HL Deb 30 October 1995 vol 566 cc1310-21

5.24 p.m.

Lord Young of Dartington rose to move To resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1982), and to replace them with regulations which do not provide for the privatisation of municipal crematoria.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order in question is contained in the regulations which were laid before Parliament on 2nd August of this year during the holiday period. Those regulations offered an inducement to local authorities to sell their crematoria into private ownership.

This is the first occasion where there has been a public debate on what I consider to be an important matter of public concern. In opening the debate, perhaps I may say that a measure of support has been given to the position that I take by the Consumers' Association, the National Consumer Council, the Society for Independent Funeral Directors and the National Funeral College, of which I was the founder chairman. They have all issued press releases or have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Why does this issue matter? In order to answer that question, I have to go a little into the history of the industry. In this context, it can appropriately be called that, especially during the past year. The most radical reorganisation of the funeral industry has already taken place and, unless a stop is put to that process, it looks as though it will gather pace in the years to come.

What used to be (apart from the Co-op) a series of local funeral businesses, has been invaded by big business and big money. Since August 1994 a large American company called Service Corporation International has suddenly burst on the British scene. It is big business as is shown by the fact (if one needed more evidence) that the banker for the SCI is J. P. Morgan, the legendary Wall Street banking giant. The kind of money involved was demonstrated recently when the same company, which is large in Australia, too, bought up the largest funeral undertaking in France for a reputed 422 million dollars. In Britain, amalgamations were proceeding apace before SCI arrived. The Great Southern Group and Plantsbrook were themselves two amalgamations which covered a large number of local funeral directors. The listing of local funeral directors owned already by SCI, but all keeping their own family name, fills 14 pages of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report published a few months ago on the mergers of Plantsbrook and SCI. The listing covered about 700 outlets of a large number of funeral directors, mainly in London and southern England, but represented also in other parts of the country. Altogether, the funeral directors which are owned by the SCI company already control some 15 per cent. of the funeral market in the country. SCI, in addition to that, already owns 15 crematoria in the country.

The danger, as I see it, is that SCI will take advantage of the new government regulations—about which I shall say more in a moment—in order to create a further series of local monopolies and raise prices against consumers. The poorest consumers are the ones who will suffer the most if that happens. They are the ones who find the burden of the expenditure on funerals hardest to bear at the moment. It all matters a great deal because bereaved people at the time of the death are peculiarly vulnerable to exploitation and to being guided by funeral directors and others to a course of action which may well not be in their best interest.

I can say that, fortunately, the danger was recognised by the Government in the shape of the Department of Trade and Industry, when it asked the Monopolies Commission to report on the local monopolies in the hands of SCI. The report was published in May this year. The Monopolies Commission amply confirmed the Government's view that there is a very present danger in localities where SCI's share of the market ranges from 29 per cent., as it does in Eastbourne, to 51 per cent., as it does in Battersea. The Monopolies Commission stated in its summary that: SCI may be expected generally to raise prices excessively, i.e. by more than would be possible in a competitive market, in the ten localities, to the detriment of consumers in those localities … SCI's failure to disclose to consumers the ownership of its branches will add significantly to the inability of consumers in the determined area to make informed decisions … Choice of funeral director will be materially reduced in the ten localities, to the detriment of consumers in those localities".

The Monopolies Commission pointed out that, since the ownership of many funeral directors by SCI is hidden by the retention of the old family names, it can quite often be the case that people who are seeking an alternative quote for a funeral go to another firm thinking it really is a competitor, without knowing that it is in fact in the ownership of the same funeral director as they went to in the first place.

In the Monopolies Commission report particular disquiet was expressed about the power the SCI would have to take advantage of vertical monopolies—it already has in some places—and would have on a larger scale when it owns both more funeral director businesses and local crematoria and can channel very many funerals carried out by its own funeral directors to its own crematoria.

The DTI accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, and on 25th May Jonathan Evans, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the DTI, said of the acquisition by SCI of Great Southern and Plantsbrook: I accept the MMC's findings that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest in respect of the supply of both funeral directors and cremation services".

