The first matter on the Orders of the Day is the consideration of the Coroners Bill, 1925, in its Second Stage. I should say that this Bill appears irregularly on the Orders of the Day because, under our Standing Orders, it is necessary in the case of a Bill of this kind that notice of motion should be served for the Second Stage. No notice of motion has in fact been served, but as this is our first experience, I think, of putting a Bill through this house, I am sure the House will waive the matter in consideration of its being a novel experiment, and allow Senator de Loughrey to move the Second Stage. Senators will recollect, though, for the future, that when a Bill introduced here reaches the Second Stage the Senator promoting the Bill should serve notice of motion that he will move the Second Reading.
CORONERS BILL, 1925.—SECOND STAGE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That applies, I think, to all Stages of a Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It certainly applies to the Second Stage, because it is expressly stated in the Standing Orders.
I must apologise for overlooking that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are not the only one who overlooked it.
Briefly, I may say that the object of the Bill is to secure that inquests will be held in any case where death is due to something other than common illness. In my opinion, inquests ought to be held in any case where a public inquiry might lead to the prevention of the recurrence of such a death. Within recent times it has become quite noticeable—I do not say in all districts, but certainly in many districts,—that coroners have become very lax, and it has almost become the rule to hold no inquests except in cases where there is a suspicion of foul play. To my mind, inquests should serve a greater purpose than that. One of the main objects, I think, should be to prevent deaths from accidents or violence.
The Minister stated in the Dáil that the law as at present constituted dealt with such cases. That may be, but it certainly is not sufficiently explicit to put the obligation on coroners because, without making any inquiries except in one case, the case of a tramp found dead on the roadside, which was reported in a paper of another county as happening in Kilkenny, the facts have come accidentally under my notice that in five different districts there have been cases of death where inquests should have been held but where they were not held. The following were the causes of death in these cases as reported:—Suicide, found drowned, street motor fatality, railway servant killed on line, burnt to death in own house, found dead in lime-kiln, death in hospital from threshing machine accident, and vagrant found dead on roadside. I have not made any inquiries at all, but these cases have come under my notice. They were not confined to any one area but were spread over five districts. One case was over the border, but I do not think that makes any difference. An amendment of mine, inserted in the Local Government Bill, was rejected by the Dáil. While that amendment was being debated here the unusual incident happened of a stranger in the Gallery sending me a note stating that to his own knowledge, in his locality, recently two deaths had occurred, one found drowned and another found hanged, and that at the request of the relatives no inquest was held. I think it is most objectionable if relatives can prevent inquests from being held. It is possible that relatives may contribute in some way to suicides, and it is not inconceivable that a case of murder, camouflaged by relatives to look like suicide, might occur.
I want to secure that coroners will do their duties. I believe, from what was said on my amendment to the Local Government Bill, that I will have the support of the Seanad in this Bill. I think there was fairly unanimous approval of the amendment, but it was pointed out that as the Minister objected to its insertion in the Local Government Bill, a Private Bill embodying it would be better. Therefore I am trying that experiment, and I ask the Seanad to pass the motion in the interests of the safety of human life. The case of the vagrant found dead on the roadside, I hold, was one for an inquest as to whether his death was due to malnutrition or exposure. It was extraordinary that no inquest was held in the case of the railway servant found dead on the line. If I were to go to the trouble I could obtain a very long list of instances similar to those I have mentioned, but I have merely referred to these cases to impress on Senators the absolute necessity of having the law made clear and distinct. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
I second the motion. The object of the Bill is to define more clearly what, in the view of the promoter, is the obvious duty of a coroner. It is stated in page 2 of the accompanying memorandum that was circulated to Senators, that in 1884 it was judicially laid down that an inquest should be held by a coroner in respect of every case of death in his district in which there is any reasonable suspicion that there may have been something peculiar in the death, that is, that it may have been due to other causes than common illness. The promoter of the Bill wishes simply to have these words inserted in it as defining the duty of the coroner rather than, as at present, a general instruction of the duty to hold an inquest in the case of a sudden death of which the cause is unknown. I think that the Bill is very necessary in view of the laxity of certain coroners, at least throughout the Free State area, instances of which have been cited, and by way of bringing them to a clearer conception of their duties and what the public expect from them, I think that this Bill is very desirable. As a result of these inquests certain matters may come to light which would be of very great benefit to the general public. The evidence at an inquiry of this kind is published, and, as in the case of a death which was found to result from anthrax, the cause was traced to infection in shaving brushes imported from the East. Without that inquest that fact might not have been known; these brushes would have continued to be imported; the public would continue to buy them, and many more deaths might have resulted. That is only an incidental case, an instance that has cropped up in the holding of inquests. Possibly that inquest would not have been held if the coroner there had a lax idea of his duty, and it is, as far as possible, to prevent laxity that this Bill has been introduced.
