CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1926—COMMITTEE STAGE.
Seanad went into Committee on the Bill.
Question—"That the Title be postponed and that Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) In any case (other than those provided for by Section 1 of this Act) in which the coroner is informed of the death within his district of a person who was not attended in his last illness and until his death by a duly qualified medical practitioner or that a medical certificate of the cause of death of any person is not procurable, he may inquire into the circumstances of the death of such person, and if he is unable to ascertain the cause of such death he may if he shall think fit hold an inquest for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of such death.
(2) It shall be the duty of the local Superintendent or other officer of the Gárda Síochána to inform the coroner of the death within his district of any person who was not attended in his last illness and until his death by a duly qualified medical practitioner or in whose case a medical certificate of the cause of death is not procurable, as aforesaid.
I move: "To delete the section." This section provides that in every case where death occurs, without the person having been attended by a duly qualified medical practitioner during his last illness and until his death, which might mean within a few days of the death, the coroner would require a report from the Civic Guard, and he would decide on that whether an inquest should be held or not. The working of that clause would in my opinion cause considerable hardship to the relatives of the deceased by reason of the fact that they could not be sure of the time when they could proceed with the burial, as they would not know whether the coroner had decided to hold an inquest or not. There is also the further objection that it places a duty on the Civic Guard, which I think they should not be called upon to perform, that is, in the case of every death in their districts, to make inquiries as to whether the person had been attended by a medical man or not. It may be very difficult for them to ascertain whether a medical man had been in attendance. I do not see anything in the Bill to compel any person to give them the information, and in that way considerable delay might occur between the death of the person and the time at which the relatives would be informed that there was no occasion for inquiry and that they might proceed with the burial.
I do not think there is any necessity for this section as by Section 1 the coroner has power in the case of a sudden death, the cause of which is unknown, "or if such person has died in prison or in such place or in such circumstances as to require an inquest," to hold an inquest on the body. I think that that section would give the coroner all the power he needs and that there is no necessity for Section 2. It may be a great hardship on many persons and I therefore move its deletion.
The deletion of this section would nullify the whole Bill. It is clearly the duty of the Civic Guard, where a death occurs under suspicious circumstances, or where an individual has not been attended by a qualified medical practitioner, to report the matter to the coroner. I cannot see, as Senator Linehan suggests, that it is the duty of the coroner to find out the circumstances. How can he possibly discover what happened in a remote part of his district unless it is reported to him by the Civic Guard? The usual practice is that when a death occurs in suspicious circumstances, or even otherwise, where there is any doubt, the Civic Guard makes inquiries and the officer, usually a sergeant, reports to the coroner by telegram or by telephone. Sometimes he sends a letter if the matter is not very urgent, and very often he sends a message with a Guard on a bicycle. The coroner then decides whether an inquest is to be held or not and he notifies the Civic Guard. There is no delay in the burial of the body if an inquest is not necessary. I think this section is absolutely necessary.
The object of Section 2 was two-fold. Its main object was to cast on the coroner an additional duty and to give to the public an additional protection in cases that were not provided for by Section 1. Section 1 only deals with cases of violent, unnatural or sudden death of which the cause is unknown, and in all cases of that kind, cases which fall under Section 1, the coroner must hold an inquest. There is a very large number of cases in the country parts of the Free State, where the deceased person has not been attended by a doctor at all, or has not been attended by a doctor within some short time of his death. Most of these are cases in which there is no suspicion of foul play or of anything being wrong, but on the other hand there may be circumstances in cases of that kind which ought to be investigated. All the section does is that it puts on the Civic Guard the duty of informing the coroner in cases of that kind—cases where a death has occurred without a person being attended by a doctor up to the time of his death or where it is not possible to get any certificate from the doctor as to the cause of death. This section simply puts on the Civic Guard the duty of communicating that fact to the coroner. The coroner is not obliged to hold an inquest at all. It is within his discretion where he is informed of a death of that kind to inquire into the matter and if on his own inquiry he finds that it is a case in which there should be an inquest then he holds the inquest. Both the inquiry and the inquest are at his discretion, and there is no compulsion on him to hold an inquest.
Senator Linehan has raised one or two objections to this section for which there is a good deal to be said. It might be that in certain cases of this kind the burial of the body might be a long time delayed, if it were necessary that the coroner's permission should be given. I would be perfectly willing to add to sub-section (1) of this section the following:—
In line 27 after the word "death" the following words: "The coroner may at any time after he is informed of the death of any such person and pending any such inquiry make an order for the burial of the body of any such person."
