Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate -
Tuesday, 17 Nov 2015

Policy Issues arising from Cemetery Management Bill 2013: Discussion

I remind members and visitors to turn their mobile phones off. Our meeting has been convened today to discuss the policy issues arising from the Cemetery Management Bill 2013 and related matters. At 3.15 p.m. there will be a minute's silence in the Chamber as an expression of sympathy for the victims of the Paris atrocities. I put members on notice that this committee will join in with that. It is proposed that, if not previously concluded, this session will be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m., as the Select Sub-Committee on Finance will be meeting here to discuss the Finance Bill 2015. As a result of the late start, we are under a particular time restriction.

I welcome the following witnesses to the meeting: from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Ms Mary Hurley, assistant secretary, community division and Mr. David Dalton, principal officer, community division; from the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, Ms Isolde Goggin, the chairperson, Mr. John Shine, director of advocacy and market intelligence, and Ms Haiyan Wang, head of unit, consumer enforcement division; from the Irish Monumental Firms Association, Mr. David Pierce of Pierce Monuments, Mr. John Sweeney of Craft Monuments and Mr. Gerry Brennan of Headstones Ireland; and from the Dublin Cemeteries Committee, Mr. John Green, chairman, and Mr. George McCullough, chief executive. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has supplied a written submission.

I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. It is proposed that the opening statements and any other documents that may be provided by witnesses be published on the committee website after the meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I now call Ms Mary Hurley from the Department to make her opening statement.

Ms Mary Hurley

I thank the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht for inviting the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government here today to discuss the policy issues arising from the Cemetery Management Bill 2013. I am accompanied today by Mr. David Dalton, principal officer in the Department’s community division, with specific responsibility for, inter alia, local government community services and the regulation of local authority burial grounds.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has policy and legislative responsibility for the regulation of local authority burial grounds. This responsibility covers a range of technical aspects related to the operation of burial grounds but does not extend to matters related to the funeral industry generally. The main legislative provisions in respect of burial grounds are contained in the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878, as amended by Part 6 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1948, the Local Government Act 1994 and in the rules and regulations for the Regulation of Burial Grounds 1888 and the relevant amending regulations.

The legislation provides that local authorities are burial boards for their respective functional areas. They have sole responsibility for providing, managing, regulating and controlling burial grounds in their areas. In this respect, there has been gradual devolution of functions from central to local government over time, with almost all functions relating to burial grounds exercised locally by local authorities at this stage.

The underpinning legislation has been in place for some time, but it has served us well and continues to do so. While there have been calls to review the legislation in recent times, it has remained unchanged as the changes proposed were outside the Department’s policy and legislative remit. I believe that this is also the case with the matter before the committee.

The Dublin Cemeteries Committee was established as a body corporate by the The Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970 and is a registered charity for tax purposes. It currently owns and operates a number of cemeteries in Dublin city and county and has incorporated a number of limited liability companies for the purposes of carrying on certain ancillary funeral related businesses. A Supreme Court decision in 2009 reaffirmed the capacity of the committee in this regard. Neither the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government nor Dublin City Council have any function in relation to, or any direct control over, the operation, management, regulation or otherwise of the Dublin cemetery committee or, for that matter, the business of any other private cemetery operator.

As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the Bill has been introduced primarily for the purposes of regulating competition. At its heart, therefore, the Bill seeks to address a market regulation and competition matter in the funeral industry and to level the playing field between private businesses. The Department has no policy responsibility in this regard and the proposal to vest responsibility for such a regulator in the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, therefore, is not consistent, in our view, with the scope of the Minister’s responsibility vis-à-vis the operation and management of burial grounds.

As stated, the primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of a cemeteries regulator. First, there is no policy or other need for a cemeteries regulator in respect of local authority or ecclesiastical authority burial grounds which constitute the majority of burial grounds in the State. Second, the introduction of a regulator for such a limited number of operators and at a time when Government is actively pursuing measures to reduce the number of State agencies and control the number of State employees would appear to run counter to Government policy to reduce the number of such authorities. Third, a regulator would require a staffing structure and other necessary administrative supports, all giving rise to a potentially significant cost to the Exchequer. Given the clear purpose of the proposed regulator to regulate competition between private businesses, it appears to duplicate the statutory remit of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. Indeed, the commission has responded to a complaint of anti-competitive practices by Dublin Cemeteries Committee and made recommendations in this regard.

I do not believe that the competition matters the Bill seeks to address come within the policy or legislative responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. For this reason, I have not dealt with the technical or legal issues and other matters of concern arising from the Bill. However, I am happy to detail these briefly if it would be of assistance to the committee as part of the broader discussion on the Bill today. Given the breadth of policy and technical issues arising from the matter we are here to discuss, I believe a wider consideration by other Departments of the proposals reflected in the Bill is also imperative.

I thank the committee once again for its invitation to participate in this discussions. I hope the foregoing will assist the committee in its deliberations and both my colleague, David Dalton, and I will be happy to deal with any queries that might arise in the course of subsequent discussions and which come within the remit of the Department.

I thank Ms Hurley and invite Ms Isolde Goggin to make her opening statement.

Ms Isolde Goggin

I thank the Chairman and the committee members for inviting us to appear before them. We are very pleased to be here on the occasion of the Cemetery Management Bill 2013. I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. John Shine, who is the director of our advocacy and market intelligence division, and Ms Haiyan Wang, who is the head of investigation in our competition enforcement division.

We are a relatively new organisation having been formed at the end of October 2014 from the amalgamation of what was then the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency.

The mission of the commission is to make markets work better for consumers and businesses, and our vision is for open and competitive markets where consumers are protected and empowered and businesses actively compete. We have brought together the competition and consumer protection roles of the two legacy organisations.

I will outline our past involvement in the sector and will move on to our view on the question of regulation. Funeral-related services are a bit different from run-of-the-mill services that people buy. A lot of the advice to consumers on our website, www.ccpc.ie, is to shop around, but one cannot say that to somebody in a situation of bereavement, as they are very sensitive purchases that consumers have to make in very difficult and stressful circumstances. They may be particularly vulnerable and be unsure of what they need to do. They may be very dependent on the service provider, which is normally a funeral director or a provider of cemetery services, to guide them through the process. As such, it is very important to have transparency and compliance with competition and consumer law in the sector.

