Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The Social Democrats will support this Bill, even though it is an interim measure. Ideally, we would want the main legislation to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

The Bill before the House is designed to provide, in the short term, for the continuation of the appointment of temporary coroners in the Dublin district to continue working through their day-to-day caseloads. It is appropriate that we should give sanction for that by way of legislation. That is what the Bill facilitates. Deputy Ó Ríordáin highlighted the Stardust inquest as part of the caseloads to which I refer. People have waited a very long time for that.

The Bill contains a number of provisions I would like to address and on which I would like to hear the Minister of State's views. Broadly speaking, there is a requirement to reform the Coroner Service. I am sure the Minister of State has had his attention drawn to the submission by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, to the Joint Committee on Justice arising from the 2021 report on this topic. The ICCL set out 25 points, ranging from media reporting of inquests to institutional racism, which mainly dealt with reporting in relation to Travellers, and the skill sets and training that should be considered in the appointments process relating to coroners. Media reporting is incredibly important. There is a sensitivity in reporting some cases, for example, those involving suicide. The reporting in those cases varies quite a lot from, for example, what happens in inquests relating to the deaths of those involved in gangland crime. The way in which a death is reported can have a double impact on people. This does not just happen in the coroner's court; it can also be the case in the Criminal Courts of Justice. I refer to instances where, perhaps, some of the people who were the perpetrators of a crime are not named but the person who has died is described. Usually and often, they are described from the viewpoint of the perpetrator. This can be incredibly hurtful and offensive for the family involved.

Sections 2 and 3 deal primarily with the status of the appointee and the terms of engagement by the State. It is proposed to move away from the title of "officeholder" to that of "civil servant". Coroners are described as being independent in their function and acting on behalf of the State in the public interest. The note provided to Members states that the status of the coroner for the District Court will be that of a civil servant of the State and that any future appointments will be made on the basis of the position effectively being a full-time post. I want the Minister of State to provide detail on this. A civil servant is a functionary. A civil servant operates under instructions, and there is a hierarchy. I am sure the Minister of State will appreciate the point I am making. What impact will this reclassification of the coroner's status have on the culture of the organisation of the coroner's court and the way in which other bodies such as An Garda Síochána interact with it? How is the independence of the coroner preserved in view of the proposed changes? Is this likely to make its way into the main Bill? Is this envisaged?

Section 3 looks to cap the tenure to a maximum of ten years by way of a sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Initially, it will be for five years and then the Minister could approve it for another five. The argument could be made that in most instances the maximum duration could be in place. There is a balance of argument to be made here. One does not want something to become a personal fiefdom but we do want to keep people who are performing their duties well in the most professional, efficient and diligent way, and who have a lot of experience. One does not want to cut that kind of career short where it is not justified. When the Bill was being drafted, were multiple terms considered even by way of open competition? For example, where a person had exceeded the duration can they reapply for their own job through the open competition? Perhaps the Minister of State will set out what the issue is in that regard. It may well have been gone through at the committee. As I am not a member of the committee, I do not know.

I welcome the provisions in section 5 regarding the ability to appoint temporary coroners to the District Court outside of Dublin. This ensures an adaptability or flexibility where that process is needed. I would like to hear more from the Minister of State on section 6 and the process by which the Minister will promote or demote, or where the person can be promoted or demoted, in the context of senior coroners in areas that will have multiple coroners in the district. The primary legislation governing this is from 1962, more than 60 years ago, and Ireland has changed dramatically in that time. I suspect that the caseload of coroners has changed in the numbers of cases they are dealing, in the complexity of cases, and in how those cases are reported. The main issue is that delays are kept to a minimum. Each case presented will always be a situation where there is some degree of tragedy for a family. Very often people want to have the formal processes concluded so they can then really deal with their grief without an impediment. A delay can produce that kind of impediment.

See this speech in context