If the body happens to be buried before the coroner is informed of the death, if he makes up his mind in the exercise of his discretion that there should be an inquest, there can still be an inquest, because by a later section of the Bill the power of getting an Order from the Minister for exhumation is given. It never existed in this country before. If it appears to the coroner from all the facts brought to his knowledge that the Order may be made, then he may make this Order. That will get over the difficulty which Senator Linehan mentioned, that this section might unduly delay the burial.
With reference to the other point for which, I think, there is a good deal to be said—that it might be too onerous a duty on the Civic Guard to have to inquire into every death occurring in their district for the purpose of finding out whether the deceased had been attended by a doctor or whether a certificate of the cause of death was given —I think the section, as it stands, might be construed, so as to put that very onerous duty on the Civic Guard. I would be willing to delete sub-section (2) of Section 2, and to substitute the following:—
"(2) It shall be the duty of the local superintendent or other officer of the Gárda Síochána in case he becomes aware of the death within the district of a coroner of any person who was not attended throughout his last illness by a duly qualified medical practitioner, or in whose case a medical certificate of the cause of death was not procurable, in inform the coroner of such death."
That will relieve the Civic Guard of an inquiry in the case of every death as to whether there was a doctor in attendance or not, but if it is brought to their knowledge or if they become aware of a death where a doctor was not in attendance or where a certificate was not procured, then they would have to inform the coroner. If Senator Linehan would be willing to accept these amendments to the section as it stands, practically all his objections would be removed.
I should state that there is a second object for these clauses. Owing to the fact that so many deaths occurred in country districts in Ireland in which the deceased had not been attended by a medical practitioner and owing to the impossibility of getting a certificate of the cause of death, the statistics as to the cause of death in a very large number of districts in the Free State are wholly unreliable and practically useless. If it is known in the country parts of the Free State that in case a doctor is not called in there may be an inquest, it is much more likely that the doctor will be called in. The doctor will be less objectionable than the coroner and in that way it will probably not only preserve a good many lives which might not be preserved if the doctor was not there, but the statistics of death in this country will be very much more reliable.
I am quite willing to accept the amendments suggested by Senator Brown in substitution for the sub-section which I have proposed.
I would like to know what the expression "until his death," contained in the first sub-section of Section 2, means.
The wording of that section is taken from the Bill which is at present before the House of Lords. It is a similar section. It merely means that the doctor was not out of attendance at the time of the death—that he was still the doctor in charge of the case. The meaning of "until his death" is that the doctor was still in charge of the case.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course, there is a grammatical point in what Senator Bennett has said. It might be met by leaving out the words "until his death" and inserting the words "throughout his last illness."
I am quite willing to accept that.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It would read then: "who was not attended throughout his last illness by a duly qualified medical practitioner."
Would there be any danger that the expression "throughout his last illness" would mean from the beginning of his illness?
CATHAOIRLEACH
It would mean regular attendance.
I think there is some uncertainty about the expression "throughout his last illness." That may have occurred a year before he died. He may die suddenly on the road.
CATHAOIRLEACH
On the other hand, if you simply say "in his last illness" the illness may have lasted for two years. The doctor may have been with him at the beginning of the two years, but never again.
As one who first raised the objection to the amendment in this form I may say that I see now that it can do no harm for this reason —that it is really if the person had not been attended at all throughout his illness the coroner may inquire into the case. I can see that this is the safest form.
If he should die suddenly on the road that would come under Section 1.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There must be an inquest in the case of any sudden death.
Amendments put and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Where a coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred in or near his district in such circumstances that an inquest ought to be held, and that, owing to the destruction of the body by fire or otherwise or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, an inquest cannot be held except by virtue of the provisions of this section, he may report the facts to the Minister for Justice, and the Minister for Justice may, if he considers it desirable so to do, direct an inquest to be held touching the death, and an inquest shall be held accordingly by the coroner making the report or such other coroner as the Minister for Justice may direct, and the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests shall apply with such modifications in the procedure as may be necessary in consequence of the inquest being held otherwise than on or after view of a body lying within the coroner's district.