The DTI therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek undertakings from the SCI that it would reduce its market share by divesting itself of some of its funeral directors and also that it would not operate a two-tier pricing system for its crematoria which favoured its own funeral directors. SCI was asked to give those undertakings by 25th August or be forced to comply with the DTI requirements. But the SCI, far from submitting to the DTI, has brought a judicial review case against the Secretary of State and the Monopolies Commission and is seeking to be relieved of the requirements of the DTI. In this, the SCI has shown its powerful muscle and that it will not lie down quietly.

However, at the same time as the SCI is in dispute with one government department, it is being given a mighty fillip by another government department. The Department of the Environment has made this handsome offer to every local authority with crematoria. It has said that from 1st January next year until 30th June in the following year local authorities that sell their crematoria will be able to keep 90 per cent. of the proceeds instead of the usual 50 per cent., the rest going to redemption of debt. The Department of the Environment has, from one point of view, chosen a good moment because it is also requiring local authorities to update their crematoria in order to comply with new environmental standards but has not offered even a hint of financial support from itself to local authorities.

So the paradoxical situation that the Government have got themselves into is that the DoE is persuading local authorities to sell—and that means largely selling to the SCI, which is the only large bidder likely to be in the market. But the more it succeeds with the Department of the Environment behind it, the more worried the DTI, the Monopolies Commission and the Office of Fair Trading will presumably become. Surely, at least until the outcome of the judicial review is known and it is clear that the SCI is going in future to avoid creating local monopolies, the Government should get their act together and withdraw the order in so far as it affects crematoria. The Government would not then speak with two voices. I hope that the Minister will today be able to reassure us that they will not continue to do so.

I have been speaking about local monopolies as they could affect consumers, but losing the crematoria could be bad for local authorities too. Crematoria are ordinarily profitable and the proceeds from them can be used to subsidise or cover some of the costs of cemeteries which are not profitable. But, as a result, the option can be kept open for the 30 per cent. or so of people who prefer burial to cremation. Give up crematoria to the profit-making sector and more cemeteries could become wastelands instead of useful public spaces. The Department of the Environment has been very keen on preserving and creating good, useful public spaces; in some cases grants are forthcoming for the purpose. But in this case it is waging a battle against itself.

But there is a more important issue than that. The SCI is a commercial company with a vast pre-paid funeral business in the United States and Australia and a very large and growing one in the United Kingdom as well. It is a very profitable company. As it gains more control, commercialisation will extend and all the money it makes out of funeral merchandise, as the company calls it, and the add-ons of memorial books, ashes, caskets and other forms of memorialisation all over Britain will go to augment the profits of the American shareholders.

Even more important than that is that the fundamental religious significance of funerals could be further dimmed by a sickening array of money-making devices and more and more use made of chapels on funeral directors' premises in order to speed up the through-put of crematoria.

I hope, in conclusion, that the Minister will realise that what appears a simple matter is not simple at all and that he will at least give some time for further consideration and debate before the order comes into force as it affects crematoria. I beg to move.

Moved, To resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Approved Investments) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1982), and to replace them with regulations which do not provide for the privatisation of municipal crematoria.—(Lord Young of Dartington.)

5.40 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, once again, I rise to my feet in this Chamber as a total novice in a subject. I suppose that it will stop happening, but it does not seem to have stopped happening yet. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, told us, we received a large number of briefing papers, and I have been able to talk to one or two people who were very helpful. The noble Lord has done us a service in drawing this matter to our attention. In one way or another, it affects all of us.

There are three salient points to make. First, the regulations to which the noble Lord referred provided a financial incentive in the form of a set-aside holiday for the sale of various sorts of locally owned property, including crematoria. The press release issued by the Government when those orders were published made it perfectly clear that the purpose was to enable local authorities to transfer their assets in this field into the private sector. The second fact affecting local authority attitudes is the cost of bringing the conditions in crematoria up to a standard that enables them to meet new EC regulations. The anticipated cost is approximately, on average, £400,000. Thirdly, although most crematoria are currently in municipal hands there is severe reason to fear that their sale could, as the noble Lord told us, result in a most undesirable monopoly in what might be called the death business.