From an enforcement point of view, the commission conducted a detailed investigation, over a number of years, into alleged anti-competitive practices by Glasnevin Trust. This was concluded to our satisfaction in March 2015 with the agreement of Glasnevin Trust to a number of remedial measures. Details of the case are available on the website, but I will summarise the main aspects. The case arose from a complaint received in November 2011 in which it was alleged that Glasnevin Trust and its subsidiary, Glasnevin Cemetery Monument Works Limited, GCMW, were engaged in anti-competitive practices which were designed to put competing headstone providers, in particular, at a competitive disadvantage. It was alleged that this amounted to an abuse of dominance by the trust, contrary to the Competition Act. We carried out a detailed preliminary assessment and, subsequently, a formal investigation. We engaged with Glasnevin Trust and sought and secured a number of remedial measures from them. The measures related to the provision of burial plots, headstones and headstone foundations and were designed to mitigate the alleged anti-competitive practices, ensure the protection of consumers and increase transparency.

The measures included the requirement that Glasnevin Trust make its prices more transparent to consumers, making it easier for consumers to find a price list for burial plots and foundation fees on its website and in its offices. In addition, given that many funeral directors were acting on behalf of the bereaved families, Glasnevin Trust was required to take measures to ensure that funeral directors informed consumers of the separate cost of the foundation fee, because the degree of transparency around the foundation fee had been an issue. Before applying for burial services in Dublin City Council cemeteries, funeral directors were required to confirm to the council that they had informed consumers of the foundation cost. Third, Glasnevin Trust was to treat competing headstone providers in an equal and non-discriminatory manner in terms of waiting times for permits and foundations and access to the cemetery. Finally, the trust was to allow competing headstone providers to advertise in their promotional brochures subject to payment of the same fees as would be paid by GCMW, its own subsidiary, for the same advertising. Based on these measures, we were satisfied to conclude the investigation in early 2015 without any further action being required. The commission also corresponded with the Irish Monumental Firms Association, setting out our position on the issues that had been raised.

Mindful of the potential vulnerability of consumers at a particularly stressful time, we also provide information to consumers in a dedicated area of our website called "Planning a Funeral" and we have recently added material relating to succession planning. We operate a helpline for consumers which deals with over 50,000 contacts per annum, from very general inquiries to specific complaints alleging breaches of consumer law. On average we get some ten contacts per annum on funeral-related issues. There is no pattern in this respect and the issues raised seem to be one-off issues. We have not received anything to suggest there are substantive issues relating to breaches of consumer law.

That is the history of our involvement in the sector from the point of view of competition and the consumer. Our remit covers the entire economy, so if there are competition or consumer issues we are already there to deal with them. On the necessity for regulation, the purpose of the Bill is to establish a cemeteries regulator to provide for the licensing of cemetery authorities and to specify management stipulations for such authorities, to promote competition and to provide for related matters. Competition law and consumer welfare are already within our remit.

We have no information that would indicate there are substantive issues that merit the creation of a new regulatory authority. That is not to say that issues causing detriment to consumers might not exist. Rather, that we do not believe a sufficiently strong case has been made to justify the proposal for a specific regulator. As a general principle, we believe regulation should be adopted only as a last resort where there are very serious shortcomings in the sector and in circumstances where existing measures have proven incapable of addressing such issues. Regulation can go too far. It can impose restrictions on entry to a market that can actually damage competition, leading to cost increases, inefficiencies, lower service quality and general detriment to consumers. Regulation must be paid for. My colleague from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mentioned that it might cost the Exchequer. In my experience, however, a regulator for a very specific sector is usually paid for by a levy on industry or on businesses in the sector. That leads to increased costs and these may outweigh the benefits. We recommend that any proposal to introduce new regulatory structures should be progressed only after very careful consideration of the necessity for and implications of such an initiative.

I will now turn to a couple of specific concerns that strike us in regard to the current proposals. We understand the key concerns informing the Bill relate to alleged anti-competitive practices in the cemetery industry and, in particular, Glasnevin Trust's engagement in ancillary commercial activities, namely, commercial activities in which there are also other firms engaged. There is a danger of duplication of existing statutory functions. We are the statutory authority with responsibility for enforcing competition law and consumer law in the State. We very much urge anybody who has any concerns about potential breaches of either competition or consumer law to bring them to our attention. We have the power to investigate and we have done so in the past. The Bill envisages a role for the proposed regulator that would duplicate some of the statutory functions.

Parties have a right of private action before the courts. As a result, it is not always necessary for a regulator to act on behalf of aggrieved parties. Parties can take action themselves, certainly in regard to competition law and some aspects of consumer law.

On effectiveness and proportionality, an issue arises regarding the coverage of the proposed Bill. It defines a cemetery authority as being any company, committee or body - other than a local authority, a town or borough council or an ecclesiastical authority - that is engaged, pursuant to statute or otherwise, in the management, operation or occupation of a cemetery. Our understanding is that Dublin is a specific case. Many of the cemeteries outside the Dublin area are either local authority owned or ecclesiastically owned and consequently would not be covered by the Bill. Within the Dublin area, it seems the impact would mainly be on Glasnevin Trust.

The Bill proposes to restrict the regulated entities with charitable status from engaging in ancillary commercial services at cemeteries. Again, Glasnevin Trust appears to be the only cemetery operation with charitable status in the Dublin area. Engagement by charitable organisations in commercial activities is not, in itself, anti-competitive. We must bear in mind that operating a cemetery is, by its nature, a very long-term business. In some cases, the trusts or organisations involved are required to maintain the cemetery in perpetuity. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable for the operator to try to find some kind of ancillary commercial activities to fund the maintenance of cemetery grounds that perhaps no longer generate sufficient income from burial plots, particularly the older ones. The funding requirement is likely to be higher for cemeteries of an historic nature and they generally require more maintenance. They are not so easily maintained as the modern ones.

As I mentioned when talking about the four measures that had been agreed with Glasnevin Trust in order to promote competition and protect consumers, those concerned have undertaken to treat competing headstone providers in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. We would be very happy to engage with any of the other cemetery operators if similar issues arise elsewhere and explain to them how they can meet similar requirements.

Regulation should not be an end in itself. In considering any proposals for additional regulation, any perceived failings in the sector should be clearly identified. It should be clearly demonstrated that such issues cannot be adequately addressed within the existing legislative environment before we contemplate additional regulation. Any such regulation will come at a cost. No matter how it is constructed, it is likely in the end to be borne by the consumer.

We think that any proposal for further regulation would merit careful consideration and the conduct of a regulatory impact assessment.

In regard to the cemetery sector, we are of the view that the case for further regulation has not been sufficiently articulated and that further examination would be required before proceeding any further.

I thank Ms. Goggin. I call Mr. Pierce.