I move to delete the section. Heretofore a corpse or a vital portion thereof was necessary for inquests. According to this section such a thing is no longer necessary. In the city of London I understand the coroners can hold an inquest on a burning even though no life be lost. I do not think Section 8 is necessary because it has often happened that it was thought a person was drowned when in reality the person turned up some time afterwards. Would it not be absurd if an inquest had been held on such a person?
CATHAOIRLEACH
What do you say about a person that was cremated? Supposing a murderer cremates his victim what would you do with him?
I should say it would be very difficult to find the ashes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you delete this section you could not have an inquest. If you make it necessary before you hold an inquest that the dead body or part of it should be found you do not provide for the case where the body has been burned. That is why this new section has been introduced in England too.
It only applies in cases where the coroner believes that a death has occurred in such circumstances that he believes an inquest should be held.
In my opinion an inquest should not be held unless there is proof that the person is dead.
But the coroner will not hold an inquest unless he has proof that a person is dead.
There is no proof unless you get the body or part thereof.
CATHAOIRLEACH
CATHAOIRLEACH
But it very nearly led to a grave miscarriage of justice. I know that in a case in Cork that I was concerned with the body of the murdered man was burned and the head disappeared, leaving nothing but the trunk. It was very difficult to identify the body, and if the burning had lasted a little longer that man would probably never have been brought to justice. I think it is essential in these days that an inquest should be held when bodies can be so quickly disposed of in various ways; it is essential that there should be some protection so as to provide for cases like those covered by this section. Where the coroner is satisfied notwithstanding there is no dead body, or where he has reason to believe that a death has occurred and where he may be satisfied that the dead body may have been disposed of, he should not be prevented from holding an inquest.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It will not apply in very many cases, but this section will supply what was wanting in the previous law and the cases in which it will occur are very exceptional in this as in other countries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) If on an inquest touching a death the coroner is informed before the jury have given their verdict that some person has been charged before a District Justice with the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of the deceased, he shall, in the absence of reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest until after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and may if he thinks fit discharge the jury.
(2) After the conclusion of the criminal proceedings the coroner may, subject as hereinafter provided, resume the adjourned inquest if he is of opinion that there is sufficient cause so to do:
Provided that, if in the course of the criminal proceedings any person has been charged on indictment, then upon the resumed inquest no inquisition shall charge that person with an offence of which he could have been convicted on the indictment or contain any finding which is inconsistent with the determination of any matter by the result of those proceedings.
(3) Where a coroner resumes an inquest which has been adjourned in accordance with the requirements of this section and the jury has been discharged, the coroner shall proceed in all respects as if the inquest had not previously been begun, and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the resumed inquest were a fresh inquest except that it shall not be obligatory on the coroner to view the body.
(4) If, having regard to the result of the criminal proceedings, the coroner decides not to resume the inquest he shall furnish the registrar of deaths with a certificate stating the result of the criminal proceedings and the particulars necessary for the registration of the death so far as they have been ascertained at the inquest, and the registrar shall enter the death and particulars in the form and manner prescribed by the Registration of Births and Deaths (Ireland) Act, 1863, and the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880.
(5) It shall be the duty of the clerk to or other proper officer of the District Justice before whom a person is charged with murder, manslaughter or infanticide to inform the coroner who is responsible for holding an inquest upon the body of the making of the charge, and of the committal for trial or discharge, as the case may be, of the person charged, and it shall be the duty of the clerk or other proper officer of any court to which a person charged with murder, manslaughter or infanticide is committed for trial, and of the registrar or other proper officer of the court before which any appeal from a conviction of murder, manslaughter or infanticide is heard, to inform the coroner of the result of the proceedings.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the expression "the criminal proceedings" means the proceedings before a District Justice and before any court to which the accused person is committed for trial or before which an appeal from the conviction of that person is heard. and criminal proceedings shall not be deemed to be concluded until no further appeal can, without an extension of time being granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal, be made in the course thereof.
I beg to move:—
In Section 9, to delete all after the word "shall" in line 19 to the end of the section and to substitute therefor the words "direct the jury to confine their verdict to the cause of death, without implicating or exonerating any person whatsoever.
