Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 2005

Vol. 612 No. 3

Private Members’ Business.

Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"(a) by the repeal of section 17 and the substitution of the following:

‘17.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred

(a) in a violent or unnatural manner,

(b) suddenly and from unknown causes,

(c) in military, Garda or prison custody,

(d) following release from military, Garda or prison custody, as a consequence of conditions of custody, treatment while in custody, or a lack of appropriate medical attention while in custody, or

(e) in a place or in circumstances which, under provisions in that behalf contained in any other enactment, require that an inquest should be held.’,”.

This Bill is welcome and my amendments do not detract from that but seek to address other urgent issues connected with the Coroners Act that my party feels should be addressed as quickly possible. This is preferable to delaying until the long-awaited comprehensive reform Bill is published and travels through both Houses of the Oireachtas to become law. I thank the Labour Party for tabling this Bill and take the opportunity to ensure that we consider these two further priorities which must be addressed.

This amendment is quite simple: it aims to make it mandatory to hold an inquest in all cases where the death occurs in military, Garda or prison custody. In certain circumstances deaths occur immediately after the period of custody. Given that many people die in prison and there is nothing untoward in their deaths, one might wonder why there should be an inquest in each case. When people are in Garda or military custody or are in prison, the State has a special duty of care for them. It is therefore in the public interest to hold an inquest every time a person dies in custody, or the death is related to the custody.

This would reassure the public that nothing untoward happened and that everything connected with that custody was above aboard. In the public interest it is necessary to establish the identity of the deceased, when and where the death took place, and the medical cause of death. The inquest must also take into account the circumstances surrounding the death. This amendment will improve transparency and promote public confidence in the institutions which hold people in custody. It is also crucial in the interests of justice for the family of the deceased that this amendment be adopted.

The reference in the amendment to deaths occurring in custody is based on recommendation No. 54 of the report of the working group to review the coroner service. The report stated:

There are situations where a coroner has discretion to hold an inquest and other situations where he has no choice in the matter. The present legal provisions in this regard are presented in a somewhat tortuous way in that some mandatory inquests are subject to the opinion of the coroner that a post-mortem will suffice in terms of carrying out an effective death investigation. . . .Having discussed the issue, the Group felt that obligatory inquests should be extended to cover such situations as death in Garda custody, prison . . .

The coroners rules stipulate that an inquest must be held where a coroner believes the death occurred in a violent or unnatural manner; a death occurs in Garda, Military or prison custody and where it is required under another enactment.

Only the first and third grounds for mandatory inquest have a direct legislative basis, namely, the Coroners Act 1962, section 17 which states:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or suddenly and from unknown causes or in a place or in circumstances which, under provisions in that behalf contained in any other enactment, require that an inquest should be held.

The only case in which there is no legislative direction to hold an inquest is when "a death occurs in Garda, Military or prison custody".

Sinn Féin believes deaths occurring in custody should be treated equally with those listed in the coroners rules. Therefore legislation should guarantee a mandatory inquest in those cases. This amendment would provide such a guarantee.

Our amendment goes slightly further in that it seeks a guarantee of a mandatory inquest into deaths that occur following custody where the coroner is of the opinion that the death may relate to the circumstances of custody. Several cases, some high profile, others less so demonstrate the case for mandatory inquests in deaths following custody. These include the tragic cases of Brian Rossiter, Terence Wheelock, and John Maloney from my constituency.

We are not trying to decide the outcome of such inquests but holding them could go a long way to addressing concerns often raised by the parents or others about the deaths of people who have just been released from custody. In many cases these are sudden deaths which may be connected with the circumstances under which the person was held. The inquest will form that opinion.

That is why this amendment should be accepted for everybody's sake. It is a reasonable amendment and the issue is pressing. We have the opportunity now to ensure that this one of the 110 recommendations of the coroner service review group is implemented. At least we will have begun to address those recommendations rather than wait another year or two for the Minister to bring forward the full Bill.