Mr. David Pierce

Chairman, Members of the Oireachtas and invited guests, we, the Irish Monumental Firms Association, are here to seek help in achieving a level playing field, fair competition, fair procedures and an end to a charity dominating the headstone trade. Cemeteries, by their nature, are anti-competitive. Everybody goes to his or her local cemetery. If it becomes ridiculously expensive, the market does not correct itself. That is why we need a regulator. Planners will not give permission to open a new cemetery in a locality where an existing one is still viable. Therefore, the business of operating a cemetery is outside the normal checks and balances of a competitive environment.

We are a group of ten headstone businesses based all over Dublin. We are struggling to survive in business, most of us having had our turnovers decimated. The Dublin Cemeteries Committee, DCC, trading as Glasnevin Trust, is the main reason we are on the verge of collapse. The DCC is a private statutory body and a charity controlling four of the largest cemeteries in Dublin, namely, Glasnevin, Palmerstown, Newlands Cross and Dardistown at Dublin Airport. It does not pay corporation tax; we do. It does not pay rates on its showrooms and factories; we do. The DCC uses burial data to send brochures to relatives of the deceased. We do not have access to that information. It has huge displays inside its cemeteries and its registrars double up as salespeople, pitting them against us on a daily basis. Until recently, it received 12.5% commission when selling a grave or a headstone. Some of the staff can have wages of €2,000 a week. It insists on doing foundations for our headstones, charging us €1,000 in Glasnevin. We have offered to pour these foundations for €80. It charges us €500 to spend a day working in its cemeteries. We have to pass these outrageous fees on to the bereaved of Dublin. It insists on doing all work on stone cremation walls. We are not allowed work on any cremation plots, even though this is the only growing part of our business. It has begun to sell pre-erected blank headstones on graves. This totally excludes us from the market. No other cemetery operator anywhere allows this. So far seven monumental firms within close proximity to Glasnevin have closed. Just last year, Farrell's of Glasnevin, which had been in business for 126 years, had to shut down.

We are not allowed meet potential customers in the DCC's cemeteries. We are not allowed take photographs of our completed work. The DCC has, over the years and for spurious reasons, barred seven Dublin monumental firms for operating in its cemeteries. These firms have never been in any dispute nor ever even queried by any other cemetery owners. Kerry County Council operates more than 130 cemeteries and Fingal County Council operates more than 30 and none of them has ever had any reason to ban firms or men from going about their business. The evidence strongly suggests that when a body is both regulator and competitor, it cannot be trusted to be fair and impartial.

There are many more examples of abuse of Dublin sculptors, far too many to mention. The firm I represent has seen its turnover drop from €1.3 million to €350,000. It could be said that, through loss of earnings, Dublin sculptors have contributed more to Glasnevin than anybody else. Glasnevin Trust has taken our trade, aided and abetted by the State. The Oireachtas has given the DCC a far better deal than Apple or Google has received.

Some 115 years ago, Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US President, said:

Artificial bodies ... depending upon any statutory law for their existence or privileges, should be subject to proper governmental supervision ... in the interests of the whole people, the Nation should ... assume power of supervision and regulation over ... [such bodies]. This is especially true where the corporation derives a portion of its wealth from the existence of some monopolistic element or tendency in its business.

Over the years we have written to the DCC. We have suggested arbitration and we even suggested a yearly voluntary contribution by us if it were to stop selling monuments. The last correspondence we sent to it was nearly two years ago. It answered us with a solicitor's letter, sent to our individual homes and business addresses, not our association's office, threatening to sue us personally if we continue to protest about it.

As we said in our opening statement, the Dublin Cemeteries Committee now owns and controls five cemeteries and when it doubles in size again, we will no longer exist. It is now by far the largest provider of burials and cremations in Ireland and its monumental firm is also the largest in Ireland. It now sells headstones tax and rates-free all over Dublin and beyond, not just in its own cemeteries but in cemeteries from Balbriggan to Bray. It has now branched into boulders for housing estates and nameplates for houses, all tax-free.

We ask the Oireachtas to pass the Cemetery Management Bill as it is the correct action to take. New South Wales in Australia and New Zealand have recently introduced new cemetery regulators. In the Dáil debate, some Deputies hoped this would not be another quango, but the DCC is the oldest quango in Ireland. It is a body of perpetual succession, with no role for a Minister. Is it a case of swapping an unaccountable quango for an accountable one? In The Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970, the Oireachtas entered into a bargain with the owners of Glasnevin Cemetery, conferring powers on it but with no safeguards for anybody whose private interests could be destroyed by it. To compound the problem, the Oireachtas allowed it to become our competitor with a tax exemption and regulator not answerable to any power in the land.

Heretofore, when the State interfered in a trade or business, the affected parties received some sort of compensation. For example, those involved with farming, fishing and turf-cutting and even taxi drivers received tax concessions after deregulation. Make no mistake, Members of the Oireachtas have interfered in our trade and they must make it right. We are not looking for compensation and we just want fair play and the opportunity for firms to survive. We sculptors are not out of step but the Oireachtas is, as no other country in the world allows a charity to sell headstones. An expert on competition and consumer affairs stated that charities must raise money. Glasnevin Cemetery is a member of what are called the historical cemeteries of Europe, and that group comprises 150 cemeteries. The other 149 cemeteries do not sell headstones as their staff see it as unethical and immoral. They do not interfere in the trade.

I had much more to say but I will change my plan. In August 1988, at the age of 24, I set up a headstone business in Swords, County Dublin. Business went very well and over time my turnover reached €1.3 million, with ten employees. I erected headstones in cemeteries in north County Dublin and north Dublin city. The Dublin Cemeteries Committee opened a large cemetery in Dardistown, just beside Swords. At the time, I considered this to be a good opportunity but two years after opening the cemetery, the DCC erected just inside the main entrance a large display of new monuments for sale to the bereaved. It erected signs suggesting that when the monuments are purchased from it, the graveyard would be better maintained than if they were purchased from me or my colleagues. My first exposure to the power of the DCC was when I met a family in the cemetery who wanted to see some of my recently erected monuments. I received a phone call the next day to say that if I ever met a family in the cemetery again, I would be barred from all the DCC cemeteries.

Most of the members of this Oireachtas committee would be familiar with their local sculptors and cemetery. Imagine if the sculptor were not allowed to discuss a headstone with a client or family in a local cemetery. That would not happen anywhere else in Ireland and it is why Glasnevin Trust, as it now calls itself, cannot be both regulator and competitor. A few weeks later I was taking some photographs of my recently erected monuments and the following day I received a phone call indicating that no photography was allowed in the cemetery. This was all the more galling as Glasnevin Trust has pictures of my work all over its offices. Sculptors all over Ireland inscribe trade names and phone numbers in small letters on the side or base of newly erected work, as this is historically the best way of selling monuments. I was told not to put my phone number on monuments or I would be barred. Again, this does not happen anywhere else and it is why Glasnevin Trust cannot be both regulator and competitor.

