Mary Henry (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome his acceptance of this Bill, brought forward by Deputy Rabbitte. It is very important legislation and I am glad the Minister did not wait until the bringing forward of the major Bill to which he referred. In that context, I hope the Leader will make sure that he brings that Bill to this House so we can deal comprehensively with it. It will be very satisfying legislation with which to deal.

It is extraordinary that it was 43 years before any attempt was made to change the provision regarding the number of medical witnesses. I assure the Minister that this change is welcomed by the coroners and the medical profession, with whom I have been in contact since this Bill came before the Dáil. Medicine has changed enormously since 1962 and no one person can claim to be an expert on all of the medical facts that may come before an inquest. The very tragic case which was the catalyst for this legislation shows that clearly.

I would like to express my sympathy to the Nowlan family but also point out that something good has come out of the death of their young son. In this sad case, the child was a haemophiliac so not only would the doctor who was involved in the procedure which went wrong want to speak, but so too would those who had been treating the child up to that point and those who treated him after he became ill. A considerable number of people would want to give their facts to the inquest, facts which would be useful.

One coroner told me that he recently spent seven hours going through medical evidence from one medical witness. He said it was hopeless because he was asking the witness about his knowledge on one area, then another and so on. Now coroners will be in a position to call in the experts in specific areas, which will be very worthwhile. After all, what we want to come out are the facts of what actually happened, not people's opinions.

The Minister has removed the compellability section from the Bill. It is very much to be welcomed that the fines for non-attendance are much heavier, because as the Minister said, the previous fines would not even have covered a taxi fare to the inquest. There is now the threat of a substantial fine of €3,000, six months in jail, or both. If a person refuses to attend an inquest, could the Attorney General take a case on behalf of the coroner? Would that be a possibility? One frequently reads of cases in the newspapers where people refuse to attend inquests, even though it is perfectly obvious that their attendance is of great importance. That is dreadful.

I am always conscious of the fact that the legal profession is inclined to give the medical profession medical advice, so as a medical person I try to refrain from giving the legal profession legal advice. However, the Minister might look at this issue to determine if there is any way the Attorney General could take a case against people who do not co-operate. I know attempts have been made regarding compellability in the past and none has succeeded to date, but it is an important area.

I look forward to seeing the heads of the aforementioned Bill before Easter 2006. I always think it is advisable to say to which Easter or which Christmas one is referring. I hope we will have the substantive Bill in this House very shortly thereafter.