I call the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, who will have ten minutes. Group spokespersons will have ten minutes and all other Senators will have five minutes.
Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2024: Second Stage
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome the opportunity to introduce the Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2024. The Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2024 is a necessary interim legislative amendment pending a broader review of the Coroners Act 1962 and it should be considered against the backdrop of a public consultation process which has recently been launched by the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee.
The Coroner Service provides an important service to bereaved families who are often going through the most difficult time in their lives when engaging with their local coroner. While there are many positive aspects of the Coroner Service, there are also aspects which could be modernised. In this regard, it is important that a reformed Coroner Service in the future is family-centred, preserves all the good elements which currently exist and modernises, where appropriate.
In February of last year, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice published a report which examined the operation of the Coroner Service and, subsequent to this report, on 20 October last year, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, launched a wide-ranging public consultation process. Recommendations from the joint Oireachtas committee's report were a helpful resource for officials in the Department in compiling a consultation document in relation to the reform of the Coroner Service. It is intended that proposals for a renewed Coroner Service will be brought to the Government later in 2024.
The Department of Justice has established an advisory committee to support the consultation process. Members include representatives from the Department of Justice, the Coroners Society of Ireland, the Department of Health, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the HSE, An Garda Síochána, the Office of the State Pathologist, the faculty of pathology in the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, RCPI, an independent expert and, importantly, members of the public who have lived experience of the Coroner Service.
On a short-term basis, the Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2024 will address the immediate challenges in relation to the Coroner Service. In particular, the Bill ensures that an appropriate number of coroners can be appointed in the Dublin district, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. It ensures that additional temporary coroners can be appointed if required in all coroner districts nationally.
The urgency of this Bill relates to the fact that the Covid-related legislation provision, which provides for the appointment of temporary coroners, is due to expire in February 2024 for the Dublin district. In the absence of amending legislation, the expiry of the existing section 11B of the Coroners Act 1962 in the Dublin district, coupled with the necessity for a coroner to conclude the Stardust inquests, would leave a significant gap in resources in the Dublin district. This would inevitably result in a significant impact on bereaved families who rely on the important service provided by coroners.
Section 5 of the Bill allows for the extension of temporary appointments of coroners for the Dublin district to avert a slowdown of operations in the district. The changes to be introduced in this section will also provide greater flexibility for the appointment of temporary coroners to all coroner districts, as and when they are required. An additional benefit of the new measures is that any temporary coroner under the new measures will be for a term not exceeding 12 months, which is longer in duration than the existing provisions, which expire after six months.
These new provisions will enable the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to determine when the workload of a coroner district demands additional temporary coroners to effectively manage the workload of that district. The Bill also provides greater stability in the Dublin district by providing for the appointment of coroners for the district on a fixed-term basis for a term that does not exceed five years and which may be renewed once. This reflects the need to meet the requirements of a very busy district, which has operated on the basis of temporary assignments since 2016. This will provide security of tenure for coroners in the district for a minimum of a five-year term.
It is intended that appointments under the new provisions in the Bill will be made following a competitive recruitment process to be jointly conducted by the Department of Justice and the Public Appointments Service, PAS. The Bill redesignates the coroners in the Dublin district as civil servants of the State. Maintaining the independence of coroners in the performance of their statutory duties under the Coroners Act 1962, as amended, was an important consideration in drafting this Bill. Department officials worked alongside the Office of the Attorney General in this regard and are satisfied that the designation of coroners in the Dublin district as civil servants of the State does not impinge on their independence.
The Bill discontinues deputy coroner appointments in the Dublin district. In all other districts, where there is only a single coroner, a deputy will still be required. However, in the Dublin district, where there will be multiple coroners, a deputy role is no longer required. Another important aspect of the Bill is that it provides the legislative certainty that is necessary to ensure the effective continuity of the Stardust inquests.
