Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Eamonn Maloney for introducing the Bill. I also thank the previous speakers for their contributions, with the exception of the Fianna Fáil Party spokesperson who dealt with the matter very unsympathetically, and the Minister for his response. While Deputy Maloney and I accept that certain improvements are required in the Bill, the important issue is that the broader issue it raises is tackled.

I first became interested in this issue when a constituent, a woman whose husband had died suddenly in his early 60s, had to quickly purchase a plot in which to bury him. While she understood it would cost her approximately €3,000, the final cost to emerge was approximately €9,000. As a result, the lady in question had to deal not only with her bereavement, but also a substantial financial weight around her shoulders. The most distressing part of her story was that she was not presented with the full picture and the facts emerged only gradually.

When I started to inquire into the matter and, having discussed it with Deputy Maloney and others, I realised there was much more to the issue than first meets the eye. Previous speakers noted that restrictive practices have resulted in businesses closing down. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments they made, which I support, and will instead concentrate on an important element of the Bill, namely, the provisions dealing with The Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970. The 1970 Act should be repealed and I ask the Minister to carefully consider doing so. The Act makes the Dublin Cemeteries Committee, which controls several large Dublin cemeteries, including Glasnevin, Newlands, Palmerstown and Dardistown cemeteries, both a corporate body and a charity, which is a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. It is apt that the Dáil is discussing this issue at a time when the entire charitable sector is under scrutiny. As previous speakers noted, it is important to recognise that the majority of charities do extremely good work and operate in a perfectly acceptable manner. Unfortunately, unacceptable practices have been identified in a number of cases, including in this particular case.

Under that 1970 Act, 20 members of the Dublin Cemeteries Committee hold positions for life. They are paid and have their expenses covered and the Act explicitly provides that they may enter into contracts with the committee, for example, for the provision of headstones. What we have, therefore, is a charity providing lucrative employment for its members. Similar practices were revealed in the cases of the CRC and Rehab. The Act also provides for the functions of the committee.

I will put a series of questions to the Dublin Cemeteries Committee, also known as Glasnevin Trust, and it is vital that I receive answers to them. What are the sources of the committee's finance? Why should it have charitable status? Who are its members and how are they chosen? What is each member paid and what functions does he or she carry out? How does the committee decide who can or cannot work in the cemeteries for which it is responsible? Why does it not publish annual accounts and when will it do so? Does the committee receive bequests and, if so, for how much and for what are they used? Does the committee own land other than cemeteries and, if so, where is this land and for what purpose is it used? Will it make charges for all burial services absolutely clear to those burying loved ones? I also ask the Minister for a response because these are serious questions on which clarity is needed, especially in light of the general focus on the charitable sector. Light must be thrown on this issue.

See this speech in context