Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My Department has received the advice of the Office of the Attorney General on the Bill and reference to the Attorney General has been well made by my colleague, Senator Mulherin. It is the firm view that to introduce a verdict of iatrogenic suicide at inquest would be legally unsound.

The Coroners Society of Ireland is a body that has not been mentioned during the course of this debate. It is important that we would acknowledge the role played by that society. Its members are engaged on a daily basis in the conduct of inquests. The society and its members have indicated they are very much opposed to this proposal, not least given that it might require coroners to reach verdicts that would infer liability on a medical practitioner.

I believe that a sufficient range of verdicts is available to coroners to draw on in the context of the cases envisaged by the Bill, including those of suicide, open or medical misadventure. I wish to inform the Seanad that I intend to widen the scope of the coroner’s investigation at inquest along the lines of that proposed in the Coroners Bill 2007, which was referred to by Senator Mac Lochlainn. This will help to better fulfil our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2017 is being urgently drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I hope to be in a position to seek Government approval in the near future to publish this Bill.

I very much agree with those Senators who said that where a medical misdiagnosis or prescription occurs, action might then be taken against the medical practitioner. Provision for that is contained in a process under our civil law. However, such an action must be followed in the appropriate forum and I am not sure that forum is a coroner's court, on the basis that it is not a court of law. The coroner cannot consider or determine the liability of any person in any circumstances. This situation is one of long standing with regard to the coroners not only in this jurisdiction but across all common law jurisdictions. It is not the intention to change the nature of the inquest procedure or to change the role and function of the coroner or the coroner's court in as radical a fashion as is envisaged under the Bill. I should mention that our courts have in the past ruled against liability being ascribed at an inquest, and that is a problem here. It is one that I would ask Senators to appreciate in the context of debating this legislation further.

I acknowledge the work Senator Mac Lochlainn has done not only in drafting this legislation but in highlighting the importance of the issue, giving rise to this debate where people like Senator Black and others have made important contributions in terms of the response of the Government to mental health issues. I am sure there will be further opportunities, as there have been in the recent past, for this issue to be discussed in this forum. In commending Senator Mac Lochlainn, however, I must reiterate that the context in which he places the Bill is not appropriate in my view. He raises no wider issues in the Bill that might inform our ongoing debate on suicide. Rather, he proposes what he describes as a symbolic change to the Coroners Act 1962. However, it is my view, in short, that the effect of the change would be anything other than symbolic. It would give rise to consequences or changes in the law of a very fundamental nature. It would risk significant disruption to our coronial system by seeking to introduce determination of liability into the inquest process. The Government, as it works towards immediate and longer-term reform of the coronial system, will not at this point in time support such a change.