Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

My concern with these two amendments from Deputy Ward is that they would interfere with the definitions that are necessary to aid the clear interpretation of the criteria that define “manifestly inappropriate burials”. In regard to amendment No. 28, that would remove the phrase “at the time of such burial” from subsection 8(1)(b) and would, therefore, undermine one of the criteria used to assess whether there was a manifestly inappropriate burial at a burial site. It is important that the assessment of burials relates to the time that such burials took place and the agreed custom, practice and requirements of that time. It is difficult to justify assessing burials with reference to requirements which were not applicable or perhaps did not exist at the time of such burials. Of course, the burial ground regulations have also changed since 1922, which is the start of the period from which the legislation is applicable.

I will also not be able to accept amendment No. 29, which would, on page 16, delete all words from and including “and” in line 12 down to and including “place” on line 13 from subsection 8(1)(d). One of the criteria that the Government must try to assess before we decide if a burial site associated with an institution has "manifestly inappropriate burials" is whether most people at the time of the burial would have found the burial site at a site like Tuam acceptable. Without the phrase, "would reasonably have been so considered at the time the burials took place", it is a lot more difficult to interpret what “repugnant to common decency” means and there is a risk of incorrectly applying present-day customs or values.

We cannot undermine the rigour of the legislation by reducing clarity on these important and sensitive criteria. As such, I am not in a position to accept these two amendments.