The heads of the Bill which are under preparation will deal with this area and the question of people who die in State custody is de facto virtually always the subject of an inquest. It is not as if there is a practice among coroners that urgently needs change.

We have agreed to a very expeditious debate this evening. If I were to accept such a broad amendment it would to an extent be a fraud on the other Members because I agreed we would deal with this Bill in very short order with a guillotine motion attached. I do not want to do that in circumstances where the legislation needs to be carefully thought through.

The other Members thought, rightly, on the basis of the Second Stage debate, that this Stage would focus only on two fundamental issues. Extending the debate to a third area would involve legislating for a matter which we did not adequately signal to other Members, under a guillotine agreed on the basis of a narrow proposal.

I have no problem with the principle of the Deputy's amendment. For instance, under the Garda Ombudsman provisions in the Garda Síochána Act, mandatory inquiries are in place for circumstances such as this relating to the Garda Síochána. This does not apply to military or prison custody.

I want to carefully consider the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Other areas may need to be examined, such as provisions for people detained in psychiatric institutions and the like. If I was to accept the amendment this evening, I would be short-changing the Members who agreed to an attenuated passage of the Bill on the basis that it had a narrow focus.

I agree with the Minister's sentiments on his intention to introduce a major review and updating of the Coroners Act next year.

Deputy Rabbitte's legislation intends to deal with two specific areas. By broadening it out, we will move into other areas that will require a considerable degree of examination. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that there is a need for greater scope and mandatory requirements for areas not covered in the current Act. Section 17 of the 1962 Act states that, it is only if it is the opinion of the coroner that the death has been from unnatural causes or in unnatural circumstances.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment proposes to include certain locations in the legislation. My difficulty with it is that the list is not comprehensive. It relates only to military, Garda or prison custody. I want to see that extended to areas such as nursing homes, hospitals, suicides, drug-related deaths, which should be covered by coroners' inquests. It is best to accept the principle of extending the scope of coroners' inquests, as was recommended in the coroners service working group's report in 2000. The Minister's pledge to include an extension of the scope in the new legislation in 2006 is the best way forward.

Deputy Costello is correct on the need to extend the scope of a coroner's remit. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform must examine this in the promised coroners Bill to be published next year. There is also a need for facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes to be included in the definition.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct on the need for expanding the issues that coroners must examine. Mandatory requirements must be introduced. One important issue, which I hope the Minister will take on board, is that of blood-alcohol limits. Under the current legislation, it is at the discretion of the coroner whether he or she decides to test the blood-alcohol limits in road traffic accidents. In some circumstances tests are completed, while in others they are not. If it were a mandatory requirement, there are still no facilities in place for the collation of those statistics on a national basis to see how large an issue it is. It is important this basic information is collected.

I have come across many cases where young drivers involved in fatal road traffic accidents have been branded as having been over the alcohol limit. In one such case, a member of the Garda Síochána informed me that the individual had a converted van but not to the correct specifications. The safety plate at the back of the driver's area was not in place and a toolbox came through the back of the van, killing the young man. As far as hearsay in the local community was concerned, however, it was claimed the young man was drinking even though he had not been.

It is important to ensure and protect people's reputations. Blood-alcohol testing must be put on a mandatory basis, with the statistics collated on a national basis. Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment, in principle, is correct, but it is more appropriate for the more substantial coroners' legislation that will come before the House in the new year.

Deputy Costello referred to nursing homes and hospitals. However, I must emphasise that whatever obligations are introduced in that area, they will not be blanket ones. We cannot have a situation where every nursing home and hospital death ends up in an inquest. Many people die of natural causes in nursing homes and hospitals. A mandatory inquest every time this happens is not needed.

I know the Deputy is referring to the need for independent scrutiny of deaths in such places, particularly in nursing homes. People cannot simply disappear from a nursing home without anyone inquiring as to what happened. This might be better dealt with by requiring certification of the death in a particular manner rather than having a full formal inquest. If an elderly person dies of old age at 104 years in a nursing home, we do not want to go down the road of having an inquest as well as other matters.