It has been suggested that we have room to go to the courts. Glasnevin had a so-called Irish stone rule and although I will not bore members with the details, it dropped the rule when I took the matter to court. I was left paying €16,000 as a new business. The legislation is the 1970 Act and there are no internal or external safeguards for us. The Competition Authority has told us it cannot help us and the issue is one of state aid rather than competition. The Revenue Commissioners will not talk to us about this because of client confidentiality.

We do not want to know anything about the tax affairs of Glasnevin; we are just saying a charity should not sell monuments. With regard to charities trading, Glasnevin does not have to sell headstones. There are many other monumental sculptors. It can raise money other ways. How come 149 other members of the historical cemeteries of Europe think it is unethical to sell monuments?

Mr. John Green

I express my condolences to the Chairman on his recent loss.

I am chairman of Glasnevin Trust. Glasnevin Trust is the business name of the Dublin Cemeteries Committee, established under the Dublin Cemeteries Committee Act 1970, which followed on from the earlier 1846 Act. Glasnevin Trust manages the operations of the cemeteries in Goldenbridge, Glasnevin, Palmerstown, Dardistown and Newlands Cross. It operates solely by reference to the public interest in the provision of burial grounds and cremation facilities, as well as the maintenance of Ireland’s historic national cemeteries at Glasnevin and Goldenbridge. Glasnevin Trust is run by an executive management team and the Dublin Cemeteries Committee. I am joined today by Mr. George McCullough, the CEO of the trust.

Glasnevin Trust manages the burial and cremation, now running at a 50:50 ratio, of approximately 4,000 people annually. This accounts for less than 30% of the burials in Dublin and the immediate surrounding counties. The remainder of burials in the Dublin area are carried out in cemeteries owned, operated and subvented by local authorities or in a few privately run cemeteries.

Glasnevin Trust also maintains and preserves the considerable heritage assets in Glasnevin Cemetery, which has become the focal point for many of the commemorative events for the decade of centenaries. More recently, Glasnevin Trust opened the multi-award-winning Glasnevin Cemetery Museum as a major educational and tourism centre. The museum attracts more than 100,000 visitors annually and is a significant boost to tourism and the economy on the north side of Dublin. At our initiative, DNA Dublin's Northside Attractions has been developed and was launched at the world travel market two weeks ago by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe.

Glasnevin Trust employs more than 100 people in Dublin. Companies owned by the trust also offer florist and monument works services to the bereaved, competing in a market where more than 50 registered monumental sculptor companies and hundreds of flower sellers operate. Glasnevin Trust, in the absence of any other significant development of local authority cemeteries in the Dublin region over the past 30 years, has developed three cemeteries. These are Palmerstown Cemetery in 1978, Dardistown Cemetery in 1990 and Newlands Cross Cemetery in 2000. Simultaneously, it introduced and developed cremation in the Dublin area, establishing the first crematorium, Glasnevin Crematorium Limited, in 1982 and Newlands Cross Crematorium Limited in 2001. Dardistown crematorium is scheduled to open in 2016.

Glasnevin Trust is a statutory and voluntary not-for-profit body, originally established by Daniel O’Connell in 1828. In recent times, Glasnevin Trust, with the invaluable assistance of the Government and the OPW, has overseen the restoration of Glasnevin Cemetery from a dilapidated state to the sanctuary of peace, dignity and reconciliation it is today The trust’s role remains as it was handed down from Daniel O’Connell, to bury people of all religions and none, and to ensure that we bury and cremate the dead with dignity and respect. We believe the ultimate dignity for the deceased is paramount and burial grounds need to be maintained and funded on a sustainable basis. Many burial grounds operated by local authorities can only survive with significant direct financial subvention from the local authority budgets, which in the past year in Dublin and its hinterland amounted to approximately €2.5 million, and throughout the country amounted to some €10.8 million. I have with me the breakdown of these figures.

In addition to providing burial services, Glasnevin Trust has been working closely with the State in playing its part in the decade of remembrance. Glasnevin Trust, true to its mission of serving people from all creeds, beliefs and walks of life, has been central to a number of State commemorative ceremonies. These have ranged from the commemoration of Irish men and women who lost their lives in the First World War, to Collins and Griffith and, just this summer, the State remembrance of the centenary of the burial of Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa as the opening centrepiece for the 1916 commemorations. In addition to this is the 100th anniversary of Cumann Na mBan, and a multiplicity of commemorations of national importance are held, on a regular basis, at Glasnevin Cemetery.

This work will continue right through the 1916 centenary commemorations, with a number of major projects scheduled, among them being the necrology wall for 1916-1923.

This will remember, in a totally non-judgmental manner, all who lost their lives during the struggle for independence in the period 1916-1923. In addition, Glasnevin Cemetery will be the site for the opening of the governmental commemorations on Easter Sunday morning 2016. I give this by way of background and explanation as to the role of Glasnevin Trust in the life and history of Dublin and its people since its foundation in 1828.

I will turn specifically to the purpose of this meeting, that is, to elicit views on the policy issues arising from the Cemeteries Management Bill 2013 and related matters. I understand that this is a Private Members' Bill advanced by Deputy Maloney. There are a number of important regulatory issues concerning burials and cremations which have not been addressed in this Bill. For example, Glasnevin Trust has identified the need for a new regulatory structure for cremations in Ireland. At the current time, this area is totally unregulated despite its increasing demand. In Dublin last year, 50% of deceased people were cremated. We have previously engaged with the Government, from Deputy to ministerial level, for cemetery regulation and proper cremation regulation, and we believe this is an area being progressed by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

This Bill, as set out, has a very narrow focus and does not address the broad issue impacting on burial grounds and cremation services. It concentrates solely on a small number of burial grounds, including private burial grounds, private family burial grounds, burial grounds run by a charitable trust, Glasnevin Trust and Jewish burial grounds. Glasnevin Trust, together with Mount Jerome, Mount Venus, Kilmashogue, Dolphin’s Barn, Ballybough and Woodtown, would be covered by the Bill, but all others would be expressly excluded. The Bill proposes to exclude from regulation local authority, ecclesiastical and religious orders’ cemeteries. Thus the Bill, as a matter of fact, proposes to regulate fewer than 10% of the burials in the State and a tiny percentage of all burial grounds.

