Shane Ross (Independent)

I broadly welcome the thrust and idea of this reforming Bill. I understand the motivation for it. I do not doubt that the attempt being made to modernise the coroners office is well founded and necessary. I am sure the principles which underpin this legislation will be the subject of all-party agreement.

The response this Bill has received from certain vested interests has not been completely unanimous and uncritical, however, in contrast to the response that was given to the review group's report in 2000. I wonder whether the coroners, who are somewhat involved in this matter and were represented on the review group, were properly consulted before the Bill was drafted. There is some discontent among the coroners about what is happening in this Bill. It is regrettable that the last Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was unable to meet the coroners before this legislation was drafted. It would have been appropriate if he had done so because it would have made the Bill a little less contentious. On foot of that difficulty, Senator O'Toole and I intend to propose some amendments when Committee Stage is taken to reflect some of the coroners' worries about this Bill. It is obvious that their concerns were not directly put to the Minister or his predecessor before the Bill was brought to the House.

It is important the coroners office should be modernised. I welcome the obvious concern to ensure that the needs of the families of the deceased are paramount. There is an obvious desire in the legislation to ensure that families are kept informed and better informed about what is going on. That concern is human rights-led rather than local-led. Families should be given full information at all times about what happens when there is an inquest — they should be comforted to some extent. The Bill reflects the need to ensure that coroners' inquiries are held for the bereaved and not for anybody else.

I would like to highlight some of the coroners' worries. I ask the Minister to reflect on them and to consider amendments aimed at addressing them on Committee Stage. The coroners' main worry is an understandable one. They have done an effective job in difficult administrative circumstances without any back-up, but they have real concerns about the introduction of these new State agencies. As I understand it, the agencies are being established to allow for the future widening of the remit of the coroners' inquiries. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. In the past, such inquiries were really only concerned with establishing the cause of death. Their remit will now be widened to explain and investigate the general circumstances surrounding the death. I presume this legislation has been introduced on the basis that the expansion of that remit to allow coroners to report on the general circumstances of a death necessitates the establishment of new agencies, including the Garda Síochána Ombudsman.

The problem outlined by the coroners is that this legislation will result in many delays. The Minister said earlier that he hopes there will not be any great tensions between the various bodies. If there are many State agencies with different agendas, presumably they will all seek adjournments from time to time for various reasons. It is certain that the agencies will have their own agendas, even if they are laudable agendas. There has been a tradition of almost inevitably granting an adjournment to the Garda Síochána if it asks a coroner's inquiry for such an adjournment. If bodies like the Health and Safety Authority and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman are, like the Garda itself, able to play separate parts in coroners' inquiries, they may take a long time to conclude. That would extend the difficulties of the families of the bereaved, to some extent, which is not the purpose of the Bill. The Minister might think of a way around this problem. I do not know whether he should contemplate having two separate types of inquiry which each pursue the two goals which are moulded together in this Bill.