Turning to the structure of the Bill, it comprises 12 sections. The main provisions of the Bill include the following. Section 2 of the Bill provides that the Minister of Justice, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, will stipulate the terms and conditions under which appointments of coroners for the Dublin district will be made. The section further changes the status of coroners for the district from that of officeholder to civil servant of the State. It provides that any future appointments will be made on that basis and the position is effectively a full-time post. In addition to the above, section 2 of the Bill provides that coroners for the district will no longer be able to appoint deputies and any existing deputy will cease to hold their office after the commencement of the Act.
Section 3 of the Bill provides that future appointments to the district would be for a fixed term not exceeding five years, renewable with the consent of the Minister for public expenditure and reform for one term only. Section 5 of the Bill provides for the assignment or appointment of temporary coroners to any coroner district where the workload demands of the district warrant such. The renewal of any appointments made under the revised provisions is capped at three terms. Section 6 of the Bill consolidates existing disperse provisions relating to senior coroner designations in the Act of 1962. Section 9 of the Bill inserts a new section in the Coroners Act 1962 to provide for the circumstances under which persons will be ineligible for appointment as a coroner or deputy coroner and will be disqualified from holding office as a coroner or deputy coroner.
Section 9 will apply to all coroner districts other than Dublin. However, it will extend to temporary appointees to the Dublin district.
Section 10 will replace the existing provisions with regard to the removal of a coroner with more updated provisions.
Section 11 redefines the definition of “a Coroner for the Coroner’s district of Dublin”, and by so doing it makes the necessary changes to ensure the senior coroner in situ in the Dublin district can continue to act as coroner for the purpose of the Stardust inquests.
This short Bill contains a number of important amendments to ensure effective continuity of coroner operations both in the Dublin district and in respect of all other districts. I thank Senators for taking the time to consider the issues raised by this Bill and look forward to hearing their comments. The Minister hopes that with the co-operation of all sides, we can facilitate its swift passage through this House given the priority nature of the Bill, with a view to early enactment.
I commend the Bill to the House.
I thank the Minister of State. Senator Horkan has up to ten minutes.
I have up to ten minutes. As I say when I am in the Chair, consider it a maximum, not a target.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, for being in the House once again. I appreciate that this is a very technical Bill. However, we also appreciate the incredibly valuable work the coroner does and we are talking, too, in terms of the fact the senior coroner for Dublin is currently hearing the Stardust inquest. We are 40 years on from that at this stage and it is still an awful tragedy that affects so many families. We are still talking about the issues that arise from that.
I appreciate that this is an interim Bill, but because I am not going to rehash the briefing notes we have, which are basically exactly the same and came from the same Department as the Minister of State, I will instead draw the Minister of State's attention to an email we all got - all Members of Seanad Éireann, the Cathaoirleach, specifically, and the Taoiseach and Tánaiste - from the president of the Coroners Society of Ireland, Dr. Eleanor Fitzgerald, who is the Mayo coroner. The Minister of State might detail his response to what she wrote. I appreciate that this is interim legislation. It is important because otherwise the work of the Dublin district particularly but coroners generally would be impeded. The correspondence states:
The Coroners Society writes this letter to all the above named in connection to the Coroners (Amendment) Bill No. 2 of 2024. It may be noted that the society is generally consulted on such matters but noticed in this instance that neither the society nor the affected persons have been consulted. There are two elements to the Bill that give rise for grave concern on the part of the society.
While I appreciate we are only on Second Stage, the compromise in their view is "the independence of the coroner, which has always been a core principle of the office. They note the proposal that "the coroners appointed under the Bill will serve as civil servants rather than independent quasi-judicial officers appointed by the State but independent of the State and its agencies" and the proposal "to appoint coroners based on short fixed-term contracts with no security or independence of tenure". However, the Minister of State alluded to the fact that some of the terms and conditions are better than what is currently in place. These changes are, in their view:
...with respect, flawed and profoundly compromise the office and set an unacceptable precedent. This is particularly so given that in very many instances the coroner will be investigating actions or omissions of State agencies. Further, these proposals constitute a significant diminishment in the role and functions of the coroner and it is contrary to the public interest and it is further contrary to recommendations of the justice committee's own document on coroners published in February of last year. While the society recognises the urgent need to extend the present term of office of those coroners to the Dublin district [which I think we all do and I am sure others will give their own thoughts on that] whose office ceases on the 21st of February next [which is within a month of where we are now] this could be achieved with a short, simple Bill.