I have no objection to the principle of this Bill. My objection to the Bill is that it really leaves the situation very much as it finds it. The operative section, Section 1, declares that "For the removing of doubts it is hereby declared that it is the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in respect of every death occurring or on a dead body lying within his district reported to him or otherwise coming to his knowledge in respect of which there is any reasonable suspicion that the death may have been due to causes other than common illness." I do not know whether there is in fact any doubt but that that is the duty of a coroner, and anything that has been said in support of the Bill is simply in the direction of a statement that certain coroners are not doing their duty. But the legal position would be unchanged by the Bill. The fact is that a coroner is supposed to hold an inquest in the case of any death which he believes to be, or which he believes might have been due to causes other than natural causes. That is the position now; it would remain the position if this Bill is passed, and as to the point that coroners are not holding inquests in cases where they ought to hold inquests, that is something that could be dealt with and could be remedied. Coroners have no absolute tenure of their office, and if it is brought to my notice that a particular coroner is failing to hold inquests in cases where inquests ought undoubtedly to be held it could be dealt with, and it would be one of the functions of public representatives to bring such things to my notice.
In fact, neither from a public representative nor from any public body, have I got any representations of the kind. This Bill states that: "It will be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in the case of a death in respect of which there is any reasonable suspicion that the death may have been due to causes other than common illness." One might ask—a suspicion in whose mind? In the mind of the coroner? The coroner, I take it, would declare that he always held inquests in the case of any death in which he had a suspicion, so that if the Bill were to go through it would need to be quite clear as to who was to have this suspicion which would constitute a cause for an inquest. I would undertake, if the Senator did not press the Bill, to circularise coroners on the matter, say that a Bill had been introduced here in these terms and that cases were cited in support of it by a Senator rather pointing to the fact that inquests were not always held in cases in which it would be in the public interest that they should be held, and generally draw the attention of coroners very definitely to their duty in the matter. My sole objection to the Bill is this, that it does not alter the legal position in the slightest; it contributes nothing, changes nothing. The position the day after it was passed would be exactly the position the day before it was passed, and I do not think Bills like that ought to be introduced.
One might as well pass a Bill stating that for the removal of doubts it was the duty of the District Justices to carry out their jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act. That is not a thing there is any doubt about, and there must be a remedy, and there is a remedy in the case of public officers failing to carry out their duty. There is a remedy in the case of coroners, and if a concrete case is brought under notice it can be taken up and dealt with. I want to stress this, that in the last three years no case has been brought under my notice, either by a public person or by a public body, of a coroner failing to hold an inquest in a case in which it would be in the public interest to have an inquest held.
I think that we should pass the Second Reading of the Bill. It is quite true, as the Minister has pointed out, that the Bill, as it stands, is really of no practical use. That is, that it is merely declaratory of the coroner's duty, and if it were finally passed in its present form it would be of no real, practical good. I think the best course to adopt is that the Bill should get a Second Reading, and that we should then refer it to a Special Committee to consider whether it could not be made more effective by the addition of amendments. It is quite clear from the facts that we have heard, that there are instances in which inquests should be held and are not held. It is very difficult to make a coroner amenable in cases of that kind. I think there should be a provision in a Bill of this kind making it the duty of the medical man who attends a person who dies of something other than common illness, or a medical man who holds a post-mortem examination, or who is called in where a dead body is found, to report to the coroner that it is a case in which death is not due to common illness, and that he considers that an inquest should be held. At any rate, the question is one of sufficient importance. Though the Bill in its present form may be of little practical use, at the same time it could be made one of practical use, and for that reason, if the Seanad would pass the Second Reading, I would move that it be referred to a Special Committee.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would you consider it of advantage if a clause were put in to make it obligatory on the coroner to hold an inquest in every case in which he was required to do so by the Chief Officer of the Civic Guard?
That is a most excellent suggestion.
I happen to know something of this matter. My late father was a coroner, and I know that in the form of wire which arrived announcing a death, there was invariably a formula at the end, stating that the police either had or had not a suspicion of foul play. Generally, the telegram set out other circumstances as, for instance, whether the deceased had been attended for any period by a doctor, and if so, what the doctor's opinion was. It does not invariably follow that in every case of sudden death there should be an inquest, because very often you find that whereas a person had died suddenly, he had been under the care of a doctor, and the doctor's opinion was that that was something that was liable to happen from the nature of his disease. While I do not contest that some of the instances which Senator de Loughrey has advanced may be sound and valid, one has to remember that sudden death is not in itself a sufficient cause for an inquest. If the person had been attended by a doctor, and if his medical adviser was not surprised that death should have come about in that way an inquest would be unnecessary. If Senator Brown's suggestion of passing the Second Reading and referring the Bill to a Special Committee is adopted, I would be glad if some opportunity could be given to my Department of putting its views before that Committee.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Certainly, that will be done.
