Alex White (Labour)

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. I am relatively new to this issue although many of us will have personal experience of the coroner service, as I have over the years on sad occasions. I have also professionally represented families before coroners.

I am dealing with this issue in the round for the first time and I commend the drafters of this Bill on the clarity of language largely to be found in the Bill. Legislation is often criticised for arcane, difficult and sometimes indecipherable provisions and wording, but this Bill as drafted is a model of clarity and it is relatively easy to navigate one's way around it. That is not to say we agree with every element of the Bill.

I agreed with the Minister when he stated that society and the community owe a great debt of gratitude to coroners who have served over the decades. They have provided an invaluable public service in such a sensitive area.

I note the 1962 Act is well beyond its time for review and needs to be repealed and replaced by this legislation. It has only been subject to amendment on one occasion and I am proud to note that such amendment was done by my party two years ago when private Members' legislation was required to be introduced to deal with a specific issue at that time. It is now time to deal with the wider Bill and the issues it deals with.

Without prejudice to our entitlement to introduce amendments on Committee Stage, I note the provision which broadens out the investigation which a coroner is required to undertake. The who, where, why and how those of us practising in that area are all familiar with will be augmented by the provision that the coroner will also be required to look at the wider circumstances leading to the death of the individual concerned. This will give a broader remit to the coroner and is to be welcomed.

As a number of speakers have said, it is vital that the coroner is independent in the conduct of his or her duties. This is emphasised in the Bill but it should also be noted in this debate. In Senator Walsh's thoughtful contribution, he queried whether it was necessary or appropriate that coroners should operate in a full-time capacity. I believe it is, as it is consistent with the requirement that they be independent in the conduct of their duties and that they have no conflicts of interest. With regard to conflicts of interest, the worry is never actually about a conflict but about the perception of a conflict. It appears to be consistent with a requirement which flows from the European Convention on Human Rights but which in any event is proper, that a coroner should be absolutely independent in the manner of his or her appointment and also in the conduct of his or her duties. To act part time or to have to work elsewhere to earn money is not consistent with that requirement. I would respectfully disagree with any suggestion that this element of the Bill might be changed.

Section 25 deals with reportable deaths, which are listed in the Schedule. We will examine this in more detail on Committee Stage but reportable deaths should only be determined in the context of what the Bill is seeking to achieve. The resources available to a coroner should never enter into the calculation of what is a reportable death. Either a death is properly reportable in the public interest or it is not. There should be no question of resources or the absence of them entering into that calculation.

A coroner is required to arrive at and publish a verdict. It might be worthwhile to look again at the different types of verdict. We are familiar with the different verdicts in the coroners rules that currently apply but they might bear further analysis and consideration. Will the Minister consider defining and clarifying the different types of verdict in the primary legislation? I welcome the reference to the recommendation. We are familiar with cases where a jury might make a recommendation, often in the case of a death that occurred as a result of a public health failing. There is a welcome provision in the Bill that rather than a recommendation being made, and perhaps forgotten, the public body concerned must respond within a specified period and indicate what, if anything, it has done in respect of the recommendation.

Section 57 in respect of adjournments has been somewhat controversial. It was mentioned by Senator Walsh. The section makes it abundantly clear which bodies shall be entitled to apply to an inquest for an adjournment. The Oireachtas has established a Garda Ombudsman Commission and it is entirely appropriate that the commission should have the power to seek an adjournment of an inquest. That power should not be watered down or varied by the Minister during the passage of this legislation. It is important to have a Garda Ombudsman Commission and to protect the interests of persons who make complaints to it. When a person makes a complaint it does not necessarily follow that the complaint will be upheld but the person is entitled to the due process which the Garda Ombudsman Commission will apply to the complaint. Other powers and responsibilities have been given to the Garda Ombudsman Commission which it must carry out in the public interest, and it is entirely appropriate that it have this power.

There was a controversy last week into which I will not stray, but comments were made in the House in respect of that incident. It is inappropriate to suggest that it ought never to happen or that it should not happen. It is all very well for Senator Ross or the coroners or other bodies to say there is a proliferation of public agencies but an agency such as the Garda Ombudsman Commission was established for a reason. If there is to be joined-up public service and administration, it is right that the commission should have that power of intervention.

I note Senator Walsh's comments in respect of timely interventions and that perhaps there should be some restrictions regarding the timing of such interventions. I would be happy to consider any suggestions made in that regard once they do not disturb the fundamental position, namely, that the Garda Ombudsman Commission and the other bodies mentioned ought to have the power to ask the coroner to adjourn an inquest. If it is right for the Garda to do it, why should it not also be right for the Garda Ombudsman Commission or other similar bodies to do it where they are investigating a complaint?

I welcome the provision in section 63 relating to witnesses. It is a clarification and extension of the power of the coroner to call witnesses, and gives the coroner appropriate powers to ensure that witnesses attend and give evidence. There is also a welcome provision regarding legal aid. Some Members said that the circumstances in which legal aid might be granted were not sufficiently clear. Perhaps the Minister might respond to that. The Bill sets out various types of deaths in respect of which legal aid could be granted to somebody who wishes to attend an inquest, rather than the aid relating to the means of the person. That, perhaps, refers back to the legal aid provisions so there might be a relationship between the two provisions which we can deal with later, if necessary.

The Irish Human Rights Commission proposed to the Minister that gardaí ought not act as coroner's officers where an inquest is dealing with a death that took place in Garda custody. That proposal has been incorporated in the Bill. However, the commission also suggested that gardaí should not act as officers where the death had occurred as a result of Garda operations. That has not been included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would reconsider this. Where a death occurs arising from a Garda operation it would not be appropriate for a garda to act as a coroner's officer.

The important aspect of the legislation is that it sets up a professional service which will operate at a high standard. We ought to have such a service. I agree with Senator de Búrca that it must be well resourced. Many of us have attended coroners' courts where the facilities are inadequate, to say the least, which makes the process even more stressful for the people concerned. The Minister should ensure that the coroners' courts and their facilities are at a high standard so the highest quality service can be provided to the community.