It seems to me they are considering that this is going a bit further than it needs to go in the absence of good longer term legislation to which the Minister of State has already alluded. They are saying that what is proposed in the Bill will have profound consequences to warrant a detailed and in-depth examination. In the letter to us, they wrote "in the Dáil", but I am sure they mean in the Dáil and Seanad.
It is very important legislation. We do not want to impede the work the coroners do and we all appreciate the great work they do. It is very painstaking and difficult work that I know a lot of us would not especially want to be doing every day. Anyone who has ever watched any detective series sees the coroner being brought in and having to investigate very difficult situations in many instances. The Minister of State might deal with that in his response to give the House and ourselves and, indeed, the Coroners Society of Ireland comfort in what is proposed longer term as well as in this Bill.
At the outset I should declare an interest insofar as I appear frequently in coroners' inquests as a barrister in this city and elsewhere in the country. I do not have any pecuniary interest in this legislation. It is just to say this is something of which I have a great deal of practical experience and understanding.
It is important to point out the value of the coronial service. What it does is something that is not dot done by any other branch of the State. There is no other body that carries out the function it carries out. What is also important to note is the fact it is an inquisitorial process rather than an adversarial one. So often in our criminal justice system and our court system it is one side pitted against the other. The coronial process is all about finding the truth of what happened, to whom it happened, how it happened, when it happened, etc. That inquisitorial process is much more akin to what we see in civil law systems in the Napoleonic Code on the Continent. It is actually very effective at getting to the truth in a way that is also sensitive to the needs of the people who are left behind by a person who is deceased - their family and friends, etc. - and is very effective at giving them a narrative as to what happened and investigating those issues without seeking to find fault with any party or anybody either civilly or criminally. Therefore, it works very well. That is because we have a body of coroners in Ireland who do that work diligently, professionally and conscientiously. They themselves have a great deal of experience and understanding of the system. We have the benefit in that regard of some case law but also a seminal text on the matter by the former Dublin county coroner, Dr. Brian Farrell, who was an authority on the subject and wrote the text on the issue, which guides us all today. However, the reality is this is a system for which we should be giving thanks all the time.
Anybody who has had the misfortune to interact with it as somebody who comes before those courts as a family member or friend understands the added value it brings and the importance of that process from the point of view of establishing truth in an independent non-partisan, non-adversarial way for the families of those who are deceased. Therefore, let there be no mistake that we value the importance of the coronial service and, particularly, at its heart, the coroners who do the work. As has been said already, it is not always pleasant work. It is always emotional and frequently very unpleasant to be dealing with death and the causes of death.
It is also worth mentioning juries in coroners' cases because we have ordinary citizens who give up their time to be part of the process and listen to it. As I said, I currently appear on the Stardust inquests. The jury there is doing an enormous job over a long number of months, with great attention to detail and great capacity to listen to a lot of very complex and lengthy evidence in that regard. Therefore, those people work as well.
As I said at the outset, this Bill is important. I recognise especially what the Bill does with regard to the Dublin coronial district in terms of solving the problem that is coming down the tracks in three or four weeks. That is entirely appropriate. I would recognise that, in the coronial district in Dublin at the moment, there are a number of coroners who are solving the problem. Because the senior coroner is dedicated to the Stardust inquest, the reality is the work is being spread between a number of people, and thank God for them because there would be a massive backlog without them. It is important to solve that problem and I recognise that. I also recognise what the Coroners Society of Ireland said about that being something we could do in a Bill other than this Bill, because this Bill does so much more than that. However, I recognise the importance of the provisions relating to the Dublin district in terms of dealing with the sunset clause that is coming with regard to 24 February.