I would like to support the suggestion made by Senator Brown. I was going to make a similar suggestion to that just made by the Minister, that the Special Committee should have some assistance from his Department. If we appoint a Special Committee to consider this Bill there is no reason why this Committee should have to report at an early date. They can take their time. It is quite clear that this is a matter which should be investigated. The principle we have already agreed to when discussing an amendment to a previous Bill. We are all agreed that the wording of the Bill is not satisfactory, and most of us agree that, as it stands now, it would not achieve any useful purpose. At the same time there may be many matters regarding the duties of coroners which might find a useful place in this Bill, and if we referred the Bill to this Special Committee, as we can do under our Standing Orders, with no date as to when it should report, it could obtain at its leisure such evidence and such information as the members of the Committee would require. The Minister, or someone from his Department, could attend and give assistance to the Committee. When we receive their report we would know whether it was better to proceed with the Bill or to have, as the Minister suggests, a circular sent out from his Department. There is one matter in which I would disagree with the Minister. He said that Bills of this kind should not be introduced. My view is quite different. Members of the Seanad cannot get expert legal advice in the drafting of Bills, but I think it is very much better that when members feel that there is something which can be remedied by legislation, if they wish they can bring in a Bill, take it to the Second Stage, and, if the principle is adopted, that expert assistance should be given in the drafting of it. I do not think, though the Minister may disagree with me, that he should discourage individual members from bringing in a Bill of that kind. I should like to encourage it.
I would like to make a correction and an explanation on that point. I had to point out that the Bill would not change the legal position, and I think that is accurate. If I said that Bills of this kind should not be introduced, that is not quite what I meant. What I meant was that if the Bill contributes nothing, if it changes nothing, it should not be passed as it stands.
I agree with the Minister that there is a danger that in a Bill of this sort we might go further than the promoters of the Bill really intended. I do not suppose that any member of the House desires that there should be unnecessary inquests. We do not want to have an inquest held where there is no real necessity for it. The holding of unnecessary inquests might, perhaps, add a new horror to death. There is, unquestionably, a very strong impression amongst Senators in favour of the Bill, that some coroners require to be induced to carry out their duties more efficiently. It is true, as the Minister says, that this Bill leaves the matter practically as it was. It would act as a gentle reminder to coroners who are not disposed to carry out their duties very energetically, but I think that as this is the first Bill that the Seanad has endeavoured to pass, we should not allow it to die prematurely.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Not without an inquest.
Not without an inquest. I am strongly in favour of having an inquest in this case. I think we should see what we can make out of the Bill. Senator Brown suggests that we should refer it to a Select Committee. I think, somehow, that this Seanad has sufficient experience—
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Pardon me for a moment. This question of referring it to a Select Committee can only arise after the Bill has been read a second time. It is premature to discuss it at present. We are on the question of whether the Bill is to be read a second time, and the motion to refer it to a Select Committee cannot be debated under our Standing Orders until the Bill has been read a second time.
The only opportunity we will have of expressing our views as to whether the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee is now.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot give you that opportunity, because the question has not arisen. In fact, Senator Brown was a little irregular in starting the suggestion about a Select Committee at this Stage, because the question does not arise unless and until the Bill has been read a second time. As a sort of bait to the Seanad to pass it, he threw out the suggestion that it might be referred to a Select Committee.
Of course we would like to give it a Second Reading, but we do not want to commit ourselves to further proceedings. At the same time, we do not want to wreck the Bill. I am in favour of the Bill on general principles, and I have no doubt that whatever ultimately happens it, we shall produce something practical out of it. I certainly hope that we shall not allow it to be dropped.
I beg to move that this Bill be referred to a Special Committee.
I beg to second.
My idea was to get all the help I could from the Seanad in trying to pilot this Bill through.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
They have done very well for you up to the present.
I might explain that the wording is taken from a judicial decision in England.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It should be perfectly obvious to you that the very fact of that having been stated to be the law shows that this Bill is doing no more than stating what the law is at present. That is the objection to it.
That is so, but I could not find any other wording to express what I wanted to achieve.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Select Committee will attend to that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Brown has got to name the members of the Committee and to state its number, its Chairman and its quorum. I will allow the Senator to do that later on, but it must be done to-day.