Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Maloney for publishing this Bill, availing of the Friday facility for Private Members' Bills and for providing the opportunity to discuss important matters such as this one. The provisions of Deputy Maloney's Bill have been closely examined by the Department. It presents an earnest attempt to deal with the issues he has discussed. The Deputy has raised other issues as well with which I will deal. The Government does not propose to oppose the Bill.

Deputy Maloney is correct that the financial expenses in the Dublin area for funerals and matters relating to burials are far too high. In spite of various investigations by the Competition Authority, it is difficult to get evidence of collusion between funeral undertakers or anti-competitive arrangements to the detriment of the consumer, but there is scope for investigation into those matters in the context of the consumer given that the Dublin area is becoming the most expensive place to have a family burial.

There are a number of shortcomings in the Bill which I will outline, with a view to being constructive and to improve the proposed legislation earnestly put forward by Deputy Maloney. The main point made by him is that the Glasnevin Trust is engaged in commercial activities and competing in an unfair way with existing companies in the monument business and thereby contributing to what he perceives as a monopoly.

The Bill may not be able to deal with these issues but nevertheless the Deputy has raised important issues in the context of competitiveness or, in the Deputy's view, anti-competitive practices.

I draw the attention of the House to a number of issues about the Bill. It does not fully provide for the establishment, operation and powers of a new cemetery regulator. For example, there is no reference in the Bill to allow a Minister give directions to the regulator on policy matters. There is no provision for financing or staffing the regulator. We are trying to reduce the number of agencies and devolve more functions to local authorities. The Bill does not refer to offences, fines or other penalties that would arise if an operator of a cemetery operated without the approval of the regulator. These are not major issues of principle but are details of the Bill I wish to bring to the attention of Deputy Maloney before we proceed.

Perhaps local authorities should be represented on all cemetery boards dealing with matters of burial because of issues relating to planning which affect local authorities, and the HSE should also be represented in the context of public health. It is important to have assurances on these matters from the point of view of the public good. Perhaps strengthening these provisions should be examined.

There are no specific requirements to be met for an operator's establishment to be approved by a regulator. The Bill makes no reference to guidelines or further regulations which would or should be produced to ensure the consistent and effective operation of such establishments. There is no provision in the Bill for a regulation-making power to set out the standards which must be complied with.

The Deputy spoke at length about matters relating to Glasnevin and he detailed the history of its establishment going back to 1846. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, those were different times and there is a need to reform the manner in which we deal with issues, particularly given the increasing number of people opting for crematoria. Approximately 50% of people in the Dublin area opt for cremation rather than traditional burial.

A notable difficulty with the Bill is the ownership of cemeteries which are also national monuments, for example, Clonmacnoise, the Rock of Cashel and the Hill of Tara. For the purposes of this legislation these are owned by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, while the Minister for Finance has a statutory duty under the National Monuments Acts to maintain them through the Office of Public Works. As my two ministerial colleagues are neither local authorities nor ecclesiastical authorities, and I would not say they themselves would subscribe to the view of being ecclesiastical - they would come within the definition of "cemetery authority" as set out in this Bill. I am informed the two Ministers are corporations sole constituted under the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and clearly could not reconstitute themselves to meet the requirements the Bill would impose for eligibility to obtain a licence to operate as a cemetery authority. I am using these examples to show it is not all as straightforward as we would like, but this does not cut across the principle of what Deputy Maloney is trying to do in the legislation.

I have made these observations in the context of not opposing the legislation. I thank Deputy Maloney for bringing forward this important legislation and the opportunity to discuss the Bill which we have carefully analysed. While it is clear there are some legal and other shortcomings, we look forward to improving the proposals to meet our objectives.

See this speech in context