That said, there are a number of issues that arise. The first is that although the Minister of State detailed in his speech that the Minister, Deputy McEntee, put this out to consultation in October, he said the Coroners Society was consulted in that regard or as part of the advisory committee. The letter it sent to us and conversations I have had with members of the Coroners Society would belie that fact and suggest very clearly the society did not know this Bill was coming or, certainly, that its members did not understand the content of this Bill was coming down the track.
The Bill does quite a lot. One of the things the Minister of State mentioned, for example, in the context of Dublin coroners is moving them from that quasi-judicial function, which is vitally independent, into a Civil Service role. The Minister of State said that will not affect their independence and I do not think there is necessarily a legal difficulty with that. However, I do think there is a process difficulty with that. There is an administrative difficulty with that. What we have in coroners are people who exercise a quasi-judicial function. It is very difficult to exercise a quasi-judicial function when a person is a civil servant because no matter how we slice or dice it, as a civil servant, a person has a boss and someone to whom he or she directly reports in the context of a managerial structure. How can that person really be totally independent and quasi-judicial if he or she is part of the Civil Service? While I recognise the enormous benefits we have from diligent public and civil servants in this country and the value they have added to our systems of government and our administration and the good they have done, I resist the civil servicisation, so to speak. I say that again with the greatest respect to the civil servants in the room.
I resist the approach because I do not believe it is the right way to go. I do not believe in changing coroners who are exercising a quasi-judicial function very effectively into civil servants. I question how it affects their independence and do not believe it is the right answer. There is an old adage to the effect that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the system is working – we generally acknowledge that it is, which is not to say there is never a problem with a coroner's inquest – why are we changing it in this way and doing something with such a fundamental effect on the function of coroners instead of acknowledging that the system is working and that we should continue to allow it to function in the way it was? It is not clear whether the Civil Service aspect applies outside Dublin as well. From what the Minister of State's said, I gather it does not. Either way, however, the independence of coroners is paramount. The system is compromised by making them de facto employees and civil servants. That is retrograde.
Similarly, the provisions in section 3, which inserts a new section 10A into the principal Act, limiting the terms of coroners, comprise a retrograde step. If a coroner is doing the job well and very effectively, why would we want him or her removed from his or her position? I do not have a problem with term limits because they allow a problem to be dealt with if it arises. I have no problem with a competitive process to reappoint the person in whatever way that is done. The proposed new section 10A(1) refers to a five-year term, with which I do not have a problem, but section 10A(2) states that a coroner may be reappointed for only one five-year term. What is the sense in that? If we know full well that a coroner is doing the job well and willing to do it over five, ten, 15, 20 or 30 years, why on earth would we put a term limit on him or her and say he or she cannot do the job anymore? That will not be the case with every corner. I do not have a problem with a coroner having to reapply for the position every five years, or whatever the period is, because that allows for the refreshing of the service where appropriate. However, the difficulty with the proposed section is that it prohibits somebody who is doing a good job from continuing to do it. I foresee circumstances in a couple of years in which we will not have people to do the job. We will have to say to corners, irrespective of their area, that they must leave their jobs, even though we have no plans to replace them, no route to do so and nobody in situ to do so. We are creating a future problem with the proposed section 10A. I wonder whether the Minister of State will consider revising it in the context of the debates on this Bill, including on Committee Stage.
