Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I thank the Minister, his staff, the Government and the Leader of the Seanad for facilitating the bringing forward of this legislation, its speedy passage through the two Houses and for the additions to the legislation made by the Minister and the Department.

I understand the Minister was very courteous to the family involved in the case that lies behind this legislation. That family are from Saggart in my constituency. I express sympathy to the family at this stage for all they have gone through and for the circumstances underlying their case.

As the Minister said, the Bill was promoted by the Labour Party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, in the Dáil. It was brought forward by him to deal with problems in the Coroners Act 1962 in regard to the case of the Nowlan family but also in regard to an issue that has been identified in other cases. In general, issues need to be addressed. As the Minister said, it has been introduced in the context of a more comprehensive reform that is needed and planned by him, on which he has elaborated here today and yesterday in the other House. He outlined that he intends to publish heads of a Bill and have further consultation on the proposed legislation. He explained that it would be difficult to bring forward a comprehensive Bill as a matter of urgency to deal with the issue with which we are dealing in this Bill and agreed with my party that this is an issue of priority that needs to be addressed now.

The Minister spoke about his plans to reform the legislation and the need to widen the scope of the Coroner's Court and the coroner service. This is one of the main issues that need to be addressed. It arises from the recommendations of the expert working group on the coroner service. Even within the existing scope of the coroner service it is obvious that this type of amendment needs to be made. That is the reason there was this level of consensus around the legislation.

As has been explained, the particular case involves a young child, Pierce Nowlan of Saggart, who was admitted to Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Crumlin last October to have a device fitted into a vein that would have allowed the regular injection into his blood of factor 8, a clotting agent. During the procedure, it seems an artery was inadvertently punctured as surgeons were attempting to access the vein where the device was to be fitted. Pierce bled from a hole in this artery into the left side of his chest. Subsequently, the oxygen flow to his brain was adversely impacted and he died as a result.

The inquest into this case began in July of this year but the coroner had to adjourn it on a number of occasions, most recently in November. The coroner raised concerns at that stage about the Coroners Act 1962 and called on the Government to introduce an amendment to the legislation lifting the restriction as soon as possible. He raised general concerns which are also important in regard to this legislation. He said that present circumstances ran contrary to the rights of all involved under the Constitution for access to natural justice, fair procedures and due process. I will not go into the provisions of the Act, but a number of concerns about it have been raised during the years. That is one of the reasons the expert working group on the coroner service was set up.

In addition to the Dublin city coroner raising concerns about the legislation and this particular provision which restricted the number of medical witnesses to two, concerns were also raised by Mr. Justice Hardiman. In the case of the Eastern Health Board v. Farrell, he said that section 26 of the Coroners Act was in his view "a serious obstacle to the proper discharge of the statutory duty of a coroner in the more complex type of inquest". He continued, "If a coroner feels that the question of how the death occurred cannot be answered without further evidence, it seems remarkable that he cannot obtain it".

The Minister mentioned that he had concerns about the provision and that he felt it might not be in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and so on.

It is clear there is a need to introduce this provision. For example, a patient in a hospital could be treated by a number of different doctors with different specialties over time — one can imagine such a case. It is also clear there could be a need to call many medical witnesses to an inquest into a single case. It may not have been an urgent issue in the past, but now that there have been so many technological advances in medicine and hospital doctors have many specialties, it is obvious there is a need to broaden the ability of coroners to call many witnesses to inquests.

I would like to speak briefly about some of the provisions of the Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to repeal section 26(2) of the Coroners Act 1962, which provides that a maximum of two medical witnesses can be called to an inquest. As Deputy Rabbitte said in the Dáil, it is "universally accepted" that the restriction in question is "unwarranted and unfair". It is being removed so that an unlimited number of medical witnesses can be called. The Minister, Deputy Michael McDowell, has accepted the Labour Party's proposal to amend the section of the 1962 Act that makes it an offence to fail to attend an inquest at the specified time and date. Section 1 of the Bill will increase the fine imposed on a juror in such circumstances to €500, which is more prohibitive. During last night's debate in the Dáil, the Minister amended the Bill to provide that the fine that will be imposed on a witness in such circumstances will be €3,000.

The Minister also decided to delete the section of the original Bill, which was proposed by the Labour Party, that provided for the enforcement of a coroner's request to a person to attend an inquest. He said he intends to address that aspect of the matter in some future comprehensive legislation. The Labour Party has accepted the Minister's reasonable approach because it understands that a limited number of provisions can be put in place at this point. As the issue of enforcement is more complex, it may be more appropriate to deal with it following further consultation and examination. I understand the Minister's decision to amend the Bill by removing section 2 of the original Bill.

I again thank the Minister. Members of the House often complain that our work is not covered by the media and it is possible that this legislation will not be the subject of much media coverage. The Bill is a prime example of the constructive work that is done by those of us who take seriously our important role as legislators. A legislative gap that needs to be filled as speedily as possible has been identified. We are working together to that end, which demonstrates that constructive work is done by Members on all sides of the House. We do a great deal of legislative work that is separate to the cut and thrust of debates which take place along Government and Opposition lines. The Minister has often accepted amendments, which have been tabled by the Labour Party and other parties, during debates on other Bills. Such activity is not the subject of a great deal of media coverage. I take our role as legislators seriously because I feel it is important. The work being done today is very important as well.