Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2024

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 12, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“Reform of Coroners Acts

12. The Government shall, not later than 12 months after the date of commencement of this Act, bring forward legislation to reform the Coroners Acts 1962 to 2024, having due regard to recommendations contained in the Joint Committee on Justice Report on an Examination of the Operation of the Coroner’s Service, published in February 2023.”.

On the Bill, it is worth saying we are not opposing its passage. It is disappointing that the Bill only contains piecemeal reforms. It has clearly been moved in response to a deadline for the Dublin coroner's office. I am sure representatives will agree when I say the entire service is in need of some reform. While there are difficult issues in relation to independence and continuity of service, reform is long overdue. The founding Act goes back, I think, to 1962. It has been through the Committee on Justice, which published a report of which I am sure the Minister is aware. It covers much of the previous ground, as does the ICCL report.

In this amendment, we ask that not more than one year after the commencement of sections 1 to 12, the Government shall bring forward legislation to reform the Coroners Acts, having due regard to the recommendations contained in the committee report on an examination of the operation of the Coroner Service. It concerns the opaque nature of the appointment process. Recently, someone who I thought would be a very qualified candidate asked for clarity. He - an educated man - could not make head nor tail of how the whole process was going to work and how he could apply for what he anticipated might be an upcoming vacancy. He could not see any transparent application process or expressions of interest in the appointment of a coroner. The post seems to be passed to a deputy nominated by the outgoing coroner prior to their retirement. That is how it seems to work. The salary is funded by the local authority but that body does not choose to make an input to the selection process. Section 8 of the Coroners Act grants the power to appoint coroners to the local authority but this needs to change. Coroners should be centrally employed and funded, not from the coffers of the hard-pressed local authority.

While there are other provisions that allow for the appointment of a deputy coroner and the merging of districts, the open advertising of any role, which should be the normal course of action for a public service vacancy, does not take place. I find it hard to think anybody would disagree with that. That man said he made inquiries with Kerry County Council about the issue which came to naught. While the legislation dictates that the council is responsible for the appointment, there is nothing that stops the council from using the public appointments process to find qualified persons. Does the Minister have a view on this? Officials from the Committee on Justice will arrive presently, or, I hope, before the end of this Dáil sitting.

I support the amendment tabled by Deputies Ward and Daly, which requests that within 12 months of the date of commencement of this Bill, the Government would bring forward legislation to reform the Coroners Acts 1962 to 2024. The important part of the amendment is that any new legislation would have due regard to the recommendations contained in the Joint Committee on Justice report. The committee made 15 recommendations. From what I can see, none of these recommendations made 12 months ago is advanced in the current amendment Bill. I understand that this Bill is necessary. I am not questioning the need for it. I understand all of that but it was rushed through. We had Second Stage last Wednesday and amendments on Thursday morning. We knew this Bill was necessary 12 months ago when the committee recommendations were published but little or nothing of substance from those recommendations found their way into the Bill.

However, one substantial change not contained in those recommendations has found its way into the Bill, which is the move away from the title of officeholder to civil servant for coroners. That is a massive change. According to Eleanor Fitzgerald, president of the Coroners Society of Ireland, that radical change in the Bill compromises the independence and functioning of the office of the coroner. As we all know, civil servants operate under instructions. They are not independent. The implications of this change were not recommended by the committee and are extremely far-reaching. I have no idea where they came from, especially in the context of the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny, which provided a written briefing to Department officials adding the words, "For pay and superannuation purposes only", immediately following the proposal on civil servant status. In other words, section 2(c)(6B), according to the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny, should read, "A person appointed under subsection (6A) to be a coroner for the coroner's district of Dublin shall be a civil servant in the Civil Service of the State". It proposed to add, "For pay and superannuation purposes only". That would not interfere in any significant way with the independence of the coroner. Where did this come from and how did it happen in a Bill with a very particular focus and which does not deal with any of the recommendations in any substance from the committee? Yet, this has slipped in. I know it is convoluted but I can only speak in the context of the amendment in front of us. In that context, I support this amendment in two ways, if you like, first in what I hope it will include in any future Bill but equally that it would be taken into consideration what it did not recommend and what was not recommended by the committee on pre-legislative scrutiny.

The amendment tabled by Deputies Daly and Ward seeks to commit the Government to bring forward legislation to reform the Coroners Acts having regard to recommendations in the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice report on the examination of the operation of the Coroner Service published in February 2023. I express my appreciation for the recommendations made by the committee. I do not object to any of that. The intention is that I will bring forward legislation that will take due regard of the recommendations made by the committee.

The issue I have with the amendment is that it very clearly specifies 12 months. Obviously, I want to ensure the legislation is brought forward as quickly as possible but we have just finished a consultation, which was open to contributions from the general public, stakeholders and anybody else. It only closed on 19 January. We are processing, assessing and analysing the submissions at the moment. It is intended to bring proposals as to any necessary changes to Government for consideration. I fully agree and acknowledge that modernisation of the coroners service is needed. There are lots of things that do not work as they should. The service has not changed for a significant time and there are certainly ways in which it can be improved, many of which have been recommended by the committee. However, it would be challenging to guarantee absolutely it would be done in 12 months because we do not know what delays, issues or challenges might arise. I assure Deputies that it is absolutely the intention to do so. As they will know, this Bill is being brought forward for very specific reasons and there is a time limit associated with it as Covid provisions are running out.

The reason for the change as regards civil servant status is that we are moving to having full-time salaried coroners. We worked closely with the Attorney General's office to make sure that coroners' independence was in no way jeopardised or impacted. It should be borne in mind that they will be designated as civil servants of the State. The legal advice is that this does not in any way impinge on their independence or statutory role. We have other civil servants of the State who maintain independence, for example, the deputy master of the High Court, the probate officer, the examiner of the High Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are moving in this direction because we are moving to full-time salaried coroners. I was very mindful that this should not impinge on anybody's independence.

While I support the intention behind the amendment, I have an issue with it specifying 12 months. We do not know what might arise but I am absolutely committed to bringing this forward as quickly as possible to reform a system that needs to be reformed. I will most likely be working in a collegiate and collaborative spirit with all colleagues in the House to that end.