Among the things coroners complain about, which I have raised in this House before, are the delays, not in the Coroner Service but in the ancillary services that go with the inquests, such as pathology services. We have heard of families having to wait interminable periods – weeks or longer – for pathology results to come back. Meanwhile, there is a huge delay in getting post mortem examination results to families so they have an idea what happened to their loved one. I was contacted by the family of a Waterford man who were not only subjected to huge delays but who were also very badly treated by the service in terms of the sharing with them of information they were entitled to. Rather than making changes here that I feel are driven by an agenda to put everything into a nice little box that works for the purposes of forms in the Civil Service, we should prioritise dealing with the delays, recruiting more pathologists, making the services available and making more coroners available, if needed, to ensure no backlog in the system and that families of people deceased as a result of unfortunate incidents get inquest results and verdicts from coroners' juries faster, get death certificates signed faster and have a faster and more efficient administrative process, which can be burdensome in all circumstances but is generally done very well by the coronial service. Again, I say that with respect to the fact that the Civil Service does a great job. The coronial function is one that does not fit well into the circle that is created by a solely administrative position. It is a quasi-judicial function and it is carried out with excellence. It ain't broke and I do not think it needs to be fixed by the measures in this Bill. I would much rather see us revise some of the proposals, particularly regarding independence and time limits.
I welcome the Minister of State. I also welcome the debate. I acknowledge that this Bill is an effort to alleviate some of the pressures experienced in the coronial service. We are all conscious that we are having this debate at a time when there are huge backlogs in the service.
Coroners provide a vital service in technical terms but also do a lot in shaping the experience of bereavement for families or friends who have lost a loved one. They ensure bereaved families are informed and that any questions the latter have are addressed, and they do so compassionately and sympathetically.
The Oireachtas justice committee report – I thank my committee colleagues for their excellent work – calls for the system to be centred on the bereaved. I concur with this call. Families experiencing the grief of loss must be given as much support as possible to help them through the process. To do so, we need to ensure that coroners are well equipped to do their job effectively. The backlogs we are seeing, with families waiting up to two years for an inquest, indicate families are very much being let down. The temporary appointment of an additional two coroners for Dublin in response to the pandemic was welcome, but that was a stop-gap measure. This Bill is also a stop-gap measure, like the numerous other amendments we have seen in recent years. We need fundamental reform of the Coroner Service.
I acknowledge that public consultation on the matter has recently concluded, and I am sure the Minister of State will be working on producing legislation off the back of that. I am concerned, though, because we have been here before. In 2005, former Labour Party leader Pat Rabbitte introduced a short amending Bill that aimed to fix one particular deficit in the legislation. It was accepted by the Government and became law. At the time, the then Minister for Justice commented that he had produced a Bill to overhaul the system, that it was before the Attorney General for observations and that he intended on publishing the heads, of which there were over 190, for public consultation. Prior to that, the previous justice Minister had already begun the process of reforming the Coroner Service and had established a coroners' review group. The expert group published its report in 2000. It included 110 recommendations, covering many of the issues in the service and the legislation. The review, report and recommendations, published over 20 years ago, have yet to result in a published Bill. Instead of one, we now have another stop-gap amendment and another coroner reform consultation. This must be longest review of an inadequate service in the history of the State. The issues and difficulties within the Coroner Service have been ongoing for decades, and even before the expert group reported in 2000. The 1962 Act remains the principal Act, and the structures of the Coroner Service remain, in large part, as prescribed in that Act, save for some recent amendments.
Many of the issues within the service could, without doubt, be addressed with proper and thorough legislation that would modernise the service and make it fit for today's purpose. The issues have already been identified, consultations have already taken place and authors of reports have already made recommendations. I do not see why we need another public consultation that is only going to delay the necessary fundamental reforms.
As stated, the Bill is a stop-gap measure. There is concern that it has been drafted without consultation with coroners or other relevant people. A letter we all received by email yesterday afternoon from the president of the Coroners Society of Ireland, Dr. Eleanor Fitzgerald, confirmed as much. Others have made reference to it in the House already this evening. I will not go into too much detail or repeat what others have said, other than to say that, in essence, the society is concerned that this Bill compromises the independence and functioning of the office of coroner and sets a dangerous precedent. That is an extremely serious concern and one that warrants the greatest attention from the Minister of State. If the Government is to press forward with this Bill, it needs to work closely with the society to ensure the Bill can do what is hoped without undermining the Coroner Service.