The policy basis for such a narrow focus has not been made clear. During the Dáil debate on the Bill, certain comments were made about Glasnevin Trust. It is important that I address them as many are based on a very distorted and selective view of our operations. At the heart of these complaints is a protracted challenge that the trust has faced from an individual monumental sculptor, supported by a minority of those in the monumental industry, who contends that the manner in which Glasnevin Trust regulates the cemeteries we operate is illegal. It has variously claimed that Glasnevin Trust has breached Irish and EU competition law and that the trust was generally operating outside the law. It has brought its case to the European Commission, the Irish Competition Authority, the High Court and the Supreme Court, which have all ruled in our favour. Laterally, following a further complaint to the Competition Authority in 2011, now the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the commission stated that it had a number of concerns and made four recommendations to Glasnevin Trust, all of which have been fully complied with.

In conclusion, I reiterate the absolute commitment of Glasnevin Trust to continue to bury and cremate people, of all denominations and none, with dignity. We will ensure that all of the burial grounds in our care are maintained to the highest standards, so that the families of the bereaved will continue to have a peaceful and compassionate environment in which to mourn and remember their loved ones for generations to come, or as our mission statement says "[T]o preserve the past for future generations".

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. We would not be discussing this issue if there was not a problem within the headstone industry. Ms Hurley stated quite rightly in her contribution that the responsibility for graves, etc., in Ireland is the direct responsibility of local government. I am not blaming anyone here for the sins of Queen Victoria, Daniel O'Connell, or anyone else, but we would not be having this discussion if historically the Department had dealt with this, especially in 1970 when a Private Members' Bill came before the House.

I dare say to the people to my right and left, as legislators, that if anyone was to try to introduce a private Bill in the House in this day and age, that person would not get as far as the stairs leading up to the Dáil Chamber. Anyway, this was the sort of thing that happened in the 1970s. In this case the private Bill served to extend the protection of Glasnevin Trust and its influence and activity. It afforded protection to the trust that was not available to any other body. It is extraordinary. Despite all the good work that Glasnevin Trust has undertaken historically, it moved into a certain position. This followed the 1970 private Act, which was passed unanimously in the House. It was not drafted by any legislator but was drafted outside the House, something that speaks for itself.

I will condense the argument. The 1970 Act bestowed on Glasnevin Trust a collection of new activities. The trust could borrow money, buy property, etc. These were functions it did not have up to that point. The Act allowed the trust to engage in commercial activity. The people on my left who have made submissions know the story of all their colleagues who had companies that have gone out of business since the 1970s. The Act bestowed a privilege on one body that was not conferred on other bodies. This has already been alluded to by one or two people. What has happened since the early 1980s is that in the greater Dublin area almost 20 companies have gone out of business. These companies employed people, paid taxes and so on. They did not have charitable status, and they no longer exist. Without being too humorous about it, they did not go out of business because people stopped dying. They went out of business because they could not compete. I cited as an example Mr. Pierce's letter in respect of the case in Swords. It showed the inequality of this situation. That is why we are before the committee today debating the matter.

The Department has failed to regulate unequal competition in the sector. A registered charity has a special tax status, something the firms represented today do not. It was a trust. Other than one or two names, I do not know who is a member of the trust. I know it is established in perpetuity as well.

We cannot compare like with like. What happened in 1970 is something that we, as legislators, have to change in the interests of fairness. It is not a simple matter for the Department or a question of blaming local authorities, although I believe it should have been rectified historically, because of what has happened since 1970. Anyway, it is up to us now to rectify the matter.

This country has gone through great change and turmoil. The word "quango" has been mentioned once or twice. My difficulty with quangos is that we have not got rid of enough of them, but that is for another day. Anyway, we have to rectify this on the basis of justice and fairness. In no sector of Irish society should bestowing special private Acts on one body be permissible. It is unfair. I will leave it at that.

My thanks to everyone who has given testimony today. I have some questions before I make my comments. The basis of Ms Hurley's statement is that there is no issue anywhere outside Dublin and therefore the legislation is misplaced. In other words, it is not suitable for a regulatory body to be established as a national body when the difficulty only appears to be an issue in Dublin. I concur fully. The purpose of the legislation was an attempt by the gentlemen to my left who have made witness statements today to try to address the matter, having tried every other angle within their means to address the inequality in the Dublin market.

In that context, I ask the witnesses to go back and have a look. It may be that we need to repeal the 1970 Act to rectify matters. I ask the witnesses to come back to us with further advice as to what should be done to address the anomalies that have been raised today.

Ms Goggin had a formal complaint made to her and an investigation was pursued. Her final statement referred to the four things Glasnevin Trust is going to do arising from the investigation. The trust has undertaken to treat competing headstone providers in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. Does that mean the trust acknowledges that prior to the investigation it was not treating headstone manufacturers in the Dublin region equally and in a fair manner? Ms Goggin's comments on the investigation would be very useful to the committee and allow us to ascertain whether the legislation needs to go forward from Second Stage.

I thank Mr. Gerry Brennan and Mr. David Pierce. This is not our first meeting. We have been meeting over the last number of years. To say that they have pursued this most graciously simply to be treated at least fairly would be an understatement. I wish them very well in their endeavours.

Nearly everything Mr. Green said is true. Glasnevin Cemetery is a credit to the organisation running it. However, there is a definite inequality in the way it operates by comparison to some of the competitors in the same business. Fundamentally, why is Glasnevin Cemetery in the business of selling monuments and flowers? The Act that bestowed on the organisation all of the gratuities it did in the 1970s does not necessitate the cemetery being in a competitive business with regard to manufacturing and installing monuments and selling flowers inside the premises for no other reason than to make a profit in something. It is a commercial activity in which the trust is competing on an uneven playing field with people who are trying to make their livelihoods and have been in the same market in Dublin for generations.

How much is Glasnevin's salary bill on an annual basis in comparison to the overall running costs? Why does Glasnevin not publish in a transparent and open way the actual running costs and profits from the businesses that are part of the overall trust? What is actually done with those profits? How are they reinvested and what are they reinvested in? Why are salaries and operating costs not published? Why is there an element of secrecy around the trust and who are the body of people on it? I do not understand what the purpose of the secrecy is. Mr. Green might explain that to the committee.

Arising from the letter he wrote, I ask Mr. Pierce about the following. The trust has claimed that it has never treated Pierce Monuments unfairly. The day after Mr. Pierce was there meeting a potential client, he received the letter warning him not to do so again. What happened thereafter? What happened after he received the e-mail telling him not to dare to take photographs in the trust's cemeteries again? What happened after he received the communication telling him that he was not allowed to place a plaque on his monuments? What communications and clarifications were given to him by the trust arising from that? What were the reasons for it and how did it affect his business?

