Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators on all sides of the House for the broad welcome they gave this measure. Many good points were made, and they can be made again on Committee Stage. I propose to examine with care what the Senators have said between now and Committee Stage, and investigate how the concerns of different Senators, although some of them were conflicting, may be addressed.

In a sense, the whole thrust of this legislation is to address concerns such as those raised by Senator Geraldine Feeney. The Bill is designed to provide more backup for coroners, as well as a modern code of legislation under which to operate. These are the two essential features of this legislation. Senator Eugene Regan brought the debate off to a good start by welcoming the Bill and, like the good counsel he is, observed the Second Stage convention. He did not dwell on the details of the Bill, but raised one pertinent point echoed only by Senator Paudie Coffey, which is the matter of resourcing. Indicative figures of the type of funding involved are given in the explanatory memorandum, and I intend to engage in a detailed analysis, with my officials, of how we can fund this operation. As always, it is not just about the allocation of resources, but also the efficient use of our public service resources. These issues must be considered in the context of the implementation of this Bill.

As I do not intend to go through all the points raised, I hope Senators will forgive me if I do not touch on everything. Senator Jim Walsh mentioned the appointment of coroners. It has been traditional to appoint coroners from the medical or legal profession. However, the ideal coroner would be qualified in both. It has been the experience of many practitioners that a coroner who has a qualification in both of these areas is very well suited to the position. That said, we do not require it because few people in the country have both qualifications and of those who do, some engage in extremely lucrative occupations. It is difficult to find someone who has both qualifications. In the case of a person with legal qualifications we should examine how the deficit on the medical side can be made up and for a person with medical qualifications how the deficit on the legal side can be made up. This is highly skilled work and requires a professional qualification.

The coroner will receive the support of the Garda Síochána when required. At present, coroners are dependent in an informal way on the services of the Garda Síochána. One purpose of the Bill is to ensure that a coroner's staff do the work relating to the summonsing and notification of witnesses and jurors.

Senator Walsh raised the issue of suicide which has always been a reportable death and will continue to be so. Senator Fitzgerald asked whether we can structure this legislation to ensure information about this topic is available to those valuable research bodies which engage in social research on this subject. I will consider it but I am not sure whether it requires a formal statutory setting. At a minimum we must ensure the legislation does not inhibit such research and that such information can be made available.

Senator Mullen raised a number of points better addressed on Committee Stage. One point both he and Senator de Búrca raised was the independence of coroners in the performance of their functions, which the Bill ensures and enshrines. We can review the Bill on Committee Stage if Senators are concerned this principle is not entrenched to a sufficient degree. It is my intention in tabling the Bill to ensure coroners have independence and there is no question of it being interfered with.

On an associated subject, Senator de Búrca asked why juries will be retained when the tendency in many common law jurisdictions is to dispense with the requirement for a jury. The European Court of Human Rights insists that in certain circumstances we should have this element of public participation in the inquiry. Other common law jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia are not parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and are freer to legislate in this area than we are. A case can be made for not having juries but a position was arrived at in Strasbourg and I propose to respect it.

Senator Ross referred to consultation with coroners. I am advised they have been in extensive and on-going consultation with the Department on the shape and content of the Bill and that my predecessor met the Coroners Society of Ireland on a number of occasions to discuss the reform. I am open to discussions with them about it and I have no difficulty with it.

Senator Alex White commended the coroners as did Senator McDonald, for which I thank them. In discussing legislative reform and improving practices one may sound as though one does not acknowledge the tremendous work done under difficult circumstances by coroners.

Senator Alex White also raised a number of other issues. One matter of substance and current controversy which he touched on is the issue of the adjournment of a coroner's inquest at the instigation of a statutory body. A balance must be struck and it is important that we get it right in the Bill. It is important that statutory bodies with inquiries to conduct can conduct them. It is also important that in appropriate circumstance coroners can get on with their business. Senator Alex White summarised very well the need for this balance. I am prepared to examine the details of the legislation on Committee Stage to see whether we can calibrate this balance correctly.

I have gone through most of the points of substance. Many points were made which would be more appropriately addressed on Committee Stage. I propose to read the transcript of this debate and revisit these issues.