Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Ba bhreá liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire agus tréaslú leis as an mBille tábhachtach seo. Tá sé thar am go mbeadh a leithéid de reachtaíocht os ár gcomhair. This is a very important Bill and the Minister is to be commended on introducing it. It proposes to replace legislation that has been in place for 45 years. The Coroners Act 1962 came into effect when Charles J. Haughey was Minister for Justice. Despite the one amendment alluded to by the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, there has been no other significant legislative reform. I note what the Minister said on the review sponsored by his Department. The review group reported in 2000 and made a number of recommendations, and it has been a long journey to this point. The original Act had 59 sections while the current substantial Bill has 92. The proposed reform of the coronial system is very welcome and long overdue.

It is interesting to reflect on why a new arrangement is proposed. For a significant number of people, the only forum in which the circumstances of a death can be investigated is through a coroner's inquiry. Most cases do not result in civil or criminal proceedings and it is therefore important to reflect on the public importance of the coroner's role.

As the Minister stated, to comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there must be provision for an extensive inquiry system like that proposed. It is a significant advance on what was in place previously and its importance might be recognised in light of our Constitution's guarantee to vindicate the right to life of the person.

I have but a few observations and concerns regarding the Bill. Sections 13, 15 and 17 provide that the chief coroner, deputy chief coroner and coroners would be appointed by the Executive, by warrant of the Government. It is to be noted that heretofore coroners were appointed by local authorities. There were good historical reasons for doing so. If a coroner was to rack up charges on ratepayers, he or she had to be answerable locally.

One must ask whether the new provision regarding the appointment of coroners by the Executive will affect compliance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Is there sufficient arm's length to allow full compliance with the convention given that the Government will appoint coroners and that its interests might be involved? It is probably not a problem bearing in mind that judges are Government appointees. Judges, too, must review Executive actions from time to time. Nonetheless, one must ask why there is a departure from the previous arrangement.

It is clear that the Bill streamlines the Coroners Service. At present, there are part-time coroners who are doctors, solicitors or barristers. Under the new legislation, full-time coroners will be appointed for different regions. It also provides that there will be a threshold requirement concerning the duration of previous practice in one's profession. Section 23 stipulates that, once appointed as chief coroner, deputy chief coroner or coroner, one cannot continue to practise as a solicitor or barrister. These provisions do not apply to doctors. Is it contemplated that medical practitioners, who are also entitled to be appointed to these positions, will be required to give up their medical careers? Will the Minister enlighten us as to why there is a distinction between members of the legal profession and those of the medical profession? Is it contemplated that it would be impossible to get doctors to take on the job if they were required to give up their existing medical practices?

Section 24 provides for coroners' rules in a very welcome way. We had no previous rules of court and Appendix J of the Review of the Coroner Service sets out minimum requirements in this area. No doubt these or similar rules will commend themselves to the Minister, who will have the power to make rules.

Section 27(3) makes specific reference to the European Convention on Human Rights and the fact that the coroner shall have regard to the provisions thereof. The urging of coroners to have regard to these rights is very welcome, particularly in light of our constitutional context.

Let me address some specific matters of concern. Section 31 deals with deaths outside the State. I am aware that when British military personnel are killed on active service abroad, the coroner in the place in which the deceased would normally have resided in Britain may inquire into the circumstances of the death. In the United Kingdom there have been a number of high-profile cases involving friendly fire.

It could never be desirable that parents or family members would find themselves up against a wall of silence where a death abroad is concerned. One cannot obtain the findings of an Army inquiry when somebody dies in the field and therefore the only way in which a family might get answers is by way of a coroner's investigation.

The provisions of section 31 appear to be conjunctive and I wonder whether they are not supposed to be disjunctive. There is a strong case to be made for a domestic coroner to be empowered to inquire into the death of a member of the Defence Forces or a garda overseas. Are all the provisions in the various subsections of section 31 supposed to apply before such an investigation can be opened or are they meant to be disjunctive? The coroner ought to be empowered, as of right, to open an inquiry on the application of an interested party.

Section 34 provides for the giving of a certificate of the fact of death, reflecting the de facto practice that is currently done on an informal basis. I wonder if such a certificate is now necessary or sufficient to get a State benefit or to make a claim under an insurance policy. For that reason, I welcome the new provision, which seeks to reflect the de facto practice, especially as delays are often encountered in the system when people try to secure rights and benefits. I also welcome section 41, which provides for a consultative case to be stated by the coroner for the opinion of the High Court.

The next main issue I would like to flag concerns post mortems, which are dealt with in Part 10. Section 74 provides that a coroner may ask a medical practitioner to conduct an examination or post mortem. I am aware of a coroner in the north east who was unable to secure the services of a pathologist locally, which gave rise to particular problems and unnecessary delays in completing necessary post mortem examinations. It resulted in bodies being moved around the State to different hospitals to conduct post mortems, thereby causing unnecessary distress and grief to family members. This proposed legislation seems to contemplate that this unfortunate set of circumstances will be perpetuated. A coroner should be entitled to invoke the assistance of local publicly-funded pathology services on a statutory basis. If industrial relations issues need to be addressed, the Minister should address them with some urgency. This problem was flagged seven years ago in the report of the working group. Section 74(1) should state that the coroner "shall direct" rather than "may request".

Part 10 also provides that a coroner is not required to investigate any death that occurred more than 70 years ago — prior to 1937. If the chosen year was 1932, when Fianna Fáil came into government, cynics might question the creation of this exclusion zone. Why has such a specific cut-off point been chosen?