I will let the witnesses respond in due course.

If a regulator was put in place, it would extend to the entire country. That has the potential to increase costs for people. At the moment, if I hear complaints about anything, they are about the cost of funerals rather than that of erecting headstones. Funerals take place at a time when people cannot shop around, which is the point that was made by Ms Goggin. We must be very careful not to do something that will achieve the reverse of what is intended.

I expect that issues would arise in this regard, for example, with regard to extending oversight by such a regulatory authority to church-owned property, which I do not believe would be possible.

On Glasnevin Cemetery, I echo some of the points made regarding the maintenance of the cemetery. The original concept behind Glasnevin Cemetery was very enlightened because at that time people feared being buried owing to the burial practices common at the time. Glasnevin Cemetery makes an important historical contribution, not only for the more celebrated people who are buried there but also for ordinary people. I should declare an interest in that some of the bones of my ancestors reside in Palmerstown and Glasnevin cemeteries. I expect a few other people in the room are in a similar position.

Clearly, research has been done on comparable historical cemeteries. Is public funding provided for the maintenance of similar cemeteries? In Ireland, we tend to do things in a way that avoids the use of public funding. Do the business operations at Glasnevin Cemetery contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of the cemetery in lieu of public funding for maintenance? All of us will agree that the cemetery is maintained to a high standard. I echo the view that its new buildings have been a great addition. What contribution does the business make to the expenditure required to maintain the cemetery? Are other income streams available for expenditure on maintenance? If the Glasnevin Trust is a charitable trust, it is not for individual shareholders to make a profit. There is, however, a question mark hanging over this issue.

The last thing we want to do is add to the cost faced by individuals. If, however, the cost is to be borne by taxpayers, we need to know what dynamic is at play. I expect competition would be the more fruitful option. Serious concerns have been raised by previous speakers. The introduction of competition appears to be a more viable option than the introduction of a regulatory authority as the latter could increase costs and the shortfall would have to be made up from public funds. Given that some of the national cultural institutions, which are to play a role in the decade of centenary celebrations, are struggling financially, it is difficult to see from where such public funding would come. Those are my observations.

I welcome our visitors. As the only person from Glasnevin in the room, I acknowledge the great job the Glasnevin Trust has done in the cemetery, which stands out in all kinds of ways. I have a number of questions, the first of which is directed at Ms Goggin and the Competition and Consumer Protection Authority. The authority's four requests to the Glasnevin Trust included that it make its prices clear and inform undertakers of real costs.

I first became interested in this when I met a very distressed woman who had thought it was going to cost €3,000 to bury her husband but found out that it would cost over €9,000. This was sprung on her after her husband died suddenly.

Are the witnesses satisfied that the headstone providers are being treated equally? Are they satisfied that the alternative headstone providers are allowed to advertise in trust publications and so forth?

I understand that we will be suspending shortly to observe a minute's silence-----

Yes. We are actually going to do that here.

That is all right. May I also ask for a response from Glasnevin Trust to the points raised by Mr. Pierce? He made some very serious allegations and I am not satisfied that Mr. Green has answered them. I would ask that we be given answers to those questions.

Does the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government see an issue that needs to be addressed here? I agree with Deputy Doherty that the fact that it is only a Dublin issue is not an argument for not addressing it, especially given that the cost of funerals is greater in this city than anywhere else in the State by a country mile. Is the Department happy with the operation of the Glasnevin Trust or is there a need for it to be more open in terms of publishing its finances and so forth? Is there an inequality in operation in terms of the trust not having to pay taxes and rates?

Thank you, Deputy. I will begin with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commissioner, Ms Isolde Goggin. We will stand for a minute's silence shortly; I will interrupt the speaker at the appropriate time.

Ms Isolde Goggin

Thank you, Chairman. Deputy Doherty asked whether our investigation meant that there was an acknowledgement from Glasnevin Trust that it had not been doing these things previously. The short answer is "No." The slightly longer answer, in terms of law, is that we do not make any findings of a breach of the law. Our responsibility is to take issues to court. What was being alleged here was an abuse of dominance. We would investigate that and if we felt that it was worthwhile bringing a case to court, we would have to go to the High Court and get it to make a finding of dominance in the first place, a finding of an abuse of dominance and then a direction on remedies - that is, what should be done to fix the situation. Given the costs and the amount of time involved in that process, often what we do is to engage with the parties and try to get them to agree to change the course of action. That is what we often do, and we publicise it. We do not go to court just for the sake of it, because often there is no gain for anybody in that. Sometimes things can be sorted out more quickly with the engagement approach and that is the approach we took in this case.

I am not sure if Deputy Catherine Murphy asked a specific question of our organisation-----

I was just making the observation that it is probably a more viable route-----

Ms Isolde Goggin

We cover different aspects of the economy. We have dealt with this one and are happy to do so again if other issues arise.

Deputy Dowds asked whether we are now satisfied that the headstone providers are being treated equally and allowed to advertise in brochures, etc. As I understand it, we have not had any further complaints about the matter. That said, I would urge people to contact us if they feel they are not being fairly treated.

I ask Ms Goggin to address the question on costs.

Ms Isolde Goggin

The specific issue with regard to costs was transparency, and the trust making its prices more transparent to consumers so that they would know the final cost of a burial plot and foundation fees. I am not sure if the Deputy's constituent had a problem with the overall bill from the funeral director or whether she was able to break it down into specific costs.

Her problem was that she was told the cost for the actual grave but not for the extras like the headstone, every letter that was put on it, the grave surround and so forth.

It is quite a long time since I had the conversation with her. It was approximately three years ago. The problem was that it did not become apparent until a certain amount of time had passed that she was going to be saddled with this bill. If memory serves correctly, it was €9,000 rather than €3,000.

I will be obliged to interrupt the Deputy prior to the commencement of the minute's silence in the Dáil Chamber.

I have said what I want to say.

When the minute's silence starts in the Dáil Chamber, we will start our minute's silence here.

Ms Isolde Goggin

I will give a brief response to Deputy Dowds while we are waiting. I think that the issue should be addressed now and that they should be able to see the breakdown of prices for the burial plots and the foundation fees.

Is Ms Goggin satisfied that it has been addressed? Does she have any role in overseeing whether it has been addressed?

Ms Isolde Goggin

If people have issues or complaints, we deal with them when they come to us. We do not carry out continual monitoring of all the prices. If somebody comes to us to say they feel that one of these agreements is being breached, we will be happy to engage with them and pursue the matter.

