HC Deb 26 February 2001 vol 363 cc685-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

10.8 pm

Mr. David Amess (Southend, est)

We politicians might think that we are immortal, but we are certainly not. In my time as a serving Member of the House, a number of colleagues have died. It was an extraordinary experience to serve on a Committee considering rate-capping legislation whose passage took an extremely long time, as two hon. Members died during our proceedings. Before I became a Member of Parliament, a Minister died at the Dispatch Box. Last year, an hon. Member was killed in a fire. Hon. Members have committed suicide and an hon. Member was assassinated. We are not immortal. Hon. Members, like everyone else, can be certain only of the fact that they will die.

Members of Parliament attend the funerals of friends and relatives all the time. A constituent recently observed that I had become a professional mourner. Perhaps that is because many senior citizens live in the area that I represent, and they are prone to die, especially in winter. For many years, I was an altar server and I have therefore attended numerous funerals.

Some people can be hard about such matters. Their view is: we die and that is the end it; what awaits us is a bit scary, but does what happens to the body really matter? I believe that it does. Some people make their own funeral arrangements, but the majority do not. Those who are left behind to dispose of the bodies of their loved ones may suffer trauma and depend on others for good, fair and reasonable advice. Not everyone has relatives, and it is left to the state or the hospital in which they died to make the arrangements.

There is increasing pressure for cremation. We could argue the merits of cremation against those of burial, but an impression is given that there is a shortage of space and that we should consider cremation because we cannot all be buried. I do not want to exaggerate it, but there is a tendency to recommend cremation I am worried about that. I hope that the people who prevent options to those who are grieving do so fairly.

I obtained a fascinating document called "Good Funerals", a background paper that was prepared on behalf of the ecumenical Churches group on funeral services at cemeteries and crematoriums. It covers good practice. I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond to all my points, but I should be delighted if he could deal with some, and perhaps write to me. What is the Government"s position on the conduct of cremations? I do not want to name crematoriums, but in some, the process is a little hard-hearted. No sooner has one funeral party arrived than the next group of mourners is waiting to come in. The process appears to be conducted in conveyor-belt fashion. Someone presses the button, the organ plays—when there is no organist, a tape of music can be played—a hymn may be sung, the vicar will do his best to say something and suddenly one is outside looking at the flowers and that is the end.

Perhaps many people want that sort of funeral, but I am not convinced. People may be satisfied with it at the time because no one wants to go to funerals. I attended a friend"s funeral, which appeared in the news. He was a teacher who, sadly, committed suicide. That funeral was traumatic for the huge number of mourners from Lewisham and Newham. Mourning is tough, but funerals should be conducted with the greatest possible dignity. That is why I am worried about the industrial side of the process.

What are the Government"s views on the financial support that can be provided? The Government whom I supported introduced grants for such events; we could argue about whether they covered the costs. What is the Government"s view on those who have no one to dispose of their body? How does the state deal with their wishes, especially if they are cremated? What happens to their ashes?

The Oddfellows survey of funeral costs in Britain tells us that last year, the average burial cost £2,040 and the average cremation cost £1,250. In the past two years, the cost of burials has gone up by 25 per cent. and the cost of cremations by 12 per cent. That is a lot of money. I know that it has to come from somewhere, and I wonder whether the Government have any views on that matter.

On the disposal of ashes, a person will often come to an arrangement with a cemetery to have ashes interred and to have a rose that they will pay to have maintained for 10 years. Then that person dies, and there is no one to carry on the payments. What happens to those ashes? Are they dug up? Are they used for a further garden? Do the Government have a view on how such circumstances should be dealt with?

Some hon. Members may smile, but when I prepare to meet my maker, I wish to be buried. Possibly the only thing for which I shall be remembered will be my smiling face in 1992—that may have been a horror for some people but for one or two it will perhaps have been my only contribution to national life. I think my Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 and my Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 are also worthy of note. It is my own individual choice to be buried, as it is the individual choice of many other people, who have firm views on how a burial should be conducted and, in particular, how a grave should be adorned with a monument. The Minister has been a Member of Parliament as long as I have, and we have all had letters from constituents about the rules and regulations about the size of monuments, the wording on tombstones and whether one can have kerbs. There is also a debate as to how the regulations apply in a churchyard or local authority graveyard. If one is very upset, those are difficult issues with which to deal.

I am delighted that the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs is undertaking to produce a report on the state of our cemeteries. One of my colleagues said to me recently that they had inadvertently visited my father"s grave in West Ham cemetery, and that it was in good order. I certainly pay tribute to the way in which that cemetery is kept. However, I wonder whether the Government intend to give further guidance on the rules and regulations on how people can mark the loss of their loved ones.

In my family, we have had a long argument about kerbstones. In a particular part of the cemetery, there is a plan to remove the kerbstones because it is hoped that the whole area will eventually be grassed over. That is crazy, because it is a very old part of the cemetery and there are some very large monuments either side of the area. How on earth is someone going to be able to clip the grass when it eventually grows? I take the view that if people are keeping a grave well, there should be some flexibility in these matters.

