Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My thanks to everyone who has given testimony today. I have some questions before I make my comments. The basis of Ms Hurley's statement is that there is no issue anywhere outside Dublin and therefore the legislation is misplaced. In other words, it is not suitable for a regulatory body to be established as a national body when the difficulty only appears to be an issue in Dublin. I concur fully. The purpose of the legislation was an attempt by the gentlemen to my left who have made witness statements today to try to address the matter, having tried every other angle within their means to address the inequality in the Dublin market.

In that context, I ask the witnesses to go back and have a look. It may be that we need to repeal the 1970 Act to rectify matters. I ask the witnesses to come back to us with further advice as to what should be done to address the anomalies that have been raised today.

Ms Goggin had a formal complaint made to her and an investigation was pursued. Her final statement referred to the four things Glasnevin Trust is going to do arising from the investigation. The trust has undertaken to treat competing headstone providers in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. Does that mean the trust acknowledges that prior to the investigation it was not treating headstone manufacturers in the Dublin region equally and in a fair manner? Ms Goggin's comments on the investigation would be very useful to the committee and allow us to ascertain whether the legislation needs to go forward from Second Stage.

I thank Mr. Gerry Brennan and Mr. David Pierce. This is not our first meeting. We have been meeting over the last number of years. To say that they have pursued most graciously simply to be treated at least fairly would be an understatement. I wish them very well in their endeavours.

Nearly everything Mr. Green said is true. Glasnevin Cemetery is a credit to the organisation running it. However, there is a definite inequality in the way it operates by comparison to some of the competitors in the same business. Fundamentally, why is Glasnevin Cemetery in the business of selling monuments and flowers? The Act that bestowed on the organisation all of the gratuities it did in the 1970s does not necessitate the cemetery being in a competitive business with regard to manufacturing and installing monuments and selling flowers inside the premises for no other reason than to make a profit in something. It is a commercial activity in which the trust is competing on an uneven playing field with people who are trying to make their livelihoods and have been in the same market in Dublin for generations.

How much is Glasnevin's salary bill on an annual basis in comparison to the overall running costs? Why does Glasnevin not publish in a transparent and open way the actual running costs and profits from the businesses that are part of the overall trust? What is actually done with those profits? How are they reinvested and what are they reinvested in? Why are salaries and operating costs not published? Why is there an element of secrecy around the trust and who are the body of people on it? I do not understand what the purpose of the secrecy is. Mr. Green might explain that to the committee.

Arising from the letter he wrote, I ask Mr. Pierce about the following. The trust has claimed that it has never treated Pierce Monuments unfairly. The day after Mr. Pierce was there meeting a potential client, he received the letter warning him not to do so again. What happened thereafter? What happened after he received the e-mail telling him not to dare to take photographs in the trust's cemeteries again? What happened after he received the communication telling him that he was not allowed to place a plaque on his monuments? What communications and clarifications were given to him by the trust arising from that? What were the reasons for it and how did it affect his business?