequently, she was told the coroner had notified a local garda in the town. Mary did not live in that town and the garda did not have a correct number for her. He stated that he told Mary's uncle about it but Mary's uncle did not tell Mary. They may not have been getting on or he may have felt it would have been better that she not attend the inquest. He may have been trying to protect her or something of that nature.

In any reform of the legislation relating to coroners and the Coroners Service, there needs to be a better system. No way should an inquest into a death take place when the next of kin does not know about it. If the person does not go that is his or her own business but to not even know about it is scandalous. It caused Mary grave upset. In section 47 there needs to be a specific reference to something like registered post or whatever in order to ensure the next of kin knows about the date and place of an inquest. When I highlighted this to the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, and his successor, Deputy Fitzgerald, they both felt it should be examined. I want to put the issue on the record of the Dáil, particularly for the people from the Department who may be involved in a future Bill.

See this speech in context