I am sympathetic to the intentions of this Bill. We all want to see the backlogs cleared and see a proper, fit-for-purpose coroner service. The service is snowed under at the moment but we cannot solve one problem by creating another. Continuing to tweak around the edges is not going to help anybody either. We need to see the long-promised and well-overdue reform of the service's structures. The principal Act is still the 1962 Act although the issues that present have been so obvious for so long.
This should be given urgent attention by the Government. The public consultation has already taken place. I urge the Government to act swiftly on the outcomes of the consultation and get the legislation to us so we can properly scrutinise it and get it through the Houses.
I welcome the Minister of State. My colleagues have outlined some of the concerns raised by the Coroners Society of Ireland, but I want to get some insight from the Minister of State on the timeline for the reforms over the next year, the current position on the consultation and when we expect to see proposals from that consultation. I thank the officials in the Department, who have been very accommodating regarding some of my suggestions on who to engage with in the consultation.
Last week, we had a really productive meeting with a number of different families from communities that are often more likely end up in a situation where they have to engage with the coroner's court by means of an inquest because of the type of death involved. We engaged with a number of families who have lost people through acts of violence, suicide and overdose. They were all very generous in sharing their experience of the system to date. Some great suggestions came from that group. It is important to put a number of them on the record as we think about the reforms.
Some of the suggestions related to what we believe trauma informed means. Most of the families felt that people they engaged with throughout the process were kind and nice, but that is not actually what a trauma-informed approach involves. You can have good people, but it is about actually understanding what the term "trauma informed" means. One mother spoke about having to identify her child. She spoke of not even being given a glass of water, and being in a sterile room with no soft furnishings or information about what was going to happen. Some families spoke about the incredibly long wait that they had in relation to their child - one son in particular - coming home, and the impact that has on the way Irish people hold funerals. They want to have a wake in the house and have the coffin open. That gets harder for people the longer the delay with the release of the body.
Some of the suggestions from the groups are really helpful in understanding how families really are at a loss in terms of understanding what way the system works. Obviously, there are all the other professions, but the families said they felt that there is no joined-up Coroner Service as a whole. There are lots of different sectors working on different things, whether that is pathology or something else. We should consider the introduction of a centralised system with a chief coroner who could introduce guidelines in terms of how people should work and who could look at a preventative model as well. The families came up with good suggestions, including that the chief coroner should have a role in terms of research. The officials outlined that there is a preventative role within the Coroner Service and that this requires research. We should look at that. The correlation between class and death is actually something that we have not captured in Ireland in terms of the cases that end up in the coroners system. When people die in prison, by suicide, overdose or violent deaths, we find that many of them - obviously not all of them - come from communities that are concentrated in particular spaces. There are a lot of vulnerable families who do not often know what questions to ask. Perhaps they have never been that situation before.
On the language that is used, the families spoke about how the information needs to be accessible and understandable in terms of engaging and of the detail involved.
In the context of the reforms, if we do look at there being guidelines, we should consider the role of media in reporting on violent deaths. When a suicide is reported from court, for example, there are certain ethics that have to be adhered to in order that other people's suicide ideation is not increased or compounded. We refrain from talking about how somebody may have taken their own life, but there are, perhaps, less ethics involved when reporting on violent death. Often, reporters will have free rein to report on the details revealed in a coroner's court regarding the violence involved in a person's death. This kind of forces families into a process that they may not be ready for. Being able to say that their son or daughter has been murdered is one thing, but sometimes families are not ready to understand fully the injuries that were endured or hear some of the more gory details. There is a place for coroners to set a standard here. Currently, when a person dies, we say that they have no rights anymore because they are dead. Thereafter, the person's mother, father or family members are framed as victims of homicide if the case relates to a homicide. We must ask what rights transfer to these people who have been newly labelled as victims of homicide. One of the mothers in the group spoke really eloquently about having younger children and about having to go through the process of allowing them to know certain types of information at certain times in terms of their grieving process. She spoke of their fears of attending a coroner's court and people not being mindful of language. Obviously, certain language will have to be used, whether it is medical or scientific, but often things are said within a court that probably do not need to be said about particular types of injuries and so on.
