Burial law and policy in the 21st Century
Affinity (formerly the British Evangelical Council, founded in 1952) is a network of evangelical denomininations, church groupings and independent causes. Representing approximately 1,200 congregations, it is probably the largest association of exclusively Bible-centred churches in the UK.
1. Assumed principles
Our response is based on two main principles:
- The need to regard death and all the circumstances surrounding it with seriousness and dignity, given the significance of death, and the fact that society’s attitude to it will always reflect its attitude to life.
- The importance of sensitivity in connection with all the issues associated with death, in the determining of public policy, in the exercise of responsibilities and functions under that policy by authorities and agencies, and in the pastoral care, support and counsel provided by churches and their pastors.
In responding to the Consultation, we are commenting only on those issues raised in the Consultation paper which have a relevance to these assumed principles. In so doing, it is not possible to confine our comments to answers to any one question, and so we have arranged our comments under subject headings, and indicated a group of questions to which they relate.
2. Obligation to provide burial facilities (Questions 2-4)
Given that burial as a means of disposing of the bodies of those who have died has biblical warrant, has been a dignified practice for more than three millennia, and is strongly associated with Britain’s Christian heritage, it would be right and appropriate for local authorities to be put under a statutory obligation to provide burial facilities. Any lesser sanction could leave too much uncertainty in some local authority areas over whether burial space was currently available, and would imply indifference to whether those wishing to bury their loved ones would in practice be able to do so.
Failure to provide burial facilities will make it more likely that people will seek individual solutions to their own preferences and needs and these will carry the danger of being haphazard, unregulated, inappropriate or harmful.
In particular we strongly oppose so-called “back-garden” burials and suggest that they should be strictly regulated, for the following reasons:
- “Back-garden" burials in ordinary houses reduce the dignity society is giving to death. We think burials on private domestic property should only be permitted at “stately homes” or large country houses. A way of regulating this would be to rule that burials can only take place more than 75 metres from a neighbouring property.
- Burials in ordinary back-gardens, for instance on urban housing estates, are capable of disturbing a local community or arousing local feeling unhelpfully.
- They create side-issues such as the impact on property values and complications over the re-sale of an affected property.
- “Back-garden" burials are likely to be motivated by sentiment at a time of shock, loss and emotional imbalance, rather than by a cool, rational decision, and will not be in the best long-term interests of the bereaved family member(s) concerned.
A prohibition on burials in unsuitable domestic environments would make it easier for our church ministers to provide the pastoral guidance and support required to bereaved relatives. Conversely our ministers would certainly be able to support any such prohibition, and guide the relatives towards more suitable arrangements. This would therefore be an instance where pastoral advice and encouragement, and the regulatory framework, would work towards the same end.
It would be reasonable for local authorities to be required every 10 years to assess the community’s need for burial space. As part of that process, local authorities should be required to consult with faith groups in their areas. This would be important, since a number of faith groups, ourselves included, require a much higher proportion of burials (as against cremations) than the figure for the population as a whole.
The Christian constituency will have a particularly important contribution to make to these consultations, given that 71 per cent of the UK population professed to be Christian in the 2001 Census. If that is the state of the nation when dispassionately filling in forms, the religious instincts and feelings which flow from this will naturally be intensified when a death occurs. The role of the Christian community in the provision of pastoral support, in ensuring that the practical facilities and procedures in place locally are relevant and sufficient, and as an important influence in matters of principle and conscience both locally and nationally, cannot therefore be over-estimated. The law must establish the regulatory framework in such a way as will guarantee that this Christian perspective can be properly presented in connection with all pertinent decisions.
3. The financing of burial provision (Question 7)
There is no reason in principle why the public funding of burial grounds, and of their regulation, should be queried any more than the public funding of health services.
However, a death is a personal experience for a family, and it is entirely appropriate that a family should be expected to express its love of, identification with and responsibility towards a deceased member by making, through cemetery fees and charges, a major and realistic contribution to the overall cost of the public provision of burial services. This is right in principle, as well as fair in practice. The good principle patterned in the Bible is that it is the family which buries its loved one with the assistance of the state, rather than the state which buries the deceased while the family looks on.
It should be borne in mind that there can never be any appropriate commercial sources of income available in connection with the provision, upkeep and regulation of burial grounds. It must be assumed that the expenditure involved needs to be recovered from public funds and/or from charges to the family at the time of a burial.
However, we would like to suggest two approaches which might have a beneficial effect, though perhaps indirectly, on the financing of burial ground provision:
Burial space could be planned as part of the more general open space provision of a district, in some cases perhaps forming an extension to greens or parks or part of a “green” walkway route linking a mixture of types of open space. By this means, some types of maintenance expenditure might be absorbed or marginalised, could benefit from economy of scale, or be shared with other local authority departmental budgets.
The formation of local historical societies or “Friends” associations for particular burial grounds could be promoted and encouraged. Once established, such organisations would on their own initiative engage in projects and activities which would increase accessibility, knowledge and public awareness, at no cost to public funds. Such groups may also be helpful in suggesting cost-saving ideas or by voluntarily undertaking tasks which would otherwise be a charge on public funds.