I ask Ms Goggin to respond to the other points that were made. The minute's silence has not yet started in the Dáil Chamber.

Ms Isolde Goggin

I do not think I have anything more to say.

Fine. I ask Mr. Pierce to answer the specific questions that were put to him.

Mr. David Pierce

I will begin by responding to something Deputy Regina Doherty said. I received a phone call from the registrar to say I had been seen by the chief executive and I was not to be there anymore. I asked him to put that in writing but he refused to do so. When I was told about the photography a few weeks later, I asked them to put that in writing also but they refused to do so. Any time they do something to us, they refuse to put it in writing. Since that day, myself and other sculptors - I spoke to representatives of Farrell's of Glasnevin last week - have not been allowed to meet potential clients in our local cemeteries. At times, we are shadowed by workers from the Dublin Cemeteries Committee to make sure we do not talk to people. Would it be possible for me to ask Ms Goggin a question?

I do not see why not.

Mr. David Pierce

Ms Goggin, in your response to us, you actually said that the letter from Haiyan-----

I ask Mr. Pierce to direct the question through the Chair and then Ms Goggin can answer it.

Mr. David Pierce

In the letter that was sent to us, the Competition Authority said that this was not a competition issue. They said it was a state aid issue and they suggested that we should go to the European Commission.

I ask everyone present to stand for a minute's silence as an expression of sympathy for those who died in Paris at the weekend.

Members and witnesses rose.

I apologise for the confusion with the minute's silence. I ask Mr. Pierce to resume.

Mr. David Pierce

In the letter that was sent to us, the Competition Authority said that this was not a competition issue. It said this was a state aid issue and suggested that we should contact the European Commission. It also said that we were too late in bringing the cremation issue to it and that it did not have the resources to look into it. It said three things that suggest to me that Ms Goggin and Haiyan are totally toothless and useless, if you will excuse me. It said that we would be allowed to advertise in a promotional brochure. When we got the price list during the week, we learned that it would cost €1,500 for a quarter of a page.

I remind Mr. Pierce to direct his comments to me. I should also inform him that "toothless" and "useless" are unparliamentary terms.

Mr. David Pierce

Sorry. Some of our colleagues here got an advertising and promotion brochure. They were quoted €1,500 for a quarter of a page.

No monumental sculpture companies took it up, except maybe Glasnevin Trust Monument Works, which is an independent firm. The Competition Authority said it would get Glasnevin to tell customers that the cemetery fee - say, of €1,000 in Glasnevin - was not included in the price of the grave. Unless it includes the price of the foundation in the grave, it is no use to us, given that we still have to tell people it costs €1,000. I see people thinking they will go to Glasnevin to see what deal it can do for them. It is another useless measure by the Competition Authority. Glasnevin Trust Monument Works in all the Dublin City Council cemeteries have 40 to 50 monuments inside the gates of the cemetery. The only thing the Competition Authority can do for us is to insist that either nobody has a display or we all have a display. Otherwise, it is wasting time and taxpayers' money.

I asked a question about the comparable cemeteries that would have an historic aspect.

Mr. David Pierce

We have spoken to some of them. Brompton Cemetery in London is run by the Friends of Brompton Cemetery, which has charitable status. It does not sell monuments but raises funds from tours, lectures and selling souvenirs such as mugs. It would see selling monuments as an interference in a trade that has been established for thousands of years in Britain.

Is there a contribution towards the maintenance of the historic cemeteries from public funds?

Mr. David Pierce

We did not ask that question.

Mr. John Green

While the Friends of Brompton Cemetery may help, Brompton Cemetery is a royal park and is run by the Royal Parks commission. Deputy Regina Doherty asked why we are in the business and I want to join it with a comment Deputy Catherine Murphy made about the enlightened attitude of Daniel O'Connell. Daniel O'Connell's view was the same as that of all the cemetery people at the time. In London, the magnificent seven Victorian cemeteries were opened, and all have failed as joint stock companies. We decided to be a charity at that time, but we did not take a very prudent decision. Cemeteries sell graves, and when they run out of space, the shareholders disappear. Glasnevin Trust, under the Dublin Cemeteries Committee, has been in existence for 180 years, and we intend for it to exist for the next 180 years. We went into the ancillary business.

The 1970 Act was to ensure the sustainability of Dublin cemeteries. Since the Act, Shanganagh is the only public authority cemetery to be opened in Dublin. We went into the business unashamed. Selling graves is a commercial business. Many of the thousands of charities listed on the Revenue Commissioners' website are limited companies and hundreds of them are involved in commercial activities. There is no secrecy about the members of Glasnevin Trust; they are on our website. If Deputy Maloney wants to engage with us, as Deputy Dowds has done, we can provide all the names and addresses. I could give them now, although I do not think we have time.

We publish our accounts annually in a format prescribed by the Act and the Charities Regulatory Authority comes in. After our AGM in 2016, we will publish our accounts in the appropriate form and furnish them to the committee with the 2014 comparators.

Mr. George McCullough

We had very good reasons for introducing regulations on monumental sculptors in 2006. We had become aware of all sorts of nefarious practices in the monumental sculpturing business, mostly due to health and safety issues. In one case, an individual came in with a flat-bed truck and a JCB actor as a crane, which was tipping over as it was lifting stones. We had to examine what we were doing. We have a code of practice and monumental by-laws. Every cemetery has a set of monumental by-laws which dictate who can erect a monument, on which grave it can be erected and what can be said in the inscription, for the orderly management of the cemetery.

In other words, is one entitled to put a headstone up on a grave? That has to be checked. It has to go through the records and all the systems of control, such as safety statements, vehicle registration, Safe Pass, health and safety, and, most importantly, insurance to us and to members of the public. We introduced a registration process in which any monumental sculptor could register with us under health and safety and a code of practice to abide by our by-laws and insurance. We introduced that on 13 June 2006. There were 16 sculptors registered, including Glasnevin Cemetery monument works. We now have 22 or 23 sculptors registered. They are registered sculptors that are on our books at Glasnevin, Palmerstown, Newlands Cross and Dardistown. There are another 30 ad hoc sculptors - not only monumental sculptors but sculptors who carry out work occasionally in our cemeteries, which is usually of a very high quality - who comply with the exact same conditions. To say that Glasnevin Trust, Glasnevin Cemetery or Dublin Cemeteries Committee have put monumental sculptors out of business is not correct. Added to that, many of the funeral directors who operate in Dublin city now sell monuments. Fanagan's, Kirwan's, Nichol's and all of the funeral directors in the greater Dublin area sell monuments, generally for members of the monumental stonemasons' alliance. Added to that, cremation has increased by 50% so up to 50% fewer people are buying monuments. The monument business is contracting.