One mother went to the court and asked, when she opened the inquest, if she would hear any information that she was not ready to hear yet. She was told she would not. She did not know she would have to be one to open the inquest. When she went to identify her son, she was not given any information about what would be required of her once she had identified him. She did not know there would be a requirement for her to open the inquest. That is a piece of information that does not help somebody process trauma and plan what is going to be required of them in this process. Within a few days, she opened the inquest, asked if there was going to be information shared that she did not want to hear in terms of the type of injuries suffered, and she was told there was not. Straight away, the judge said the exact thing that she had just been told she would not hear. It is about having an understanding of the effect that language can sometime have when you are raw and wide open like that and something terrible has happened in your family. What we might think is respectful language because it is a language we are used to using within a court of law or whatever is not for families. If we are going to fully respect families engaging with the system, we have to fully understand what their experiences are when they engage.
I hope that beyond this being legislation that will address an issue that is arising now, we need to be very clear about when reforms will actually happen and when further legislation will be forthcoming. We need to take into account the experiences of the families that we have been meeting when it comes to accessible information. We must ensure that they have all the information they need, access to a real service that is trauma informed and that there are preventative measures in place. We need to consider how we can look at the patterns of death in Ireland and how the Coroner Service can lead research in understanding measures we can take at a wider policy level to prevent many untimely deaths and many of the cases that, unfortunately, come before coroners.
There is also the question of prisons. I have spoken to some men in prison about their experiences when somebody dies on their landing and perhaps they have found the body. There is almost an extra layer of stuff that happens there, which means that the prison carries out its own investigation then the coroner does as well. There are two entities doing the same thing, but no real supports are put in place for men in prison who have become witnesses in a coroner's inquest. We need to think of them as a cohort of people when we introduce reforms. They are people that will need support, but they are not as accessible as other families and witnesses in society.
Looking at the supports provided in the reforms, beyond bereavement support, there needs to be some sort of advocacy or family liaison person who works at a community level. If there is a new coroner system, whether that is centralised or national in nature instead of being broken up across different counties and regions, it should work with local communities. It is local community workers involved in addiction counselling and all of those things who end up supporting people. Even those groups, whether they are family resource centres or whatever, do not understand how the system works. Because of the nature of how many of these - often very young - people have died, I think we should really put the coroner reforms on the radar. People will think they do not mean anything to them or that they have got no place within them, but I think we should be educating the wider community at large around the role that the coroners system can play in supporting families and communities who are bereaved in what are often awful circumstances.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The Coroners (Amendment) Bill, will ensure that an appropriate number of coroners can be recruited to operate in the Dublin district and ensure that additional temporary coroners can be appointed to the Dublin district and other districts, if required.
It is an urgent Bill to ensure the smooth running of the Coroner Service in dealing with personnel-related issues. The Bill will also ensure greater security of tenure for coroners in the Dublin district and transparency in regard to fees and expenses paid to coroners and the public. In addition to these in-house practical measures there is also a need for the Government to follow through on long-overdue reforms of the coroner system. The need for this reform has been highlighted by a good in-depth report by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, which was published a number of years ago by the Oireachtas committee and by many other calls for reform. After a long period of waiting for the necessary reforms to the coroner system, Sinn Féin would like to emphasise the point that we should not get caught up in a cycle of reports. Our justice spokespeople, Deputies Martin Kenny and Pa Daly, welcomed that ICCL report and the Oireachtas report and the many other calls for reform. Action is required now based on the various reports and calls. That action needs to be framed around certain ethical principles. Appointments should be on merit, standardised and led by the Public Appointments Service. Rules and the burden of proof to establish inquests should be standardised also. There are many aspects of the coroners system that are causing much anguish for families, in particular the long delays in toxicology results. That is the latest in a long list of difficulties.
