Note in May 2007 the newly formed Department of Justice took over Coroners and Burial Law reform from DCA and any reference to the DCA in the following reports will now infer the DOJ.
BURIAL LAW REFORM; RESPONSE REPORT NOW OUT
NEWSLETTER No 17 April 2006
CEMETERY FRIENDS who contributed opinions to the Government consultation paper on burial law reform will be pleased to learn that a report on the responses has now been published.
Nearly 400 responses were received and the overall assessment is that they showed support for the re-use of old graves, although with mixed reaction from cemetery practitioners and the public.
Announcing this on 7th April, Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman said "I will consider the case for enabling the re-use of old burial grounds seeking a balance between the interests of relatives and descendants and the wider needs of the local community.'
Other responses showed a majority favoured consistent law relating to burial practice and procedures to ensure that there was better understanding of the requirements and improved compliance with the regulations. That local authorities would be keeping local needs under consideration and ensuring afdequate and diverse facilities are available wherever possible. That an independent burial inspectorate be set up to undertake limited and specific inspections.
Also published is the Guide for Burial Ground Managers which will not replace existing sector guidance but will help to draw attention to sources of further information and training opportunities.
In the section on Cultural, Environmental and Historic Heritage, the Friends' groups are said to ' have much to offer burial ground managers by providing services which help maintain the site, whether or not it continues to be used as a burial ground.' The NFCF is named as providing information on volunteers.
Both reports are on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website
Guide for Burial Ground Managers
Burial law and policy:next steps
1 RE-USE OF BURIAL GROUNDS
[DON BIANCO, FRIENDS OF WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY]
The isuses for discussion included:
* By what statutory authority should the re-use of graves or burial grounds be permitted?
* What are the criteria to be taken into account when deciding whether or not re-use is to be permitted?
* What should be the practice where re-use of burial grounds is adopted, and should practice be regulated or by informed guidance?
*What graves or burial grounds should be exempt from re-use?
* What consideration should be given to the cost effectiveness of re-use and is cost effectiveness be a proper criterion for opting to practice re-use?
* How should the deceased be memoralised in re-used graves, what memorialisation should be retained?
There were many disparate and particular opinions expressed with some surprising aspects and pieces of information arising in the plenary session. I considered it most appropriate to focus the view of Cemetery Friends groups around the impact on archaelogical implications though disturbance of remains and other factors, for monuments and memorials [the historic setting and asset] and for landscape aspects.
2 PROVISION OF BURIAL GROUNDS
[PAM GRAY, FRIENDS OF WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY]
Delegates were invited to consider and discuss various issues including:
* Power or duty to provide? Currently no duty so in what way does the market not meet public requirements? What obstacles are there and can duty to provide be linked with demand? Is that duty compatiable with private provision? How can further demand be assessed?
* Additional powers might be needed by those with a duty to provide burial space. What might be the nature of those powers?
*Planning law or guidance? - what changes might be needed here? Does the law need strengthening or can guidance alone provide adequate facilities? Are there conflicts of interests for planning authorities?
* Consultation needed at local planning level? How? With Whom? How frequently?
*Finance - should the financing of the burial grounds be changed? Does their re-use alter the financial implications of land acquisition?
* Notification - what information needs to be regularly updated re new and existing burial grounds? Any exclusions or inclusions? Data at a local or national level? Representatives from a local authority and a private provider both veered toward private provision but would the 'consumer' have more choice? Burial provision will never be a simple equation - the workshop discussions confirmed that; while encouraging a valuable wider consideration of some of the issues involved.
3 MAINTENANCE OF BURIAL GROUNDS
[ROBERT STEPHENSON FRIENDS OF KENSAL GREEN AND FRIENDS OF BROMPTON]
The day included a short presentation about the Charter for the Bereaved as designed by the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management. This was a useful presentation about a self-assessment procedure that cemetery managers could voluntarily take part in. It gave some benchmarks by which organisations could compare their performance against others working in the same field. A good point was that it spurred competition to improve as there were annual league tables issued on a whole range of aspects relating to burial ground practices and maintenance.
* Standards There was little support for imposing a statutory maintenance scheme for all burial grounds alike. It was obvious that there was a wide range of situations that had to be treated differently such as public and private sectors, types of burial ground, size, location, age, geology, burial frequency anf funding.
*Enforcement There was little enthusiasm for regular inspections. and cost -effectiveness and worth were questioned. Nevertheless, delegates thought that there was considerable scope for encouraging good standards using peer review, benchmarking, regular audits and recognition schemes. The ICCM scheme attracted much interest. This is available on the web.
* Funding Most delegates agreed that burial fees were currently unrealistic, especially if they were supposed to provide long-term maintenance. Informing the public on this matter was thought to be crucial. The encouragement of Friends groups was thought to be most worthwhile on many levels, such as looking after the place, encouraging good behaviour, improving standards and whistle blowing if need be in a bad situation.
4 REGULATION OF BURIAL GROUNDS
[DR HENRY WILL, FORD PARK CEMETERY TRUST]
It is impossible to summarise such a discursive discussion, especially when carried out in two parallel workshops of which one is privy only to one.
The issues were discussed under the following headings: regulation of burial grounds and creatoria; complaints and dispute resolution; inspection and self regulation; licensing of burial grounds; and burial and memorial rights.
5 UNIFORMITY OF LEGISTLATION
[JOHN AVERY FRIENDS OF SOUTHAMPTON OLD CEMETERY]
This was discussed under the headings: options; inconsistencies and anomalies; scope of any new legistlation; and priorities. A single comprehensive burial act might be preferable but ambitious. Other possible options included a regulatory reform order or incremental inclusion in other relevant primary legistlation.
I was able to raise concerns about a release from civil liability of grave restoration if the owner was untraceable [John Avery's letter has been sent to all NFCF members]. Another point raised was that the 'no burials here we are full up' councils will inevitably increase in numbers, causing their residents to pay three or four times the going rate, compared to residents in neighbouring boroughs; there might be a case that councils who are saving by not having new space to provide the facilities of burials should subsidise families who have to use adjoining borough cemeteries at increased cost. Alternatively the 'no burial' boroughs could contribute to the upkeep of those boroughs providing burial grounds.