Mr. Pierce alluded to the by-laws of Dardistown Cemetery in his statement. When we opened Dardistown Cemetery in 1990 we introduced a by-law that only indigenous stone could be used. Mr. Pierce and his colleagues rigorously objected to that. We had no axe to grind and had nothing to make on it. We do not run quarries or supply stone to the stone industry. Its purpose was to encourage more art and more use of indigenous stone because we foresaw that Indian and Chinese mass-produced stone, which some people would call blood stone or slavery stone, would come into this country and replace the native stone from Kerry, Cork, Galway, Limerick, or Donegal, and all the small, usually farmer-run quarries around the country. We were quite right. It has disappeared. We stepped back from that by-law because of the furore that resulted from sectoral interests in the stone business. That resulted in Mr. Pierce taking direct action against the Dublin Cemeteries Committee through the Competition Authority in 1991, through the European competition authority in 1991 and 1992, more recently through the Competition Authority in 2011 and 2013, and through the High Court and the Supreme Court, all of which found in favour of Glasnevin Trust. This Bill is pointed directly at Glasnevin Trust and at no one else, apart from a few of the others from other cemeteries around the country. Mr. Pierce took an action against Dublin Cemeteries Committee in the Supreme Court, which ruled in our favour. This Bill is designed to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court. It is as simple as that.

I thank Mr. McCullough. Will Ms Goggin reply on one of those points and then perhaps Ms Hurley will say something?

Ms Isolde Goggin

On the State aid issue, what my colleague Dr. Wang said is the fact - we do not investigate State aid issues. I am talking about the dual funding issue when a body has some funding from commercial activities and some from the State or from another area. It is outside our remit. We investigate its behaviour on the market and whether it has the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition. On the point about the brochures, the agreements that we reached were aimed at levelling the playing field. We were not trying to set the price for advertising, because that would not be our remit, but to level the playing field between that company and others.

The Chairman mentioned issues around transparency and paying the foundation fee upfront.

I may not have understood the Chairman correctly but I do not think we would have the power to instruct that a certain fee be paid up front. In any case, I am not sure it would be to the benefit of consumers because it might bring forward the fees they have to pay.

I wish to make a couple of comments in respect of the last exchange. We do not act on behalf of somebody; we implement the law. We are an independent agency to protect consumers and promote competition. If somebody comes to us with an allegation it has to be substantiated or we will not take any further action. We do not just take sides. I would not like to give the impression that we are acting on behalf of somebody or against somebody or whatever. There was a comment to the effect that we had acted on behalf of somebody. That is not what we do. We investigate the evidence and where we believe there is a case to be taken, we take action either through the courts or by engaging directly with the parties.

Ms Mary Hurley

There appear to be two issues here: the technical regulation of cemeteries and the market regulation of cemeteries. As I pointed out earlier, with regard to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and local authorities, the responsibility is for the technical regulation of burial grounds. In respect of competition matters, that is not a matter for the Department. In response to the question from Deputy Dowds about whether something should be done, I think there is further work to be done on this Bill. There are a wide range of issues that come under the remit of various Departments, from funeral costs to property rights to national monuments and headstone sales. It is impossible at this stage to say whether something should be done. There are a breadth of issues from the Department's perspective. Our focus is around the management and operation of local authority burial grounds and that is where our responsibility sits.

Mr. John Green

Glasnevin Cemetery Monument Works is a limited company that is subject to the corporation tax laws of this country. In reply to Deputy Dowds and Ms Goggin, we did offer advertising but we have listed every single monumental sculptor who is registered, giving their names, addresses and telephone numbers on our brochure. That is free, gratis and for nothing. I could answer many other questions but I know there is not enough time.

We are up against time here. There are two other members who wish to speak and they will have a minute each. There is no time for an exchange at this stage.

I apologise for being late; I was at another meeting. The Bill conflates many different issues. The regulator of cemeteries should be the local authority and the licensing body in the area. It is a statutory body and probably the most important tier of government, or should be the most important tier of government, as in most other countries. The Bill provides for the establishment of boards of not more than ten members. That is not practical given that cemeteries are provided by a range of bodies. While the Bill appears to deal largely with the situation in Glasnevin, we have to deal with all the other cemeteries around the country. If implemented, there would be huge implications for Church bodies, local authorities and joint burial boards throughout the State. I can foresee many problems with it. In regard to head 2(3)(e), which deals specifically with the issue of competition, there may be some merit in trying to separate the role of cemetery provider from the commercial activities that take place in cemeteries. There should not be monopolies in this area. I have heard the debate as to whether monopolies are operating in the case of Glasnevin Cemetery. The solution is for the local authority to be the regulator and, in many cases, the provider, which is the practice in most counties throughout the State. I have been a member of joint burial boards. That system seems to work reasonably well, though there is room for improvement. There are Church bodies and other bodies that own cemeteries, and commercial interests are also buying and operating cemeteries.

They could be licensed by local authorities.

The work of sculptors, monumental firms, etc., must be opened up to the same laws on commercial activity as everything else and it must be handled very carefully, given the situations that have arisen in different parts of the country. To some extent, that is a separate issue. However, it is the responsibility of the local authority, as regulator, to ensure that everything operates in a fair, proper and professional manner. The Government is supposed to be getting rid of quangos. Establishing another office or quango to manage this would be ludicrous. The local authorities are already in existence and their members are elected by the communities and families that use the services. Responsibility in this regard needs to be vested in the local authorities.

In the context of the goodwill relating to the agreement the CCPC reached with Glasnevin Trust, will Ms Goggin report back to the committee on the advertising prices of a comparable publication, including the distribution and readership, vis-à-vis the pamphlet's price of €6,000 for a page of advertising? Would she investigate whether it is an abuse of dominance?

The Bill excluded ecclesiastical and local authority cemeteries. I have never seen my parish priest or local authority workers cut stone. That is why they are excluded. I am more convinced now of the damage the 1970 private Act did and of the need to repeal it so the problem outlined today will not continue to obtain. I will communicate further with the Minister on this matter.

On a point of order, Deputy Maloney has taken what I said up wrong. The two issues are being conflated.

That is not a point of order.

I am saying local authorities and church bodies do not provide such services, nor should they. It is a commercial activity.

That is not a point of order.

The point I am making is that the licensing of cemeteries should be done by local authorities.

That is fair enough but it is not a point of order. This concludes our discussion on the topic. I ask the members to kindly agree to postpone the private meeting until next week. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank the witnesses for their co-operation.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.40 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 November 2015.
Top
Share