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

I will set out the full section as it is useful for understanding the position here. This is deciding on the issue of manifestly inappropriate burials:

The matters referred to in section 7(3)(a)(ii)are whether, in relation to the burials concerned, the human remains— (a) are uncoffined,

(b) are buried in such a manner that they would not have complied with the requirements, at the time of such burial, specified in the Burial Grounds Regulations,

(c) are buried in a way that would not reasonably be considered to provide a dignified interment, or

(d) are buried collectively and in a manner or in a location that is repugnant to common decency and would reasonably have been so considered at the time the burials took place.

Those are the criteria under which that important determination of "manifestly inappropriate" is determined. Amendment No. 17 seeks to remove the phrase "at the time of such burial" from section 8(1)(b) of the legislation. In doing so it would undermine one of the criteria used to assess whether there were manifestly inappropriate burials at a burial site. It is important that the assessment of burials relates to the time when 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 that were not applicable or perhaps did not exist at the time of such burials. Burial ground regulations have changed since 1922, which is the start of the period to which this legislation is applicable.

Amendment No. 18 aims to delete all words from and including "and" in line 12 down to and including "place" in line 13 from section 8(1)(d). One of the criteria that the Government must try to assess before deciding whether a burial site associated with an institution has manifestly inappropriate burials is whether most people at the time of the burials would have found the burial at a site, such as Tuam, acceptable. Without the phrase, "and would reasonably have been so considered at the time the burials took place", it is much more difficult to interpret what "repugnant to common decency" means. I do not believe we should undermine the rigour of the legislation by reducing clarity on this important and sensitive criterion. To do so would undermine what we are seeking to achieve here.

Everybody in this House agrees that the manner in which the remains of children were interred in the chambers at Tuam was and is not acceptable. That is patently clear. However, future circumstances cannot be ruled out in which the interpretation of "common decency" is more specific to the time when burials took place. The phrases the Deputies wish to have deleted support the clear interpretation of the respective criteria that define "manifestly inappropriate burials".

See this speech in context