Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a comprehensive framework for the management of cemeteries to avoid any distortion of competition where cemeteries are managed in a non-transparent manner and where cemetery authorities engage in commercial activity at their cemeteries in a manner which disadvantages commercial entities in competition with the authorities.

On the issue competition, I would like to add to that, because it will become part of this debate, and say that there is a need not only to end the distortion of competition in regard to cemeteries but to address the issue of Dublin city and county arguably having the most expensive burial costs in Europe. Some have made the case, whether it is entirely correct or not, that it is more expensive to have a burial in Dublin than in the cities of London and Paris. The lack of competition which exists in regard to burials in this city has influenced the high cost.

In regard to the provisions of the Bill, section 1 provides for the establishment of a cemeteries regulator. Section 2 provides that each cemetery authority, other than a local authority or an ecclesiastical authority, may not manage a cemetery without a licence from the regulator. The licence should only be issued if the authority complies with specialised management requirements such as that it does not engage in commercial activities other than internment at its cemeteries or, if it is a charity, in other places. Section 3 makes any trust or private Act subordinate to this Act. Sections 4 and 5 contain standard provisions. In regard to financial and regulatory implications, there are possible financial implications in that the Act would disallow cemetery authorities from charitable status if carrying on commercial activity. Furthermore, the Act will provide competition in the cemetery sector.

On the issue of competition, or lack of, all of us are familiar with the fact that historically church bodies or local authorities have provided burial facilities in this country, as in most of our neighbouring countries. However, private entities or charities are not excluded, an issue which pertains in other jurisdictions. I have no objection to that in principle provided there is accountability and a licensing framework. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that if private commercial bodies engage in burial services, they are licensed in this jurisdiction. As I said, that is the practice nationally, that is, it is either a local authority or a church bodies, with one exception in the city and county of Dublin.

In 1846, during the reign of Queen Victoria, a committee was established to maintain Glasnevin and Goldenbridge cemeteries. I am happy to say it was a very worthwhile committee given the particular problems at the time. Set up during the Victorian times, it was a trust with very special powers. Not surprisingly, the original trust was all male but what is more interesting, and was a feature of the time, was that the committee was based on perpetual succession - in other words, certain named persons and their successors. Effectively, it was a closed shop or, to put a stronger slant on it, a secret society. If someone died, the existing members decided who would replace them. All of their business, financial or otherwise, was exclusively private. That aside, it served a very useful purpose and I do not wish to take anything from the work it did.

Interestingly, the status of having perpetual succession, which was introduced in 1846, continues to this day. It might have been a feature of Victorian times but it should not be a feature of modern Ireland that we have a body or an authority which can exercise perpetual succession because of the secrecy attached to it.

The 1846 Act did its job in the 124 years until 1970 when a Private Bill came to the House. I do not question the usefulness or the cause of the subsequent Act because the situation had very much changed in the intervening years. There were many aspects to the trust. For instance, it was allowed to take donations. The Act was one of the very few Private Bills that came to the House, in other words, it was a Bill written not by a legislator or Deputy, but by a body.

I will deal briefly with two or three aspects of the Act. The Act was passed unanimously. The changes that resulted from the 1970 Act gave the committee - sometimes referred to as the 1846 committee, at other times as the Dublin Cemeteries Committee or the Glasnevin committee - powers to borrow money, which it did not have previously, and powers to invest and employ. It also gave the committee powers to accept grants, subscriptions, donations, devises and bequests for all or any of the purposes of the committee. Given the secret nature of the committee, to this day, we do not know the assets of the committee and we do not know how much property it has.

The matter should be of concern to all legislators in a modern democracy such as this. It is a legacy of the past which should be changed. Despite what was in the 1970 Act, I argue that it did not confer the Glasnevin cemetery committee with the power to engage in commercial activity. The Act does not allow the entity to go into direct competition with those providing monument works – stonemasons providing headstones and sculptures. In the 1980s the cemetery committee first established a subsidiary company, Glasnevin Works Limited, with limited liability. I argue that was not proper because the status of the parent committee is a charity. We have recently had discussions about charities, much of it unpleasant, but that is not to infer that charities do not do good work. Most charities do good and important work but that cannot be said for all of them. In the case of the cemetery committee, it was a charity with tax-free status and it engaged in setting up a private enterprise without authority, as the 1970 Act did not give any such power, and went into direct competition with companies in the city and throughout the county in the manufacture and sale of headstones and monumental works. By that stage the parent company had ownership, or in one case in south Dublin, the lease of a burial ground. That bestowed great advantages on the new company that was set up to make and sell headstones, to the detriment of all the other companies, most of which were family owned.

In the period from the 1980s to date, from the setting up of the private entity by the charity, 16 firms in the city and county of Dublin went out of business. That is proof of the need for the legislation. Further proof of the privileges enjoyed by the new monument companies is that none of the 16 companies was bought out by anyone because business was in decline as one company was taking the lion’s share of manufacturing headstones and selling them. I refer to companies such as Egans and Crowes among others. Their closure was one of the consequences of a charity setting up a private entity with all the advantages it had over other companies. In the autumn of last year three monument companies ceased trading and no one bought them due to the lack of competition in the sector in this city and county. Hilary Monuments ceased trading in the autumn of last year. Emerald Monuments of Palmerstown ceased trading in September 2013 and Farrells of Glasnevin ceased trading in October 2013. I mention the latter specifically because many people are familiar with the company, which was established in 1829. The site was a landmark one for anyone familiar with the city. If one was passing the area of Glasnevin one could not but notice the monument works there and the granite and marble pieces of work. After three generations in business the company closed down. It was on the doorstep of Glasnevin Works Limited. Despite the fact that Farrells existed since 1829 the company could not compete with the new regime and ceased trading.

I use the example as an illustration of the need for the Bill. We must have regulation because if we do not deal with the issue there will be a monopoly in the city and county, namely, a company operating under the auspices of a charity. I appeal to the Minister to consider the Bill. It is not perfect but I urge him to give the Bill serious consideration and to accept it.

See this speech in context