In the years that I have spent in the House, I have received a number of complaints from constituents. I am not knocking London Members or London boroughs, but those boroughs tend to have the biggest cemeteries and constituents have turned up in a London cemetery to find that the grave that they wished to visit has disappeared. We can all think of incidents over the years of cemeteries having been sold or not having been properly maintained, and I regret all that. What is the Government"s view on that issue?

In a recent case in my constituency, a widow wanted her late husband to be buried in the military part of a cemetery. That was fine—they believed in burials—but she herself could not have been buried there, although she could have been cremated and had her ashes interred in the grave. She did not want that, so her husband was not buried in the military area. That seems crazy.

A constituent recently wrote to me about my local council"s charge of £126 for permission to erect a headstone. I understand that other Essex authorities charge between £35 and £65. My constituent said that the authority only charges £95 for permission to erect a garage, and that two site visits are included in that fee. With the ever-increasing cost of a basic funeral, why is VAT on gravestones not zero-rated? I know that funds are limited, and that the situation has always been the same, but might the Government consider that? How much VAT revenue do they receive from that source?

People have asked me whether we might consider the Italian practice of interment in walls. I do not know whether that is a possibility.

Last year, I attended my first green funeral. One of our parish councillors died, and when I heard that she was to be buried in a cardboard box, I thought that it could not be true, but when a large gathering turned up at the funeral, we found that it was indeed so. The funeral was conducted with great dignity. The body was interred and will eventually form part of a woodland, which is something that some people like.

It is most unfortunate that, in my area, there is a rubbish tip right beside the very old Jewish cemetery. That is horrendous planning. One would have thought that someone, somewhere, would have said that that was not a good idea—but there we are, these things happen.

Recently, someone from Devon who does family research wrote to praise my local cemetery in Sutton road. He said how very helpful all the staff and local authority officers were and how they had welcomed him with a smile as he looked up the details of the people whom he was trying to trace.

Since this debate was announced, many people have contacted me about the lack of space and increasing land values. The Treasury is to publish the second consultative document on the security of pre-plan payments. The National Association of Funeral Directors is very interested in that. The funeral directors have pointed out a ramification of the working time directive about which I had no idea: burials may have to be early in the day to escape greater charges, especially between October and March.

There is disquiet among stonemasons about local authorities selling stones directly. One can see their point.

There are apparently European Union laws trying to ban the burial of embalmed bodies in green sites. The EU directive on embalming chemicals apparently means that since last May there has been a need to register, which costs between £20,000 and £40,000. I am advised that a monopoly could result, as many small companies cannot afford that. The Government rightly say that mercury emissions must be reduced, but the embalmers association tells me—I cannot believe it—that that might lead to mercury dental fillings being removed before cremation. New cremation equipment is more expensive. Difficulties will arise with regard to listed buildings with cremation equipment—about 50 per cent. of these listed buildings have cremation equipment.

I have been told by embalmers and staff at cemeteries and crematoriums that they would welcome more consultation by the Government prior to the issue of guidance notes and ensuing legislation. However, I am sure that the Government do their best to involve people, and there are always two sides to a story.

We all want to give our loved ones a good send-off, and everyone has a different idea of what that is. I am a Catholic; one is brought into the church the night before the funeral and then it is a straightforward matter. I understand that sometimes the liaison between the local vicars and funeral directors is not great, with vicars being told that they have only 20 minutes in which to carry out the service in crematoriums and are allowed only one or two hymns.

On the basis that we will all die and that there will, we hope, be someone to mourn us, I hope that the Government will do all they can to underpin what is already being done to support those who are left behind to mourn the passing of their loved ones.

10.26 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)

The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has raised an important issue tonight. It is coming to the fore increasingly, as a result of a number of matters, some of which the hon. Gentleman addressed in the course of his interesting speech. The debate is particularly timely in the light of the decision of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs to carry out its own investigation. The amount of interest that the topic has generated, in terms of the correspondence described by the hon. Gentleman, is an indication of how important it is for the House and the Government to deal with it.

Government responsibility for cemeteries and crematoriums in England is shared. The Home Office is responsible for burial and cremation law, including the disturbance of buried human remains, while the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility for most burial and cremation authorities, because most of them are also local authorities. Policy on land use, regeneration and environmental protection—issues which are relevant to how we plan and use cemeteries and crematoriums—is also within the Department"s portfolio. It is a shared responsibility, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I take very seriously. Indeed, we recently gave joint evidence to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.

The Home Office has long been responsible for cremation law and for the law on the exhumation or removal of human remains. Since 1995, we have also assumed responsibility for remaining burial legislation. This is an unwieldy, arcane and out-of-date body of law that is ripe for reform. That is why I particularly welcome this debate and the public discussion that is taking place on these issues.

Burial and cremation facilities are provided not by central Government but by local organisations in response to local demand. There are no special dispensations for cemeteries or crematoriums, and new facilities are subject to planning and other relevant law in the usual way, mainly to compete with other demands on land utilisation. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to some of the difficulties that arise. The market is relevant here, as is pressure on land and the utilisation of land for a variety of purposes.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman"s description of the unfortunate juxtaposition of a cemetery and a rubbish dump. It is unfortunate—local authorities and those responsible for planning need to treat these matters with sensitivity and care. In the main, that does happen.