I think that this section with all its sub-sections is unnecessary and would lead to confusion. I think the Bill would be much simpler and better if my amendment were adopted. I quite understand the object of the section. It was more necessary in England than in this country, because if a coroner's jury brings in a verdict of murder implicating anybody in that verdict, it is more difficult to bring that person to trial before the Central Criminal Court than it would if that person were returned for trial before a District Justice. I think all the trouble that would ensue if Section 9 with all its sub-sections were passed could be done away with by bringing in a verdict in accordance with medical testimony. This amendment directs the jury to confine their verdict to the cause of death without implicating or exonerating anybody.
There are two objections to this amendment. The object of this section is to prevent any inquest which has already started going on once the matter is taken up in the shape of a prosecution. It would be most improper that an inquest should go on after criminal proceedings against some person are being investigated by a criminal court. It would be most improper for an inquest to go on when criminal proceedings have started. It would not be fair to the accused. It is all very well to say that the amendment that Senator O'Sullivan has proposed would confine the verdict to the cause of death. That is not so. You could never confine a jury in this country to finding merely the cause of death. Now, if you continue with the inquest, evidence must come out which might be most unfair and which might be most unfairly used afterwards against the accused. This section is practically taken from the English Bill. Senator O'Sullivan agrees that it was a most necessary section in the English Bill. I respectfully submit that it is an equally necessary section in ours. When criminal proceedings have started it would not be right that an inquest should go on. In fact, I would have gone further in this section and I would have inserted a section practically compelling the coroner to wind up his inquest the moment criminal proceedings arise.
An inquest need not go on after criminal proceedings have begun. In fact, criminal proceedings are subsequent to the inquest.
CATHAOIRLEACH
They are, but not always. This Bill is to deal with such cases. They sometimes concur. Before a coroner's inquest has concluded, if an individual has been made amenable by the police he is brought up before a magistrate, and this is to prevent the two courts going on concurrently.
They never do go on concurrently. The inquest is held almost immediately.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am afraid there is a case going on concurrently at present in the two courts.
I want to stop that by directing the coroner's jury to confine their verdict to the cause of death.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would simplify the matter very much. The Senator will pardon me for doing this, but I am doing so because I was Chairman of the Committee, and I am not leaving the Chair, because it is not a controversial matter. We are all anxious to make a good Bill of this. If it could be certain that we could secure that the coroner could control his jury and confine the evidence in such cases to ascertaining the cause of death without throwing blame or imputation on anyone I think the amendment would be a desirable one.
I have done it for twenty-five years and the jury never disagreed.
CATHAOIRLEACH
All the coroners are not O'Sullivans.
I think the jury would be only too glad to fall in with the coroner.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would be a relief to them.
I think this section deserves consideration. An inquest is to be postponed until determination of judicial proceedings, which in some cases may last two or three years.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What sort of case is that?
There have been cases of criminal prosecutions where the men have not been tried for twelve months after being charged.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are right. There have been cases during political trouble.
Some of the jury might be dead in the meantime. On the other hand, what is suggested by Senator Brown by this amendment is, that the fact of holding an inquest and hearing evidence would in some measure prejudice the case of any person who might be brought up and charged with the murder of the deceased person. There are two ways of looking at this section. If the inquest could be confined to the mere matter of the cause of death, and to the evidence given, perhaps by the medical man who had examined the body, it would meet the case, but if all the witnesses who knew anything about the deceased person and the manner in which he met his death were examined they certainly would be giving evidence of a nature that would be given before the District Court.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Could it not be met in this way, by amending the section to read: "If on an inquest touching death the coroner was informed before the jury had given its verdict that some person has been charged before a District Court he shall in the absence of reasons to the contrary direct the jury to regard only the question as to the cause of death," or something like that? He shall strictly confine the inquest to the ascertaining of the cause of death.
I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of Senator O'Sullivan's proposal, and if it is put now I am prepared to vote for it. I suggest—we all want to improve this Bill, and to make it as good as possible—that consideration should be given by Senator Brown to it between now and the Report Stage.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think if Senator Brown and Senator O'Sullivan put their heads together they would find a solution.
I am willing to leave over this particular amendment until Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 put and agreed to.
Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 16.
(1) Within twelve months from the date of the passing of this Act every council having power to appoint a coroner shall revise the salaries payable to the coroner or coroners appointed by such council: provided that the salaries existing at the date of the passing of this Act shall in no case be diminished.
(2) If, after such revision, a coroner is of opinion that the salary payable to him is insufficient, he may appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who shall thereupon after consultation with the Minister for Justice fix the salary at such rate as he thinks proper, and the salary so fixed shall come into force as from such date as he may determine.