That monopoly would be of a peculiarly dangerous sort. It would affect not merely the ownership of crematoria but the ownership of the businesses that advise bereaved people at their most vulnerable moment regarding what sort of service they should choose, where that service can best be achieved and so on. Those of us who know anything about the American way of death know that there are reasons to fear the import of the American approach into what has been a service run purely as a service to people. It has had certain values in terms of access, reasonable prices and so on.

The only body that wrote to me expressing a view that we should not do as the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggests and reconsider the regulations was the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have a certain sympathy with the point of view expressed. The association does not wish the regulations to be revoked: understandably enough in the current financial circumstances in which the whole of local government operates, it welcomes the flexibility that the set-aside holiday gives. Obviously, the authorities also fear the need to spend £400,000 of capital per crematorium on improvement. It would be very difficult for them to manage such an expenditure during a period when not only revenue expenditure but capital expenditure is under very severe control.

However, I feel that the approach of the metropolitan authorities to this matter is not quite the best one. As I say, I understand their point of view very well given my own background, but the flexibility that they seek could be far better granted to local authorities by allowing them in general terms to spend more of their capital gains for the benefit of their local populations rather than putting it aside against, in some cases, almost an imaginary amount for debt. Therefore, although I have a certain sympathy with my fellow members of local authorities, it seems to me that public policy is another matter altogether. There are very good reasons to suppose that traditionally managed municipal crematoria may well serve bereaved people, who are very vulnerable, better than would a very competitive private sector anxious to sell them so-called add-ons in addition to the basic service.

I therefore have a number of questions for the Government. Do the Government still recognise, as they did in response to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young (I shall not repeat all the points made by the noble Lord; the House does not want to hear them twice) that there is a serious danger of a growing monopoly in the funeral business? That is not just because a large number of crematoria could be owned by single, or very few, companies, but also because those companies may—and in one case certainly will—be owners of funeral directors' companies. That question was given additional point by a fact that I did not know; namely, that the American company involved is going to judicial review in respect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decision.

If the Government feel that such a danger exists, how do they propose that it is to be avoided? Do the Government further recognise that there is a legitimate fear that vulnerable people will be over-burdened with expense for funerals? That is already a major worry for large numbers of people as their own lifetime nears its end or the lifetime of their parents comes to an end. Do the Government recognise a possible danger that people may be, as it were, bludgeoned, persuaded, into spending far more than they need do for what is already an extremely expensive event?

In the press release to which I referred, the Department of the Environment stated: Before deciding on any sale, authorities can be expected to satisfy themselves of continuing quality of service for local residents and competitive pricing. Authorities can also be expected to require that, prior to any transfer, the private owner agrees to operate within the standards set down by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities". How does the Minister anticipate that local authorities can ensure that those things happen once they have transferred their municipal crematoria to a private owner?

My last question refers again to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The noble Lord suggested not so much that the order be revoked but that the Government might be able to reconsider that part of the order that refers specifically to crematoria. Is that a feasible possibility, and would the Government be willing to do that?

5.49 p.m.

Earl Grey

My Lords, first, I must declare a financial interest. I am chairman of a crematoria company. For information, it is not SCI. I am also honorary president of the Cremation Society of Great Britain.

The views that I hold are not necessarily those of my party. In view of what I just said, it will be of no surprise to the House that I have no objections to crematoria being owned or operated either on behalf of a municipal authority or by the private sector. In fact, the first crematorium in this country was operated by a private company. Over the years, in the vast majority of cases the private sector has set a high standard which has been an example to local authorities.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the main concerns would be if there were monopoly ownership of crematoria in any given area; and—which is just as important—if the crematoria were owned by the same company that had a monopoly of funeral directors in the vicinity. It is a problem that could arise in the private sector. It has been widely reported and is of great interest to those in the industry.

The effect that SCI has had in this country is a source of great concern to all involved in the industry. It is not only of concern to local authorities. Certainly, there has been an effect on private companies throughout the country. Not only my company but the majority of private, individual companies, have been watching the progress of SCI extremely carefully and closely. I recognise the danger that freedom of choice and quality could be affected. It is a situation that must be monitored and I favour that course. I welcome the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission mentioned by the noble lord, Lord Young, and in principle I and my professional society agree with much of what he has just said.