I have some sympathy for the Minister's arguments in this area. Sinn Féin, however, feels the amendment was of an urgent nature. Members had as much time to examine the amendment as I have often had for the Minister's amendments on other legislation. The Minister cannot be at a disadvantage because, in the preparation of the heads of the coroners service Bill, some work must have been done in this area. To dismiss the amendment on the basis that this, that and the other must be examined does not really hold. The amendments were submitted at the earliest possible time to ensure Members had enough time to check them.

I am sorry if the amendments are flawed, but it is an attempt to ensure——

I did not say the amendments were flawed.

No, I am saying if it is flawed, it is because it is an attempt to easily address an issue where only one of the three circumstances described is legislated for at present. The Minister is correct that virtually in every case an inquest is held but there are cases where they are not.

The other circumstance addressed in the amendment concerns deaths not only in Garda custody but also within ten minutes or half an hour of leaving custody. A coroner will be required to determine whether the death was related to the person's time in custody or to events just prior to the person being incarcerated in some form or other.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(b) by the substitution of the following section for section 36:

‘36.—A summons requiring the attendance of a person at an inquest as a juror or witness shall be served on the person by a member of the Garda Síochána in one of the following ways:

(a) by delivering it to the person;

(b) by delivering it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides to a person who has attained the age of 16 years and who resides or is employed at that address; or

(c) by sending it by prepaid registered post to the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case where an address for service has been furnished, to that address.’,

and".

This is essentially a technical amendment to allow for the service of summonses through registered post at the address at which the person ordinarily resides. Deputies will note that the summons must be delivered to the house or the person concerned. It is a common sense amendment which will make the lot of coroners much easier in the short term.

The amendment strengthens the relevant section of the principal Act, the wording of which is somewhat loose in terms of the delivery of summonses. Specifying that a summons must be delivered to the person concerned at the address at which he or she ordinarily resides by pre-paid registered post will ensure it arrives. This technical amendment, therefore, tightens the section.

I note that in amendment No. 5 the Minister proposes to draw a distinction between a juror and a witness. I presume this is an added reason for ensuring the procedures in the matter of serving the summons are clear. As Deputy Costello stated, the procedure the Minister proposes to establish provides for more clarity and definitiveness. As such, the amendment is acceptable to the Labour Party.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(b) by the repeal of section 30 and the substitution of the following:

‘30.—The inquest has a duty to establish the following:

(a) the identity of the deceased;

(b) when and where the death took place;

(c) the medical cause of death; and

(d) the surrounding circumstances of death;

in establishing this, the coroner is not permitted to allow any consideration of these matters which apportions civil or criminal liability.',".

This amendment addresses the other area which I suggested required amendment at this stage. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are based on the recommendations of the review of the coroner service. Amendment No. 3 is based on recommendation 49 of the working group which stated the jurisdiction of the coroner should include the investigation not only of the medical cause of death but also the circumstances surrounding it. This, it added, should be expressed in positive terms in the new Coroners Bill. This recommendation featured on the list of 110 recommendations produced by the working group.

The purpose of an inquest should not be confined to providing justice and answers for the family of the deceased, which are crucial functions in themselves. One of the purposes of the coroner is to try to prevent further fatalities where these may be preventable. In the tragic case of Frances Sheridan, to give one sad example, the Coroner's Court was not allowed to ask questions to which answers were necessary if the causes of her death were to be fully understood and to allow recommendations to be made aimed at preventing further fatalities. The court was not in a position to examine the understaffing, underfunding and mismanagement which tragically contributed to some preventable deaths. It is reasonable to seek a role for coroners in attempting to prevent tragic deaths.

The reason a coroner cannot expand his or her investigation is the narrow interpretation of the purpose of the coroner arising from the wording of section 30 of the current Act. This matter must be addressed by deleting the section and replacing it with the wording proposed in the amendment.