(3) In fixing the rate of salary payable to a coroner under this section regard shall be had to the nature and extent of his duties and to all the circumstances of the case.
I move the deletion of this section. I take it that the meaning of the section is that the county councils are more or less directed when the Bill becomes law to increase the salaries of the coroners or else to fix them at the same figure as at present, with a right of appeal by the coroners to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Justice. I fear if that right of appeal is given that the result will be to increase considerably the salaries of some of the coroners over the heads of the county councils which had the making of the appointments. I think it is very undesirable we should have any legislation here in the present state of the country compelling local bodies who have charge of the administration of local affairs and the collection of rates to increase their expenditure, especially when it is considered that when there is a vacancy for a coroner in a district there is always a sufficient number of applicants for the position at a salary that would be less than that previously paid. That, I think, proves that the salaries paid are quite sufficient for the work performed.
The coroner is not a whole-time officer. He has other business. He is either a medical man or a member of the legal profession, and the performance of his duties as coroner, in my opinion, only gives him a little recreation now and again, and for that he is paid a sufficient salary. The county councils will have to consider this increase of salary, and if that increase of salary is given after they have refused it they will have good reason to say that they are unfairly interfered with in the discharge of their duties, and if the rates are not lowered to such a point that the ratepayers will be able to pay them, they can certainly throw the blame on the Oireachtas for passing an Act containing this section.
Prior to 1898 the coroner was paid so much per inquest, and received travelling and sustentation allowances, hotel expenses, stationery, telegrams, etc. The average of all these expenses was made out, and the coroner's salary was fixed. Sub-section 10 of Section 14 of the Act of 1898 lays it down that the salary is not to be subject to increase or diminution. I doubt very much if the Cork County Council, which Senator Linehan speaks of, was really legal, and if it was contested in the courts I believe it would be found that the county council would have no power to increase or diminish the salary of the coroner. In this Bill we propose to revise the salaries, the reason being that the original basis on which salaries were fixed does not obtain now. Travelling expenses have gone up 100 per cent. and even the price of the telegram that the coroner has to send has gone up 100 per cent., and so with regard to the other incidental expenses. I think a very good case has been made out for increasing the salaries of coroners. In my opinion it is a poor argument to say that if the office of coroner was vacant in the morning you could get several people to accept it at a lower salary. That applies to other positions of life. You could get several excellent people to come here and do our business at far less than it costs the State at present. Senator Linehan was himself a public servant, and many people could have been got to do his job at a far less salary. I think that is a poor argument.
I think my friend Senator Linehan misunderstands the effect of the Bill. It does not compel county councils to raise salaries. It merely says "that county councils shall within twelve months from the date of the passing of this Act revise the salary": that is, consider whether it should be raised or not. The council need not raise the salary. If they do not raise the salary sufficiently to satisfy the coroner that it is a just salary he has power to appeal to the Minister. In revising the salary the county council cannot diminish the salary. The truth is there are too many coroners in this country and they are paid small salaries. In the County Limerick, including the county borough of Limerick, there are five coroners. There is no question but the work could be done in every county by two coroners now that they travel by motor cars instead of on outside cars. It would be much better if there were only a couple of coroners in large counties and one coroner in small counties. They should be decently paid. In a large number of cases the salaries vary from £30 to £40, and out of that, as Senator O'Sullivan has explained, they have to provide expenses. A salary of £30 to £40 a year is not an adequate salary for a professional man who has very onerous duties to discharge. In Section 17 power is given to the county councils, when a vacancy occurs in any district, to amalgamate that district with an adjoining one. If County Limerick was divided into three districts, then, when another coroner died, it could be divided into two districts. In that way, even though proper and adequate salaries were paid, the cost to the county would probably be diminished. Section 16 should be taken in connection with Section 17, because Section 17 states that if the county council does not take action there is a remedy, as the Minister has a right to prepare a scheme for the amalgamation of districts.
Senator O'Sullivan told us that the salary covered travelling expenses.
And a fee of three guineas.
I would like to ask if it is proposed in the Bill to enforce the same system, and if the salaries paid by the county councils include travelling expenses and other items?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Under this Bill it will be open to the county councils to fix the salaries any way they wish. They can give a lump salary or give a certain salary plus allowances. That all depends on the action of the county council. The only limit to their power is that they cannot reduce the previous salary.
