Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I ask members for their views on the Attorney General's proposed amendment to the Coroners Act 1959 to confer on him power to obtain papers to provide a clear statutory basis for the disclosure in the context of his power to direct an inquest where he considers it advisable to do so and whether they wish to support the amendment or require any further information.

Mr A Maginness: I am not sure that my party has a fixed view on this at this time. Clearly, there are issues here that need to be resolved. It seems to me that, from the evidence that the Department of Health and the health trusts put forward, they had a problem with this. It further seems to me that the Attorney General can currently apply to the health trusts for all papers and documentation that the coroner can get. Given that, at the time that that was put, I wondered whether the Attorney required an additional power to have access to documentation. Of course, the Attorney has argued that it will be "an extra pair of eyes" — I think that that was the term that he used. He put forward a good argument as well. I am not sure whether the balance is properly struck by his proposed amendment. So, for this moment in time, I think that we will reserve that position and come back to it. There is a degree of qualification in endorsing the Attorney General's position at this moment in time.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I think that that is fair enough. My understanding is that the Health Minister is sending us more information on the serious adverse incidents, and I also understand that it will possibly be with us for next week's meeting so that we can discuss it then. I am happy enough to defer it to a better time.

Mr Lynch: That is fine, Chair. We can come back to it with the extra information. Do we then vote on it in the Committee?

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Not until the formal stage. Obviously, with these, the situation is slightly different in the sense that the Attorney cannot table them himself. If the Committee were in agreement, the Committee would, effectively, take it on. It is a slightly different issue in that sense. Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be for members to have discussions about the two issues in their own parties. Are members happy enough?

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): The second issue is on the Attorney's proposal for providing right of audience for lawyers in his office. You have correspondence on this from the Attorney. It is about having legislative provision to provide rights of audience for lawyers in his office and whether we wish to support that provision. Again, will members indicate whether they have a view on this?

Mr A Maginness: I am sympathetic to what the Attorney is asking for for his own office, because it has a discrete number of lawyers. However, on foot of his suggestions to the Committee and his discussion about this, there was further correspondence from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) and also, I think from the PPS, in which they said, "If the Attorney General is going to get this, we want it as well". The reason why I would be sympathetic to the Attorney General is because a small, discrete number of individuals work in a fairly restrictive area of law, primarily judicial review, and, in the circumstances, I would have thought that that would not be unreasonable. However, if it creates a precedent and you have to expand it to include a raft of others, it diminishes the rights of counsel to act independently within our courts. That would become a serious issue. I understand that they have serious objections to that. It is a difficult one to resolve, but again, as far as my party is concerned, there is no definitive position at this moment. We would have to consider it further.

Mr Lynch: The Attorney General acknowledged that others would have an equally good argument — they would have the right to the same — but he had the best right and he would do that. However, it could widen out.

Mr Elliott: What negatives are there if others got the same rights?

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I suppose the argument — Alban could articulate this much better than I — is about the independent Bar and the role that it plays in our democracy and our justice system. I presume that that is the argument.

Mr Elliott: Does that mean that it is giving privilege to someone?

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): As I said, Alban will be able to articulate this much better than I, but it is the principle of having an independent Bar. If you allow rights of audience for the PPS, the Departmental Solicitor's Office and whoever else, you are moving away from that principle that we have established within our democracy.

Mr Elliott: I take Seán's point that the Attorney General has a higher or better right than others, but I do not necessarily hold that view. I am not that convinced about it anyway, but I am wondering whether, if it is for the Attorney General, why is it not for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Departmental Solicitor's Office?

Mr Poots: Alban articulated why, in that it is small and discrete and that it deals with a relatively confined area, which is on judicial reviews. I would not be desperately unsympathetic to others having the right at some point, but I would like to make a judgement on it. Allowing this very modest change would do no violence to where the independent Bar is as things stand. It may lead to a more cost-effective system in years to come. I would be inclined to give the AG's office the right of audience but not to extend it beyond the AG's office at this point to allow us to calculate and make an assessment on whether it has been a success or not.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): We are not going to make any decision today, and I respect that your party has not come to a definitive position on this. We could seek guidance from the Department on whether, as Edwin suggests, there could be a trial for this to see how well it would work and whether, if we were minded to support the Attorney General's amendment, a review mechanism could be built into it to see whether it has worked. It is something that we could explore. If members wish to go back to their parties and get definitive positions on this, I am happy enough to do that when we come back to it. However, if anybody has any further comments to make —

Mr Elliott: It might be useful for those drafting the Bill to look at that, because if you built a review in, you would need something additional in the regulations because they are easier to change. That is only a thought.

The Chairperson (Mr Ross): That is useful. Thank you.