Inquests, by their nature, are investigations which are warranted in the public interest. If establishing the cause of death is limited to determining the medical cause of death, as is currently the case according to the review group, the ability of the court to make recommendations in the interests of public safety and the prevention of future fatalities is severely restricted and the role of the coroner is to do little more than to confirm the pathologist's post mortem report. A balance is required at this stage. The amendment would redress the current imbalance and mirrors the recommendation of the review group. I hope the proposers of the Bill and the Minister will accept it.

As I indicated in my Second Stage speech, I am disposed towards increasing the scope of the coroner's inquest to cover surrounding circumstances of death. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will appreciate, however, that to do this and to do justice to a widened coronial function of this kind and enable jurors to consider these issues properly, we need support services and a reform of the coroner service to create a system which will live up to the remit the Oireachtas has conferred upon it. I want to reorganise the coroner service; establish a support service; have reasonable districts; create circumstances in which the Coroner's Court will function; have a jury service which is properly provided for; and provide the full range of supports necessary for a widened remit for the Coroner's Court.

While amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are sensible in principle, I do not want to attempt to put new wheels on the car without first checking that the engine and brakes work and the driver knows the new wheels have been fitted.

Is the Minister referring to Deputy Callely's car?

I want to ensure comprehensive reform is a balanced package in which the new coroner service, with its widened remit, has the resources and organisation to deal with the kind of questions which will arise. We must remember that, having given an excessively narrow function to the Coroner's Court to discharge, we have also under-nourished it and left coroners in something of an administrative and legislative backwater. Neither have we put in place all the powers that coroners would require in order to go into issues with their juries concerning the circumstances surrounding deaths. For that reason, while I have sympathy, which I have already expressed in my speech on Second Stage, for the type of reform sought by this amendment, it should only be attempted where we have a coherent reform of the coroners service under contemplation. For that reason, I ask the Deputy to accept my assurance that the new legislation will provide for provisions analogous to those contained in this amendment. The House will have an opportunity soon to consider a broader coroners Bill, and the widening of the focus of a coronial inquiry will be accompanied by an appropriate administrative and legal infrastructure which will give reasonable results.

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

I am. May I address it again?

Will the Minister indicate when the heads of the Bill will be ready? That would help us to prepare so that when the Bill appears we can ensure its passage through the House as quickly as our deliberations will allow. All sides of the House want to ensure that the coroners' service will be fully resourced and will consequently be the best in the world. I am not trying to delay the passage of the legislation, but I am trying to encourage the Minister to produce the Bill as quickly as the parliamentary draftsman can do so. The sooner that is done, the quicker we can get down to passing next year what I am sure will be a worthwhile measure. It is 43 years since the last such measure was passed by the House.

Amendment No. 4 does not involve any major change in the way coroners operate. Currently, in many circumstances, coroners make general recommendations designed to prevent further fatalities. The amendment may appear technical but, in seeking to insert the words "should" and "where appropriate in the public interest", it would place a more positive demand on coroners. In cases where they believe it is in the public interest to do so, most coroners already make such recommendations so it would not beonerous to adopt amendment No. 4.

I support the thrust of what Deputy Ó Snodaigh is saying. The existing section 30 simply refers to the identity of the deceased, as well as how, when and where the death occurred. It does not make provision for the surrounding circumstances. At the same time, section 31 makes provision for a rider or recommendation to be made. In many ways, it is hard to see how one can add a meaningful rider unless there is some discussion of the circumstances in which the deceased met his or her death. I always thought there was a lacuna between sections 30 and 31. If there is provision for a rider or recommendation, it would be desirable to indicate clearly that it would be brought to the attention of the jury. If that is not done, jurors may or may not ask for it, but they will only do so if they have some experience. A recommendation emanating from the Coroner's Court on foot of the circumstances in which a death occurred would, in itself, be desirable.

I agree with the Minister that this matter requires other structures and resources to be in place before it would be meaningful. I also agree that it should be left to the new, updated Bill.