I do not think any expenses can be given. I think the salary must be an inclusive one.
I think so. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 gives a direction for fixing the salary.
It should be stated in the Bill whether the salary is inclusive or not.
On the construction of the section, it is clear that the salary is inclusive.
Would it not be possible before the Report Stage to frame this section in such a way that it would not be necessary for the question of amalgamation to arise?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That point can be raised on Section 17.
I agree with what Senator Linehan has said. I see no necessity in letting the salary rise but not letting it go down. It may be true, as Senator Brown stated, that some coroners are paid too little. I do not know if that is so. Some of them may be paid too much. I think county councils should have a perfect right to reduce the salaries in any case they think necessary. An appeal can always be made to the Minister if the coroner considers that the salary has been reduced too much. I want county councils to decide every case according to its merits, and I see no reason for tying their hands.
It is not often that I agree with Senator Moore or Senator Linehan, but I think if the Bill is open to that interpretation it should be made clear that what is intended is, that there shall not be a reduction of the present salaries of coroners.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I had that point in my mind, and I think if a proviso was added: "Provided that the salaries of coroners holding office at the date of the passing of this Act shall not be diminished," it would meet the position.
Or "provided that the salary payable to a coroner at the date of the passing of this Act."
CATHAOIRLEACH
Better say: "Provided that the salaries of coroners holding office at the date of the passing of this Act."
Or the salary of a coroner.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That would give power to reduce salaries in the case of new appointments if the county council so wished. I do not think it would be fair to reduce the salaries of existing officers who have held office and who were appointed at certain salaries. The councils should not be empowered to reduce them.
As the salary is paid entirely by the county council I do not think we should interfere with that body in fixing the salaries of their officials. Payment by fees and expenses ceased at the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898. Since then coroners have been paid a salary. In the county I come from the salaries are about £200 or £250 a year. Senator O'Sullivan said it was illegal to raise the salaries and I shall certainly convey that information to the Cork County Council.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Will not everyone interested be safeguarded if the clause is left so that the county council may, in the case of future appointments, raise or lower the salary but without giving them power to do anything but raise in the case of existing coroners? I suggested the insertion of a proviso: "Provided that the salary of a coroner holding office at the date of the passing of this Act shall not be diminished."
I wish to support Senator Linehan's amendment absolutely. I do not see the necessity for revising the existing salaries at all. The whole object of this clause is to place upon the county councils the necessity of revising the salaries.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps I might mention for the information of the Seanad that the Select Committee, when considering this Bill, had the advantage of having before them Mr. Horgan, of Cork, who has held the office of coroner for many years. He went through this matter with us and we threshed out the whole thing, and we were satisfied that he made a case that should prevent us attempting to recommend any reduction in salaries and certainly to recommend that they should be revised without compelling increases. We did not treat this matter lightly.
I am quite sure you did not, but I feel it my duty to say that I think the salaries paid now are the proper salaries.
I would ask that the amendment should be put.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Brown stated that it was the desire to amalgamate coronerships under this Bill, and he alluded to Limerick, where he said there were four or five coroners. If it is desirable that some of these coroners should go if they have a grievance would it not be better to allow them to retire and in that way effect the necessary reduction rather than compel county councils already in financial straits to raise their salaries? The present scale of rates is unbearable, and if, on top of that, you now compelled the county councils to consider how much they are to raise the salaries of coroners——
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is not what the section says. It says to revise; it says nothing about raising salaries.
Yes; but not to lower salaries.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Are they not entitled to say the salaries must remain as they are?
In effect it is a suggestion to raise them. If they are not to be allowed to lower them, then the section is not necessary at all, but the suggestion underlying this section is that because of this Bill certain new duties are placed upon coroners, and we put it to you as a council that you must raise, or that you ought to raise, their salaries. I take it that is the meaning of the section, and if that is so I say, from my point of view, coroners are paid sufficient salaries. I do not think it should be suggested to the councils that these salaries are to be raised. If you do that you render practically impossible the desire to which Senator Brown pointed for the amalgamation of coroners in Limerick. If you increase the salaries you stereotype existing positions, and eventually you would make amalgamation of coronerships impossible, and for that reason I support the amendment.
May I ask whether if a vote is taken on this amendment we should be voting for the section as An Cathaoirleach suggested it should be amended, or simply on the amendment as it appears on the paper.