However, it must be borne in mind that a number of local authorities welcome private companies and are quite happy for them to be involved in their activities, not only taking over and acquiring local authority crematoria but also managing them on their behalf. That could be a way forward also.

I do not agree that what is being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, is the right way to go about the problem. Surely it must be the decision of the local authorities themselves. I believe that the private and public sectors can and do work together well for the benefit of the public.

Finally, the Cremation Society of Great Britain is very sensitive to the problem and is very concerned over any likely monopoly situation. That certainly is not what members of the society want. In fact it is a situation that we strongly oppose.

5.53 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington for raising this issue. It is a problem which may seem unimportant in the general context of legislation, but it has great consequence for many people at an important part of their lives.

We have no objection to those parts of the regulations which deal with matters other than crematoria. If a local authority wishes to sell off car parks or land of which the whole, in terms of the regulation, consists of car parks and 90 per cent. of those proceeds go to the local authority, that is welcome. We have no particular objection to the idea that sales of land of any kind should be applied for local authority general purposes rather than reduction of debt. The problem arises only—this is a general problem—because the Government have been so absurd in their treatment of local authority capital expenditure and receipts that one has to resort to such rather ridiculous formulations in order to help local authorities. The correct solution would be to allow local authorities much more leniency in their financial considerations.

I can honestly agree with what my noble friend Lord Young said with regard to crematoria. There are some general principles lying behind what is happening at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will know—perhaps I may have his attention for a moment—the provision of crematoria was not sought by local authority associations. So far as I can see, it was done by the Government at a rather late stage. According to my information, in the United Kingdom as a whole there are 229 crematoria run by local authorities and 36 which are privately owned. As my noble friend in another forum has pointed out, there is no effective regulation of the service. The service has a self-regulatory code— we all know what self-regulatory codes mean—run by the Federation of British Cremation Authorities. The United States firm which my noble friend and other noble Lords mentioned is a member of that federation. In the event of the failure of self-regulation, the only recourse is for the Government to appoint inspectors to see what has happened. There is no authority for the Government to step in and say, "We will run this particular crematorium, because things have not happened in the way in which the code would have authorised."

The questions that arise have been put very succinctly and indeed eloquently by my noble friend Lord Young. Will there be a monopoly? Will there be a derogation from the general principle that there should not be monopolies in public or private services? What is the protection? If there is to be a monopoly, will there be some form of government regulation—not a self-regulatory code but some form of government regulation—to ensure that the company which may enjoy that monopoly observes proper principles? I ask that question not only because of the argument that has been advanced so far by noble Lords about the DTI, the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the judicial review and so on, but because the company in question, as I understand it, wishes to use the crematoria that they wish to buy—some have already been bought—as a sales point for what are called add-on services.

Perhaps I may quote what is reported in the Funeral Service Journal as coming from one of the gentlemen who heads the UK operations of SCI: We will be promoting 'add-ons' and 'service plus' features and offering a wider choice, particularly of memorial books, cards and other forms of memorialisation. Ashes caskets is one item we feel are not as well promoted as they could be". If that is the motivation of the company which is trying to take over a number of crematoria, and possibly all the crematoria in the light of what the government regulations put forward, I believe it to be fundamentally undesirable.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, people in such a situation are at their most vulnerable. They have lost someone whom they have loved. Perhaps I may speak for the Christian point of view for a moment, since I am a practising Christian. I believe that it is a moment when people should be allowed to rest comfortable in their grief and not be pursued by people who want to sell them all kinds of cards, ashes caskets, and so on. I am sad in a way that none of the right reverend Prelates has come forward to support my noble friend Lord Young's Motion. It is important for those of us who profess a belief in Christianity.

In summary, I believe that my noble friend Lord Young has made a very forceful point. Special regulations must be necessary if there is to be any kind of monopoly on this business. If we are to preserve a civilised society, the regulations must prohibit the types of add-ons that my quotation indicated. I believe profoundly that these services should be publicly owned; that they should be part of the Christian burial service; that they should be part of the bereavement process through which families go. I do not see how that is met by what is proposed by the Government this evening.

