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

Amendments similar to amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 45 were discussed on Committee Stage. For the reasons I outlined then, I am not in a position to accept those under discussion. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for the excavation, recovery, analysis, identification and dignified reinterment of human remains buried in a manifestly inappropriate manner. This is the legislative gap that the Bill seeks to address so interventions can take place, initially at Tuam and subsequently at any other site should a similar set of circumstances come to light.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 seek to alter the definition of principal burial land and the conditions for making a Government order so that an intervention can take place that does not relate to burials that are inappropriate but, rather, to burials of persons whose deaths may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner or suddenly and of unknown causes. As I outlined previously, this approach would fundamentally alter the scope of the Bill and would ultimately change the underlying objective of the legislation.

I disagree with Deputy Whitmore in that I believe these amendments would represent strong interference with the jurisdiction of both An Garda Síochána and the coroner. After the pre-legislative scrutiny, I took significant action to ensure the jurisdiction of the coroner would be maintained. That had been asked of the Government through the pre-legislative scrutiny process and directly of me by survivors I met. We were able to secure that. Any intervention or investigation in respect of violent or unnatural death should clearly come under the remit of the Garda or the coroner. This is why the Bill rightly provides upfront 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 would be premature to make an order for intervention pending the outcome of the investigation. Similarly, the Bill rightly provides that where an intervention under this legislation is under way, a director of the agency must notify An Garda Síochána and the coroner of any evidence of a violent or unnatural death that comes to light during the intervention and then follow their directions. Moreover, it is unclear how, within this specific legislation, it would be established prior to an intervention that a death occurred in a violent, unnatural, sudden and unknown manner. This legislation seeks to complement existing law, including the Coroners Act. It is not seeking to replace it. By way of a major change to the general scheme, I have removed all restrictions on the jurisdiction of the coroner. Under the legislation, the director will have to try to identify the circumstances and causes of death of recovered remains and, if evidence of violent or natural death emerges, notify the coroner and An Garda Síochána immediately.

Deputy Funchion's amendment, No. 45, is related to changing the description of the type of death that must be notified to the coroner and a member An Garda Síochána. As I outlined on Committee Stage, the current wording, namely, “violent or unnatural”, would cover any suspicious death where there is potential evidence of same, including homicide. It is necessary to keep the wording aligned with the basis of exhumation in the Coroners Act. More broadly, the director will publish a full post-recovery analysis report in respect of all recovered remains, which will include the cause and circumstances of death where it is possible to identify them. The director will ensure it is brought to the attention of the relevant coroner. Amendments Nos. 42 and 44, which were discussed under the first grouping, will ensure that the post-recovery analysis report will document whether notifications of evidence of violent or unnatural death have been made to An Garda and the coroner. It is for those reasons that I am not in a position to support these amendments.

See this speech in context