If the amendment is defeated could not the section be amended afterwards?
CATHAOIRLEACH
If Senator Linehan's amendment is defeated, any Senator can move other amendments. If Senator Linehan's amendment is carried that would be an end of the section.
If Senator Linehan's amendment is carried, and the section is deleted, could the salaries of coroners be raised or lowered afterwards?
CATHAOIRLEACH
No, if the section is deleted we say nothing about that.
If the amendment was carried the salaries of existing coroners could not be revised.
I take it the existing salaries are not dependent on this section except that if it is deleted they are not to be varied. If it is not deleted revision of salaries is essential under the Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It was mentioned in the course of the debate by Senator Dr. O'Sullivan that in the Act of 1898 there was a clause that prevented them being raised or lowered.
Yes, Section 14, sub-section (10).
CATHAOIRLEACH
Then if Senator Linehan's amendment is carried it would be impossible to raise or lower the salaries of coroners.
We had evidence, notwithstanding that state of the law, that they have been reduced.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Does that surprise you, Senator?
Amendment—"That Section 16 be deleted"—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 24.
Tá.
- Thomas Westropp Bennett.
- Sir John Keane.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Colonel Maurice Moore.
- Michael F. O'Hanlon.
- Thomas Toal.
Níl.
- William Barrington.
- Sir Edward Bellingham.
- Samuel L. Brown.
- Mrs. Costello.
- William Cummins.
- Countess of Desart.
- James Douglas.
- James C. Dowdall.
- Sir Thomas Esmonde.
- Sir Nugent Everard.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Farren.
- Martin Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Foran.
- Sir John Griffith.
- Henry Seymour Guinness.
- Benjamin Haughton.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- James Moran.
- Stephen O'Mara.
- William O'Sullivan.
- James J. Parkinson.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
In sub-section 1 to delete the words "salaries existing" and to substitute therefor the words "salary payable to a coroner holding office."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I want to suggest that between this and the Report Stage, this Section should be recast so that it will not be necessary for any council, on their own motion, to start a proposal for reorganising the districts of the coroners. I am afraid, if it is left to the councils to do this you will never have the districts reorganised.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you have not read the section right, because you see they are obliged to do it, that is to say, they may do it on their own motion, but if they do not do it on their own motion they may have to do it if called upon by the Minister.
There are two "ifs" there. Suppose the Minister does not call upon them, and suppose they do not do it, the status quo remains.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Better leave it if nobody wants to change it.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 17, 18 and 19 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) Every coroner shall on or before the first day of February in each year make and transmit to the Minister for Justice a return in writing, in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister from time to time directs, of all cases in which an inquest has been held by him, or by his deputy, during the year ended on the thirty-first day of December immediately preceding.
(2) In addition to the yearly returns to be furnished under the foregoing sub-section, every coroner shall, as and when required by the Minister for Justice, furnish to the Minister returns in relation to inquests held and deaths inquired into by him in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may direct.
I move: "To delete the section." I do not see the necessity of this section. Section 50 of the Act of 1846 lays it down that in January every year a coroner shall make a return to the Lord Lieutenant of the number of inquests he held during the preceding year. That was never carried out. I do not think such a return was made for the last forty years and it was never asked for.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is the reason this was put in.
I do not see the necessity for making a second return. The only reason I see is to have an excuse for creating an office for a clerk here.
CATHAOIRLEACH
My recollection is that your colleague was quite strong about this. We had also information as to the registration of deaths and things of that kind. These particulars were very useful and in fact the form was prescribed by Act of Parliament. You suppose they have to appoint a coroner, but that is not the reason for our ignoring them. It facilitates them very much in the Registration of Deaths Office.
If a coroner neglected to register a death, they may then discover it was his duty. That could be discovered from the county council. Returns have to be made every three months.
Another point was made by the representative of the Coroners' Association, that the coroners found it difficult to have prescribed forms for their returns. We laid it down that the returns should be on a prescribed form which will probably be supplied by the Ministry themselves. Mr. Horgan said there were no regular returns.
There are prescribed forms for everything connected with a coroner's business.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We got copies of them and did not think they were satisfactory.
Would it meet the case if the forms were submitted in duplicate, one to the county council and the other to the Minister? If it were sent in quarterly in duplicate it might meet the matter.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We simply asked him to do it once a year, and I do not think that was a very heavy obligation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
