Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister to the
House and welcome his acceptance of this Bill,
brought forward by Deputy Rabbitte. It is very
important legislation and I am glad the Minister did not wait until the bringing forward of the
major Bill to which he referred. In that context, I
hope the Leader will make sure that he brings
that Bill to this House so we can deal comprehensively
with it. It will be very satisfying legislation
with which to deal.
It is extraordinary that it was 43 years before
any attempt was made to change the provision
regarding the number of medical witnesses. I
assure the Minister that this change is welcomed
by the coroners and the medical profession, with
whom I have been in contact since this Bill came
before the Dail. Medicine has changed enormously
since 1962 and no one person can claim
to be an expert on all of the medical facts that
may come before an inquest. The very tragic case
which was the catalyst for this legislation shows
that clearly.
I would like to express my sympathy to the
Nowlan family but also point out that something
good has come out of the death of their small son.
In this sad case, the child was a haemophiliac so
not only would the doctor who was involved in
the procedure which went wrong want to speak,
but so too would those who had been treating the
child up to that point and those who treated him
after he became ill. A considerable number of
people would want to give their facts to the
inquest, facts which would be useful.
One coroner told me that he recently spent
seven hours going through medical evidence from
one medical witness. He said it was hopeless
because he was asking the witness about his
knowledge on one area, then another and so on.
Now coroners will be in a position to call in the
experts in specific areas, which will be very
worthwhile. After all, what we want to come out
are the facts of what actually happened, not
people’s opinions.
The Minister has removed the compellability
section from the Bill. It is very much to be welcomed
that the fines for non-attendance are much
heavier, because as the Minister said, the previous
fines would not even have covered a taxi
fare to the inquest. There is now the threat of a
substantial fine of €3,000, six months in jail, or
both. If a person refuses to attend an inquest,
could the Attorney General take a case on behalf
of the coroner? Would that be a possibility? One
frequently reads of cases in the newspapers where
people refuse to attend inquests, even though it is
perfectly obvious that their attendance is of great
importance. That is dreadful.
I am always conscious of the fact that the legal
profession is inclined to give the medical profession
medical advice, so as a medical person I
try to refrain from giving the legal profession
legal advice. However, the Minister might look
at this issue to determine if there is any way the
Attorney General could take a case against
people who do not co-operate. I know attempts
have been made regarding compellability in the
past and none has succeeded to date, but it is an
important area.
I look forward to seeing the heads of the afore-mentioned
Bill before Easter 2006. I always think
it is advisable to say to which Easter or which
Christmas one is referring. I hope we will have
the substantive Bill in this House very shortly
thereafter.
...
Dr. Henry: I congratulate the Labour Party and
Deputy Rabbitte in particular for bringing forward
this important issue. I compliment the Minister
and his officials for dealing with the Bill so
swiftly.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech
Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005
15 December 2005