4. Denominational separation (Question 9)
The issues surrounding whether and how to provide separate burial areas for those of particular denominations or religious groups could be included in the 10-yearly consultations referred to in Section 2 of this submission.
5. Re-use of graves (Questions 22-34)
In our view, any proposal for “shared” graves other than with immediate family members would detract significantly from the individuality and dignity of the deceased, the uniqueness of his family context, and the value which society attaches to that. The way in which a society disposes of bodies after death will reflect that same society’s view of the significance of death, and, inevitably, its understanding of life and eternity. Any proposal to “share” graves, however well-intentioned, would reduce death to a practical event with merely functional implications.
The difficulty everyone will have in commenting on how shared graves ought to be marked (Question 23) illustrates starkly that this whole concept is new and strange. It is set against 1,400 years of Christian culture in Britain, which, for all the changes and developments there have been in the practicalities of burial and its administration, has generally remained wedded to the principle of “one person (or family), one grave.”
In considering this issue, therefore, we regard the following as essential:
- There must always be burial space available for anyone to buy a new grave.
- There must be a procedure in place by which a family may ensure that their new grave will not in the future be re-used for the burial of “strangers.”
- While we recognise that the financial cost, and therefore the price charged, will be greater for new graves, no other disincentive to the use of new graves should be factored into burial administration and strategy.
Bureaucratic hurdles and obstacles must not hinder the opportunity to follow practices which accord with belief and conscience. Nor must there be allowed to emerge a tacit expectation that people will opt for the “economical” and “environmentally-friendly” form of burial. Throughout the policy-making process it needs to be remembered that death is not just about economy and the environment.
We would also like to make the following general observations:
- We recognise that if re-use of graves is offered to the public, there may be many people who will be quite happy to make use of those arrangements.
- However, as we are not supporting that approach from our own perspective, we have refrained from commenting on the questions relating to the practicalities of re-using graves.
- The suggestion of local consultation, however (Question 29), raises much wider issues, including all those mentioned in the bullet-points in the Paper, and we feel it is important that all faith groups are consulted on all matters, whatever the views of those groups with regard to the re-use of graves, or any other principles which they might hold.
- Although there is nothing different in principle about the burial of an “important” person as against an “ordinary” person, history is a vital ingredient of our culture and understanding, and account should be taken of this when the ground rules for the re-use of graves are determined (Question 31).
6. Re-use of closed burial grounds (Questions 35-36)
Where burial grounds are full, irrespective of who owns them, we have no objection to their closure, clearance or redevelopment, provided that this is carried out with dignity and decency, and that an appropriate period of years has elapsed since the last burial.
Where clearance is involved, the detailed requirements, and the reasons for them, will be different in each case, and all that can be insisted upon in isolation from the precise and immediate circumstances is the need for maximum advertising of the proposals, full consultation with all interested parties, and dignified provision for re-burial. This issue of dignity must be genuinely addressed, since how society handles the implications and consequences of death is a test of its view of the sanctity and importance of life.
Aside from the dignity issue, there should be a statutory ban on redevelopment until at least 50 years has elapsed since the last burial, and a statutory insistence on full local consultation. The issues involved are sufficiently serious to warrant a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as is the case with a planning application. In the case of burial ground decisions, however, that right of appeal should be extended to any interested party. As the potential circumstances are infinitely variable, the Secretary of State should also have power to “call in” a decision.
While we are aware that church denominations and authorities have in the past designated certain ground as “consecrated” (Question 36) and this has had significance in connection with their burial policies and practices, we do not accept that there is anything different about ground so “consecrated.” Ground is ground. Although there may be other principles which determine whether or not a particular course of action is appropriate, in our view no decision needs to be based on the single issue of whether ground is “consecrated” or not.
However, we would make two other suggestions:
- Where a burial-ground is closed to enable redevelopment, or for other reasons (Question 35), consideration should be given to re-siting gravestones in appropriate available space nearby if practicable. Gravestones are an archive of our past, and should not be carelessly or indifferently lost, either permanently or to public view.
- It should be a condition of clearance or redevelopment that the party desiring the clearance or redevelopment, whether as a public necessity or a private initiative, should be required to record all the detailed inscriptions on all the graves and lodge these with the local County Records Office. This should be mandatory whatever is to happen to the gravestones themselves.
7. Other issues
Since this Consultation is an opportunity to propose fresh initiatives on all aspects of burial law and policy, we would like to suggest that the proposals resulting from the Consultation should include a strategy for the comprehensive recording of information on all stones and monuments in burial-grounds.
Owners of burial-grounds should be put under an obligation to record all existing information by a given date, to up-date the data every five years, and to lodge the information so recorded with their local County Records Office.
This information is a unique record, is vital for historical research, and is the best means of ensuring that society recognises the special individuality of a person in the eyes of God, and in his family context.
