We have seen too many tragic cases across the country where a parent or family member has taken the lives of their loved ones, including one in my constituency weeks ago. My thoughts are first and foremost with every family who has suffered such unimaginable loss and also, of course, the family of the late Grace Lynch.

How the State handles these cases is a matter of public interest. There is one case in particular, again in my constituency, that demands answers. This week five years ago, three innocent children - Conor, aged 9, Darragh, aged 7, and Carla, just three years old - were killed by their mother, Deirdre Morley. She was later found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, a verdict that has left more questions than answers. Their father, Andrew McGinley, who is in the Gallery today, has fought tirelessly to have the full circumstances leading up to their deaths properly investigated. He sought detailed fact-finding processes at their inquest, including the examination of the treatment Ms Morley received in the two years before the children died. However, the coroner has limited the scope of the inquest. This followed correspondence with the HSE and from consultants in St. Patrick's Mental Health Services requesting such a limitation.

I fully respect the independence of the Coroner’s Court but when the HSE asks for a limited scope, that request carries weight, and if the effect is to restrict the facts that can be examined, then the public is entitled to ask why. Barristers for the HSE argued that a full investigation would examine not only the treatment provided but also a "consideration and determination as to its adequacy". Yes, the Coroners Act does prevent a finding of civil or criminal liability but the legislation does not prevent the coroner from establishing plain facts, including whether protocols were followed, whether procedures failed or whether systemic gaps existed. Those factual findings are essential if we are serious about preventing more such tragedies.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the State has a duty to conduct an effective investigation where systemic failures may have contributed to a death. That requires looking beyond the immediate medical causes to the wider circumstances. Our Supreme Court has also been clear that coroners have a public duty to allay rumours or suspicion and to highlight circumstances which, if unaddressed, could lead to further deaths.

I am, therefore, asking for a clear commitment today in the case of the McGinley children. Further information must be brought into the public domain that may require widening the remit of coroners or require the Attorney General to reconfirm that such scope in the public interest already exists. It certainly requires an examination as to why the HSE sought to limit this inquest and whether that constitutes undue interference contrary to the public interest. Families who lose loved ones in these horrific circumstances must be able to trust that every single relevant fact will be examined because transparency and accountability are about learning lessons and maybe, just maybe, that will save lives in the future.

I thank the Deputy for raising a very grave issue, particularly in the context of the deaths of Conor, Darragh and Carla McGinley. The Minister for justice met with Andrew in late November. We will reflect on what he has articulated very passionately. We are also conscious that this is a very challenging area in respect of the rights of all concerned but also the issues of mental health. I will seek an answer as to why the HSE took the position it did. The coroner has clear powers under the Act in terms of organising the conduct of the inquest and so forth.

I acknowledge that there are issues here in respect of how we, as a society, deal with familicide and how we deal with these issues. In more recent times, we are witnessing parents coming forward or the family coming forward with very serious issues and who feel their concerns and issues are not being listened to by those in authority. On the other hand, there are also very clear issues of an ethical kind that are not immediately reconcilable with the need for 100% transparency.

It is not simple; it is very challenging, but we have an obligation to listen and then to act in the best way we can to try to meet the concerns of those who have lost their children in horrific and very traumatic circumstances. I am open, and I know the Ministers will be too, to engaging with Mr. McGinley and others in terms of how we can move this forward.

I thank the Taoiseach. Mr. McGinley's stated reason for seeking an unrestricted inquest scope is simple and is grounded in the wider public interest to save lives in the future, enable learning that could improve mental healthcare and treatment, strengthen diagnosis, ensure robust management of prescription medication, reinforce the need for co-parents to be informed and supported, and most importantly, ensure warning signs and risks to children are recognised before lives are lost. I do not believe there is a parent in the whole country who would accept an inquest being limited in its scope. Other, similar cases were not so limited.

The role of the State Claims Agency in overseeing the HSE needs to be fully investigated. The role of the HSE in trying to limit this particular investigation has implications right now. It is current, it is not legacy and it needs to be looked at. Not following up on the process risks the perception of a State body represented at coroner inquests under agreement with the State Claims Agency being accused of deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny and, in fact, working against the common good and the public interest. This needs follow-up. Will the Taoiseach or his office meet with Mr. McGinley to further pursue this? There are public interest issues that need to be addressed.

There are public interest issues and these issues are complex. It is my understanding that the new Mental Health Bill currently before the Seanad will provide for the appointment of a nominated person who can be involved in a person's care. However, I think the Deputy is talking more in terms of the inquest, the nature of that inquest,-----

I refer to all inquests.

-----the level of information that is put forward and the avoidance of any over-restriction in terms of information that may be put forward. I would like to discuss this later with the Ministers for Health and justice and the HSE to get their perspective on it. There clearly are issues here. I readily acknowledge that they need to be pursued and that those who have lost loved ones as a result of horrific events of this kind need to be listened to and heard.