6 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, we share most of the anxieties expressed by noble Lords this evening, particularly those in relation to the cost of dying. The noble Lord, Lord Young, will remember that the municipal crematoria came into existence because private graveyards were charging so much and the poor wanted somewhere they could be buried with dignity. Nonetheless, your Lordships will not be surprised that we oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Young. Despite his moving speech, I am surprised that he too is not opposed to it.

The private sector has an excellent and longstanding record in the funeral business. Undertakers, florists, coffin makers and car hire organisations are all private and all, in my experience, provide a sensitive and efficient service. The Churches also do an excellent job. In relation to local authorities, I really appreciated the last two cremations I attended. They seemed to be much more responsive to the needs of the bereaved than was the case 20 years ago.

These days both public and private sectors, generally speaking, do a good job. I include in that comment the 27 crematoria that, so far as I am informed, are privately run. Modern local authorities are not obsessed by who owns the crematorium; they are interested in the service that it provides and in how well it meets the local needs and circumstances. The watchword these days is "partnership"; that is, partnership between local authorities and private enterprise to provide efficiently and inventively what local people want and need. That was very much what the noble Earl, Lord Grey, suggested may lie ahead of us.

The regulations opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, involve the enabling of partnership. They give the local authority, as the current owner of the crematorium, much more room for manoeuvre. Each local authority may choose its partner or choose none. The local authority sets the terms of the deal; it weighs the financial consequences and the consequences for its electors. Whether to spend on updating the crematorium or on something else is a matter for the local authority. Sale, partnership, or, as I suspect many will choose, retention is for them to decide. It is clear from what has been said that both parties opposite would give local authorities that same freedom.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned SCI. He said that the only people actively interested in purchasing crematoria are SCI. I can give him some comfort that there are other people out there who have approached us on the subject. He said various other things too about SCI. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigated SCI and published a report in May this year. We supported that report and published our proposals to take action on it. However, we have been stayed by a legal challenge from SCI.

We understand that the current position is that SCI has agreed in principle to sign an interim undertaking pending the outcome of judicial review. Any further acquisitions of crematoria or funeral directors by SCI will be subject to review by the Office of Fair Trading and referred to the MMC where necessary. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, to alert them to any cases which cause him anxiety in the future.

I cannot say much more on the subject of SCI, given the pending proceedings, except that it is clear that we take our role of safeguarding the public interest seriously and responsibly. Perhaps I can give some further comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as to the circumstances in which crematoria and their customers find themselves.

On average, cremation accounts for around 15 per cent. of the cost of a funeral and it appears that on average private crematoria charge around 16 per cent. more than municipal ones. That is in part explained by higher levels of investment in the private crematoria. We are concerned that local monopolies should not emerge and will support the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in that endeavour. The regulators are fully alert to the potential dangers of vertical ownership links between funeral directors and crematoria and that is one of the principal reasons for the investigation of SCI.

Before transferring any crematorium to the private sector, we hope that a local authority will satisfy itself of the continuing quality of the service and value for money. In particular, we expect them to satisfy themselves that there is sufficient competition from other crematoria and burial grounds nearby. In England 25 per cent. of crematoria have an alternative within five miles and 75 per cent. have an alternative within 15 miles. It is understood that the last transfer by a council to the private sector, in 1993, included safeguards including a bar on discriminatory charging in favour of specific funeral directors. Local authorities should exercise their judgment carefully and not sell when in doubt.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report brings me, in a roundabout way, back to where I started; back to my surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Young, should wish to pursue his Motion. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report goes into great detail about the market, or lack of it, in funeral services. It explains that the main defect is not a lack of choice, which is considerable, but a lack of information to enable customers to choose; a lack of advice available to customers at a time when few people feel like shopping around. That surely is a case for the Consumers Association, and when I think of the Consumers Association, I think of the noble Lord, Lord Young.

I am surprised that someone so intimately associated with such a great movement for individual empowerment and choice, should wish to restrict choice in a way in which the Motion seeks to do. I am even more surprised when I think of the noble Lord's advocacy of the Natural Death Centre and of his championship of "choice to the last". I hope that he will not surprise me again by pressing the Motion to a vote.

6.8 p.m.