It is important that the Government sets out how it intends to reform the coroner system and it needs to do so soon. It is also important that the Government's reform plan incorporates the recommendations from the report of the Oireachtas committee. These recommendations, if implemented, would improve the overall operation of the service. I will not go through them all but they include a new universal set of rules to inform the threshold necessary to reach a verdict in an inquest; a formal and organisational link between the registration of deaths and the electoral register and other public databases; an Office of the Chief Coroner and Deputy Coroner should be opened to assist the Coroner Service; a central Coroner Service should be established; jurors presiding at inquests should be formally selected; the coroner's service should be re-evaluated to ensure it is adequately funded; and an appeals system for verdicts by the coroner should be introduced. This package of reforms, among other reforms, should form the basis of the Government's plans to streamline and to make more effective the coroner system.
We support this Bill. We will submit an amendment aimed at holding the Government to account in regard to the reform of the wider service itself because families cannot wait any longer for that reform.
On behalf the Minister, Deputy McEntee, who regrets she cannot be here in person today, I thank all the Senators who have contributed to this important debate on the Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2024.
There is general agreement that there needs to be reform, more efficiency and for the coroner to be more reflective of society and more comprehending of people who have to attend before them. I also note however, that a number of serious concerns have been raised by the Senators. These will be brought to the attention of the Minister, Deputy McEntee.
The changes made by this urgent Bill are important to ensure that there is a sufficient number of coroners to provide an appropriate level of service to bereaved families. This is particularly acute in the Dublin coroners district where, after 20 February, there would not be a sufficient number of coroners without the enactment of this Bill. Families who are engaging with the Coroner Service are often going through the most difficult times in their lives.
The service provided by coroners throughout the country is important for bereaved family members in finding out the cause of death of their loved one. The Coroner Service often helps family members to reach some form of closure following the loss of a loved one. The Coroner Service is an important service to the living. It is critical that the Coroner Service is resourced with a sufficient number of coroners for the death investigation process to proceed uninhibited. On 30 October last, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, launched a public consultation process in regard to the reform of the Coroner Service. The consultation period closed on 19 January and there was a very significant level of input from the public and from stakeholders who are involved in supporting the work of the coroners. Approximately 300 submissions were received, which demonstrates the importance of the service to so many in our communities.
Officials within the Department of Justice are beginning the process of analysing the responses provided in the consultation process. Early indications suggest that while legislative change is certainly needed, there is also much that can be done in the interim. Information provided to bereaved loved ones in regard to the Coroner Service is an issue which will be addressed following the consultation exercise.
Once all the submissions have been assessed and analysed, proposals will be brought to the Government for consideration later this year on the Coroner Service of the future. Within this context of broader reform of the Coroner Service, this Bill is a necessary amendment to ensure that full-time coroners can be appointed to the Dublin district. The existing temporary arrangements in the Dublin district are wholly inadequate in terms of the current demands on the district. This Bill, if enacted, will remedy the currently unsustainable position in the district. The more robust measures to be introduced in the Bill will provide the requisite stability required for a very busy district and will also modernise the existing provisions in the legislation. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, will work closely with the Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, over the coming weeks to agree the appropriate number of coroners.
The Bill also provides for the appointment of temporary coroners in all districts nationally where additional coroners are required for the purpose of progressing death inquiries. Under existing legislation, the appointment of additional temporary coroners can only be made when there is a pandemic, catastrophic event or other occurrence leading to mass fatalities. This Bill provides greater flexibility for temporary coroners to be appointed where the workload requires it.
This important and urgent Bill will ensure that the Coroner Service in the Dublin district can continue to operate with an appropriate number of coroners. It will also ensure that additional temporary coroners can be appointed to any district where a need to do so has been identified. With the co-operation of all sides of the House, it is the Minister’s hope that together we can facilitate its swift passage.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Thursday.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 1 February 2024.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 5.47 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 31 Eanáir 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.47 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 31 January 2024.