Public policy in relation to cemeteries and crematoriums is that provision is a matter for local and commercial decisions in the light of demand. Regulation is designed primarily to uphold the public interest in the decent disposal of the dead, to ensure that proper records are kept and preserved, to avoid public nuisance and to protect buried remains from unnecessary disturbance. Municipal cemeteries are regulated to ensure uniform provision of the grant of burial rights and consistent arrangements for the maintenance of graves and memorials.

Crematoriums and cemeteries are subject to environmental protection regulations—the hon. Gentleman mentioned mercury in that regard—while crematoriums need additional regulation in order to deter any attempt to dispose permanently of evidence of crime. Undoubtedly, issues of choice and taste should be taken into account. People should have a choice and should have their tastes respected. Graves and memorials should be maintained in circumstances that uphold the dignity of the purpose for which they were designed and built.

Day-to-day management of burial grounds, which can be a cause of conflict, is very much a matter for the operator concerned, whether public or private. It is for the burial authority to determine how its grounds should be laid out, what maintenance regime to adopt and what range of services to provide. There will be differences, and some provision falls below an acceptable standard. The setting of fees, opening hours and days for burial or cremation services are also matters for local management. One cannot imagine circumstances in which such matters should be centrally controlled. What is certainly the responsibility of central Government is the creation of a framework within which local decisions can be made in the context of dignity, choice and the seemliness of arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman approached the subject of death in a refreshing and matter-of-fact manner—in fact, in almost an in-your-face way, if I may say so. Death is one of the last taboos in our society. We take a different approach to death than that of our Victorian predecessors, who would have had no difficulty with the notion of jewellery or confectionery being prepared and warmed for the purpose of commemorating a death. We do not do that in our culture today, although we should recognise that there are different methods in the diverse and plural society in which we live.

In my constituency, the Irish and Caribbean ways of dealing with death are much more in tune with what our Victorian ancestors would have recognised. They would have recognised the importance of a wake, and of lying-in and visits to the house. I recently attended the wake of a much loved local councillor. People visited the house and Ann John, the partner of the deceased, over a period of days. People were able to reflect on the life of the deceased, sharing happy times and sad times with Ann, who now leads my local authority. That was how she wanted it, and we all respected it. It was entirely fitting and appropriate. Others choose to do it differently.

We have to ensure that there is proper accountability and a degree of transparency. People should know where to take their concerns about services—whether provided by the council or the company. For municipal undertakings, a local government ombudsman offers a further avenue for complaints—and rightly so.

The Home Office has statutory powers to inspect cemeteries and crematoriums. In cases of serious allegations of irregularities, or when there are suggestions that a site should be closed, an inspection will be carried out and a report made. That will help us to decide what action we should take, although our powers offer only a limited choice. We do not have the powers which, it is sometimes believed exist in such cases.

I want to make a few comments about the environment. Cemeteries offer more than just a place of burial of or memorial for the dead. They can have architectural or historical significance; for example, the Kensal Rise cemetery in my constituency has catacombs of recognised importance.

We also realise that cemeteries and burial grounds can contribute to the sum of green open spaces in urban areas, providing a peaceful oasis for quiet recreation and contemplation. They may also provide valuable habitats for trees and other flora and an important haven for wildlife. The development of the green funerals described by the hon. Gentleman makes an environmental contribution and is also important in offering choice.

Those arrangements—a mixed economy and local decision taking—have, on the whole, worked well. However, contrary to the tenor of some of the hon. Gentleman"s remarks, demand for cremation seems to have levelled off, at about 70 per cent. of all deaths. Many of the cemeteries opened in the past 100 years are coming to the end of their useful life. That creates its own pressures: pressure on land space for the living puts pressure on land space for the dead.

The past few years have seen a number of important developments. Certain problems have come to the fore. There is a shortage of land for burial in London and elsewhere. The condition of some cemeteries and churchyards has deteriorated owing to lack of maintenance. Some old cemeteries are of doubtful viability. There are challenges of principle and practice regarding the removal of human remains to enable the development of old burial grounds. Regulation is inconsistent and there are variable standards of practice and management.

The case for change is made. It is important that there should be a wider public debate to address issues such as the lack of burial space, a review of burial law and the lack of direction for the burial industry. The decision of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs to examine those matters was helpful. Last month, I gave evidence to the Sub-Committee. Whatever recommendations the Sub-Committee may make, our aims must be to ensure that the public have a realistic and affordable choice; that the services provided by burial and cremation authorities are professional, caring, timely and sensitive to the needs of the whole diverse range of communities in our country; and that local burial and cremation facilities offer a fitting environment for the bereaved and enhance the life of the community.

Those are just some of the challenges. We need to make sure that the public have confidence in the way that their cemeteries and crematoriums are managed—

The motion having been made after Ten o"clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o"clock.