Lord Young of Dartington

My Lords, I apologise for my voice, which is threatening to give out. That may not be due so much to the cold, as to the distress caused by the subject we are discussing and possibly the further distress caused by the Minister's reply to this debate.

Before I strain my voice further on that last count, I thank all those who have taken part in the discussion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, because she reminded us that we are faced with something that the Minister did not face up to; that is, what has become known as the, "American way of death". If in 10 or 15 years' time the American way of death has taken a hold in this country, as I fear it will from the way things are going, then those who go into the detail of the history of what is happening in this area may well be as distressed as I am by the Minister's speech.

Because the Department of the Environment is behaving in this way and is offering a bribe to local authorities to transfer their crematoria to private ownership, the SCI, as shown by its various newsletters and by the pronouncements from its directors, is cockahoop. It means to take full advantage of the window of opportunity that the Government have provided between next January and the time 18 months after that when the concession they have offered will be withdrawn. We hope that other things will also have happened, at least towards the end of that 18 month period, which might lead to a change of direction on the part of government policy.

I was not quite sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Grey, whose intervention I welcomed, was for what I was saying or against it. It seemed that he was both. I am happy that he should be prepared, at least in part, to support what I was saying and support the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Earl Grey

My Lords, I said that I agreed with many of the noble Lord's points but that I would not support him if he went through the Division Lobby. I think that what he has suggested is not the correct way of tackling this problem.

Lord Young of Dartington

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I shall certainly be very sorry if the noble Earl is not able, after I have spoken, to follow me into the Division Lobby.

I particularly welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Many of the points he made struck me most favourably; above all, what he said about the bereaved and how they are in a state and should not be pestered by salesmen of the kind SCI employs, and has employed, to such good effect in this country and in the United States, Australia and France.

I turn to the Minister's speech. I could not follow the connection between his opening remarks, which gave me some cause for rejoicing, and what he said after that. He pointed out that the municipal crematoria came into existence partly because poor people and others were being so done down by private industry, but he did not seem to complete the circle and accept that if the changes the Department of the Environment is promoting take effect on a large scale poor people and others could again be subject to the mercies of private enterprise and without any control being attached to what it does. The Minister said that the SCI has given interim undertakings before the outcome of the judicial review is known. I understand that the interim undertakings are only to assure the Government and perhaps the court that there will be no change in ownership of the funeral directors that have been listed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the period before the outcome of the judicial review is known. If those are all the undertakings that have been given, then those are slight things indeed. We shall have to await the outcome of the judicial review.

The Minister said that he hoped that local authorities would satisfy themselves that they were doing right when they sold their crematoria to private companies—the SCI or perhaps others. We all hope that. Fortunately, there is more to it than that. It was not quite stated by the Minister, as it might have been, that the Office of Fair Trading is under a duty to keep a very close eye on the sales of crematoria by local authorities. If it feels that a monopoly situation is being created, it has the good cause and even a duty to intervene. That means that the Office of Fair Trading should look at every acquisition of a local authority crematorium that occurs, if only it can get good information in advance about it. This means that any local authority that goes so far as to consider selling to SCI will know that its decision may be called into question by the Office of Fair Trading and that it may have to retreat. The more that is known by local authorities, perhaps the fewer of them will be prepared to sell. Therefore, we do have some protection in the Office of Fair Trading and the powers that have been given to it.

In conclusion, we are at a very important point in the history of cremation and burial and, wider than that, in the way in which we treat the dead. If the message does not go directly out of this House to local authorities to be very wary and cautious about selling an important public asset to a private business, I only hope that that will happen in other ways and that perhaps one day the Minister might join those who I think have a better sense of what is at stake here and be prepared also to warn local authorities of the dire step they may be taking. They should not sell out, under the influence of a bribe from the Government, on an important public asset which touches people at the most difficult time of their lives. This subject should be treated with the greatest respect and dignity.

Unfortunately, I do not think that there is a case, despite the possibility that I may have persuaded the noble Earl, Lord Grey, to follow me, for pressing this Motion to a vote. I am only glad that there has been such support for the Motion. I shall certainly not cease my labours to see right done, as I think it should be. I hope that there will be others here who might join me, if not in this House then outside it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.