It is my intention to bring the heads of the Bill to Cabinet before Christmas. If they are approved by the Cabinet — and I do not want to presume that — I intend to publish them early in the new year on my Department's website for consultation. It is also my intention that the drafting process should commence during the consultation period so that the Bill can be published early for consideration by the Oireachtas. I am conscious of the need to make rapid progress in this area, especially at this stage in the life of this Dáil. It is not my intention to have this matter sidelined.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(b) in section 31, subsection (2) by deleting the word ‘may’ and substituting ‘should’ and after ‘inquest’ by inserting ‘where appropriate in the public interest’,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, lines 9 to 31 and in page 4, lines 1 to 15, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following:

"(b) the substitution of the following section for section 37:

‘37.—(1) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a juror, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €500.

(2) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a witness, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

(3) The amendment of this Act (other than this subsection) effected by paragraph (b) of section 1 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 2005 shall not apply if the date specified in the summons concerned falls before the passing of the second-mentioned Act.’.”.

It is proposed here to differentiate between witnesses and jurors. Under the Bill as it stands they are treated the same way as regards punishments. The view taken by my Department is that the non-attendance of a juror or potential juror, while serious, is not of the same order as somebody who has evidence to give, deciding not to turn up. One is a random process, whereas the other is a deliberate process which could seriously affect the viability of an inquest. The approach the Department proposes is to differentiate between both situations in a manner that reflects the seriousness of somebody who is required as a witness, not turning up. I commend the amendment to the committee.

This is a useful amendment because there is quite a difference between a juror and a witness. It is a fault of the Coroners Act 1962 that juries for coroners courts are empanelled in a different way to other juries. They are empanelled in a very ad hoc fashion. I remember one instance where a sergeant at Store Street Garda station was running up and down the road trying to get enough jurors for a coroner’s inquest on the morning of the inquest. It seems as if the empanelling of a jury is very much at the discretion of local gardaí. We will have to examine in detail how we empanel juries for coroners’ inquests. For that reason, it is difficult to see how jurors and witnesses could be taken in the same way. It is no harm to make the distinction.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 be deleted."

With some degree of reluctance, I must oppose this section and suggest its deletion. My reluctance stems from the fact that it is not obvious to me exactly what is wrong with it. However, I am told there are technical legal reasons that fault it. When I saw it, I drew up my own proposed amendments which were incorporated in manuscript. I am not quite clear why it is so bad in its present form. However, to please the powers that be, I have agreed to propose the deletion of this section, even as amended by me. I will not make a song and dance about it, except to say that the office of the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsmen are unhappy with Deputy Rabbitte's drafting, as amended by me. In view of the short time available for the consideration of the Bill, they asked that I agree to its deletion. To get it through, I said that I would agree.

I too was wondering why the Minister should delete this section and what the draftsman or draftswoman might have found wrong with it.

Perhaps it was the identity of the drafter.

The Minister could have amended it and retained the principle. It seeks to grant powers of compellability to the coroner. He may order a juror or witness to comply with a summons and make such other orders as may be considered necessary. The second strand of the legislation that Deputy Rabbitte has proposed is that witnesses and jurors should be compellable and have to turn up, particularly witnesses. Currently the legislation specifies that the only penalty is IR£5, or €6.35, and no one would pay a blind bit of notice to that. We have obviously strengthened the legislation with stiffer penalties, but there are, nevertheless, important witnesses without whom the coroner's work must be frustrated and the family of the deceased unable to achieve a proper conclusion.

A good example relates to a natural health therapist in Mayo. On more than one occasion where death occurred and the witness was summonsed, she refused to attend the coroner's inquest. That person was the unqualified medical practitioner central to the inquest and yet could absent herself with no questions asked regarding the person's death. There is no way under such circumstances that one can bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the inquest. There must therefore be some powers to enforce compellability as well as the penalty. Perhaps if there is a drafting problem, that might be it. The intent was to strengthen this section of the legislation so that the effectiveness of the coroner's court might be underpinned.

