We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna ar Pholasaí nó ar Reachtaíocht - Questions on Policy or Legislation

Unidentified remains data

Summary

Deputy Smith raised concerns about unsolved missing persons cases and incomplete data on unidentified remains, including an unidentified skull from Lambay Island. The Minister agreed the omission was concerning and said he would raise it with the Minister for Justice to seek a more complete list.

There are currently 856 unsolved missing persons cases in the State. In addition, an unknown number of unidentified remains are documented in various files in coroners' offices throughout the country. Advances in DNA profiling have led to some cases being solved in recent years. In the middle of May, for the first time ever, the Department of Justice published information provided by coroners on unidentified remains. However, there are limits to the data provided. Does the Minister share the concerns expressed that an unidentified skull found off Lambay Island in 2006, which has been the subject of numerous news reports and appeals by the Garda, was omitted from the recent list of unidentified remains submitted by coroners and published by the Department? Does he agree that this omission shows the need for a new specialised task force to assemble all information properly, to assume accountability for compiling a compete and proper list of unidentified remains and to ensure everything is done to solve these cases? Coroners do not have the resources to do so.

Comment on this

I share the concerns regarding the omission of the partial remains to which the Deputy referred from the list of unidentified remains. In recent weeks, for the first time, we saw data being produced. That is important. I will engage with my colleague, the Minister for Justice, to see whether a more comprehensive list can collated. I agree with the Deputy's concerns regarding the specific case to which he referred.

Comment on this