I have a quick question. Is the problem to do with having to go to the High Court? Is there any other way that one might do it? The planning laws are an example. When the council has to go to the High Court, it chooses not to use that mechanism, with the result that nothing is done. Is there any other way that one might enforce that without going to the High Court?

I will not question the draftspeople on this. Suffice it to say that the Bill was published on 1 December. Today is 14 December, and it is sad that the Minister has not received advice enabling him to explain why this section is being deleted. I believe that is was a good one, and I ask only that the Minister return to us when he is preparing the Bill promised for next year to ensure that something of this nature is included so that a coroner has enforcement rights to ensure that the coroner's court can act to its full capability and that, when summons are issued, people are compelled to attend, whether they be jurors or witnesses. I hope that he will address that along with all the other issues.

I assure Deputies that I will certainly do so. I am not sure what is wrong with the section, but it may not sufficiently resemble provisions in the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, which allow for orders in aid of the High Court punishable as contempt of that court. It may have something to do with that. However, since we are legislating in the very short term, I hope that we will be able to address this in a more comprehensive manner in the new heads that will come forward. Some matters are not revealed to me, and a deal is a deal. I must stand by it.

The Minister sometimes produces revelations.

I will certainly accept what the Minister has said. No doubt, the next time we address this in the new year, the Minister will have revealed all to us.

Speed is of the essence here, and there is a limited, stated, known objective, namely, to enact this Bill. I trust that the absence of compellability will not act as a barrier in this case. Therefore, the fact that the Minister, in his comprehensive legislation, will revisit the issue is acceptable to us. I cannot envisage circumstances where the absence of this section would impede the case that it is designed to address. I have no idea whether, having earlier made a distinction between juror and witness, one would necessarily have to follow that format in the enforcement procedures or whether one would apply graver judgment on a witness failing to conform to a summons than on a juror. However, that is but one question that the Minister has said will be addressed in the major Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.

Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005: Order for Report Stage.

I move: "That Report Stage be taken now."

Question put and agreed to.

Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005: Report and Final Stages.

As there are no amendments on Report Stage, we will proceed to Fifth Stage in accordance with the Order of the Dáil.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I again record my appreciation of the Minister for facilitating the speedy passage of this Bill. There is a pressing humanitarian reason I sponsored the Bill. I am aware that the family concerned is very grateful to the Minister also and to his officials for doing something we do not do too frequently in this House, that is, put through legislation with this speed, and it is greatly appreciated by all concerned. I am glad the Bill can be dealt with in the other House tomorrow.

As somebody who has often given out about the way this House does its business, I must say I am very impressed that this Bill could be taken last night and tonight for the right reasons. The Nowlan family will certainly appreciate that but in general it proves that this House can function extremely well when its Members want it to, and there is no reason that cannot happen more often. An example has been set. I commend Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy Costello for bringing forward the Bill and I thank the Minister for giving us an opportunity to prove that we can do business in this House speedily when we want to. It is an example of democracy at work, and I welcome it.

I wish to be associated with the remarks of other Deputies. I commend my constituency colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, and Deputy Costello on the manner in which the House has dealt with this business. We have all praised the work of the Minister. I said last night that the family, whom I am glad to see in the Visitors Gallery again this evening, appreciates what the Minister did and the manner in which he met them and listened to what they had to say. We should commend the family, Jean and Stephen Nowlan, the parents of baby Pierce, and Phyllis, his paternal grandmother, and wish them well. They have witnessed history here. Other colleagues made the point that they brought all the parties in the Dáil together, which is a significant achievement, but they have done much more than that. I said last night, and I hope it is true, that the passage of this Bill will stand as a memorial to Pierce Nowlan. We must not forget that it is about him.

I want to be associated with the remarks of the other Deputies. It is welcome that this Bill could be dealt with in the way in which we have dealt with it. I have no doubt there are people looking with slitty eyes on tonight's proceedings and saying that this is a precedent which should never have been created, but so be it.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn