House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Apr 1991

Mrs. Chalker : My hon. and learned Friend seems to think that his intervention was true to form. Never mind, I remain surprised. None of the Governments in the area had made available to us at the end of March any of the information which the hon. Gentleman claims to have known about. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) could go to the area. I know that her trip helped a great deal to bring these matters to the notice of the British people, who indeed have been generous. Nothing that the hon. Lady was doing and saying was not being told to us through other channels. I am well aware that it is easy to appear to be competitive on these occasions. I have no intention of taking up that position. The Iraqi refugees need all the help they can get. We, the British people, will give all we can, and the Government will put in more resources. What I have said today I described as initial and immediate. We cannot deliver immediately without preparing for that delivery. That became clear to me as I worked with the experts over the past 10 days to try to make the whole system more efficient.

May I say for the umpteenth time that I have never linked the questions of aid and the hostages, although many newspapers sought to link the two. I have always said that help to the Iraqi refugees is quite separate and quite different from any of our bilateral considerations. However, I would have been severely criticised had I gone to Tehran, the first British Minister to go there for 12 years, without having mentioned it. When I was asked, "Will you mention the subject of the hostages when you go to Iran?", of course the answer had to be yes.

Let us put some common sense into the matter and understand that, together with our partners throughout the world, we shall go on giving humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees and we shall try to make the communications and co- ordination much better. At the same time, we shall work bilaterally to seek the release of innocent hostages.

Column 787

Points of Order

4.30 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I will be able to assist you and the House. As you know, there has been intense public speculation about and interest in the GCE O-levels of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with the result that many hon. Members are being asked by the press to supply details of their O-level qualifications and school reports. For the record, I have a list of degrees as long as my arm, most of which were purchased very cheaply from the back pages of Private Eye , something which I would encourage the Prime Minister to do. Would it assist you, Mr. Speaker, if Members of Parliament now lodged copies of their GCE O-level certificates with the Registrar of Members' Interests so that any press inquiries can be speedily resolved by the registrar himself?

Mr. Speaker : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could log his four O-levels voluntarily.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order refers to this afternoon's questions. Is not it unseemly in the parliamentary sense, as well as being deeply offensive, for a Minister responsible for shipping to claim that more fishermen are lost at sea under a Labour Administration than under a Tory Administration?

Mr. Speaker : This is a continuation of Question Time. I am not responsible for answers that are given at the Dispatch Box. Statutory Instruments &c.

Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Column 788

Funeral Industry

4.32 pm

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh) : I beg to move,

That this House considers there is a need for an investigation into prices and practices of the funeral industry with a view to seeking to provide a Bill to establish a funeral industry registration council and to give that council powers and functions for the regulation of firms and individuals offering funeral services and arrangements ; to provide the council with powers and functions to ensure that persons employed as funeral directors shall be trained and qualified to approved levels and to require the registration of all firms and persons providing funeral services with the council ; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons ; to make provision for the adequate training of persons employed as funeral directors ; to make provision for a code of conduct under which all such firms and persons shall provide their funeral services and to ensure a satisfactory level of consumer protection for these services ; to define offences under this code of conduct and specified penalties ; and to make provision for other related matters. Several hon. Members were intrigued when they learned that it was my intention to table a motion about the funeral industry. On three or four occasions, over three or four years, I have called in this Chamber for an inquiry into the prices and practices of the industry. In 1989, I secured an Adjournment debate, in which I dealt in detail with a report issued by the Office of Fair Trading. I dealt with some of the unpalatable experiences that several of my constituents had endured. These related both to price and to treatment.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Is it envisaged that the funeral industry registration council to which the motion refers would cover the whole United Kingdom, or would it be restricted to England and Wales? Over the years, I have received many complaints about the high cost of funerals in Scotland and about related matters.

Mr. Cunliffe : If the motion were accepted, and a registration council were set up, I should like it to embrace all four countries in the United Kingdom.

I referred to the Adjournment debate on this subject in 1989. In view of the time constraints, one is restricted in one's comments in such a debate. Indeed, the convention is that the time is shared equally between the Member raising the subject and the Minister replying.

For me, this whole matter started in 1977 or 1978, when a constituent wrote to me following the deaths, first, of her father and then, within a matter of months, of her mother. The services required in the case of the second funeral were exactly the same as those required in the case of the first, but, to this lady's amazement, there was a price difference of £108. To some people, funerals are extremely expensive, and this lady was rather distressed, as she was not in employment.

In the first instance, my constituent contacted the company involved. She was told that, between the dates of the two funerals, the original firm had been taken over by a larger company, and that that company had laid down certain guidelines about standards and profit margins. When I examined the two accounts, I discovered that the £108 was accounted for by an increase in coffin price and an increase in what are known as professional charges. That is something to which I shall refer in considerable detail later.

I wrote to the company.

Column 789

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : What is the name of the company?

Mr. Cunliffe : I shall give the name later. In fact, since the takeover, the name has changed. The firm is now owned by a multinational company. Later, I shall refer in great detail to it and to other companies. When I wrote a letter to that company, I received a reply similar to that sent to my constituent, but I was pleased that it included a £100 refund.

Within a matter of weeks, there was a similar incident involving another firm of undertakers in my constituency. When I wrote to that company, I received almost the identical reply that I got from the first, and another £100 rebate for the constituent concerned. I began to think that, if the profit margins were so high that companies could make rebates of that size every time they received a formal inquiry into the cost of a particular funeral, those margins needed investigation.

In my research, I discovered that there had been a gradual takeover of many traditional, independent funeral directors in the north by large companies. As costs were also rising rapidly, I sought an Adjournment debate, which coincided with the publication of a report by the Director General of Fair Trading, which had some startling things to say about certain practices and establishments, and about a tendency to create monopolies.

There was also a 30-question survey of about 900 people who had recent experience of dealing with funeral directors. At that time, the National Association of Funeral Directors operated a voluntary code of practice, which made for greater clarity in respect of estimates, the type of funeral, and the services to be provided--a hearse or limousine, embalming, and so on--in ensuring a reasonably simple and dignified funeral. According to the OFT investigation, that code of practice was being honoured by only 25 per cent. of funeral directors.

Dying is a taboo subject which touches people's sensitivities and emotions. The job of the funeral director is one which requires superb diplomacy, and there is a natural reluctance to delve too deeply into the question of cost at the time that a funeral is being arranged.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Did that survey make the point, in respect of advice being sought by any individual, including even a distant relative, that the person who makes the initial contact with the funeral director is liable for the cost at the end of the day?

Mr. Cunliffe : I have no knowledge that that is the case, and it was not covered by the investigation that I mentioned.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : Does the hon. Member for Leigh have any evidence that the percentage of funeral directors abiding by the code of conduct has increased from 25 per cent. since 1989, or has it remained static?

Mr. Cunliffe : The National Association of Funeral Directors represents a respected and honourable profession, and I shall refer to it in due course. I shall also give more figures later, but there has been some response to the inquiry's findings in respect of that earlier code of conduct. I shall quote also the new code of conduct that was adopted in May 1990.

Column 790

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the need to maintain high standards of service--I am entirely with him on that--and competition if those high standards are to be achieved. Will he comment on the increasing practice in some parts of the country, whereby local authorities make a monopolistic municipal deal with one funeral director? The intention might be to provide a lower-cost service, but it will be subsidised by the community charge payer. Might not that ultimately harm competition and the protection available to the members of a community, if it results in fewer companies and less choice?

Mr. Cunliffe : Municipal authorities are not allowed to own any form of funeral company. They are permitted only to provide a service, and it cannot be related to any element of the community charge under existing legislation--and I do not imagine that such a thing will be allowed in any future legislation.

There are approximately 650,000 funerals a year, but the number is declining, and I shall explain the reasons for that. There are about 2,500 funeral directors, with a total turnover of from £250 million to £270 million a year in direct funeral costs, and another £100 million to £120 million in ancillary services such as the provision of flowers, cards, the saying of masses, and so on. It is therefore a pretty big commercial operation. One does not like to associate commercialism with a distressing aspect of life, but that commercialism is a fact.

Why have large undertakings moved into the industry? Is it because they find certain aspects of it extremely profitable? That is a cause for concern.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : The hon. Gentleman makes the point, as he did in his Adjournment debate in 1989, that the funeral industry is making excessive profits. Is not it interesting, however, that the Co- operative Wholesale Society recently saw fit to dispose of its undertaking business? In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, why should it have done so?

Mr. Cunliffe : In recent months, other large companies have decided to sell. The reason is all to do with investment and profit margins, and I do not exclude any organisation of whatever size and character from criticism--and in some cases compliments. I shall return to that issue.

In 1989, on average, the cost of funerals increased by 28 per cent. more than inflation and there was some harsh criticism, some people believed quite rightly, of the industry's performance. In fairness to all the organisations connected with the industry, I should say that such increases above the rate of inflation have not continued, although, in my view, funerals are generally overpriced.

I decided that if I intended to comment on or to criticise the industry, I had to carry out an inside investigation, which I did with the help of several researchers. I investigated the average cost of a manufacturer's coffin throughout the country compared with the amount charged by the funeral companies.

In the meantime, as there had been scathing criticism of the industry, I introduced the Funeral Industry Bill, a simple Bill which called for the establishment of a compulsory code of practice for funeral directors and the funeral industry. The Bill called for written estimates, for full price lists, for the code of practice to be prominently displayed and for details to be given of the cost of the

Column 791

coffin and its fittings, the hearse, funeral cars, care and removal of the body, embalming costs and administrative charges.

Funeral directors are now developing public relations of a highly sophisticated standard. People now pay for their death on hire purchase and for pre-arranged funerals. Lovely velvet phrases such as "Dignity in Destiny" are being trotted out, and I shall deal with that issue.

My Bill sought to bring the questions that were being asked about the industry to the fore and to subject the abuses and practices within the industry to public scrutiny. That is also what I seek to do today.

In my Adjournment debate in 1989, I gave some simple illustrations. At Christmas of that year, I took the liberty of spending two days "on the tools" at a coffin manufacturers. I did an "A to Z" follow-through and I spent a couple of days working as an engineer at a factory that supplies coffins to some of the large companies that I shall describe later. I looked at the prices of coffins--invoiced, costed and supplied, giving the firm's name--which was very good of the coffin manufacturer. The problems that I mentioned earlier about profit margins were evident. I shall give the 1989 figures, but update them with those of other manufacturers to be fair to the industry.

I have some funeral bills with me--those that I mentioned earlier--and it appears that the average cost of the two main coffins that were being produced for cremation at that time were £18 for the cheapest and £27.50 for the dearest, depending on the grade. All the coffins were given names of splendour, such as "Queensbury" or "Richmond"--velvet titles are again attached to them. I was able to trace coffins through from the manufacturers to funeral companies involved, including those used by the constituents that I previously mentioned. I found that the average price charged by the funeral director for a £19.50 coffin was £154. I have the bills here. Then I looked into the cost of dearer types of coffin. They range from the simple basic models that I have described to those made of solid oak. The average margin between the cost of production and supply, and the final price charged, was between 400 and 500 per cent. In some instances it was 1,000 and in one case it was 1,100 per cent. The profit margins are identifiable.

The more that I research the industry and the more letters that I receive, the more convinced I become that there can be only two areas where profits are down--the price of the coffin and the professional charges.

I decided that I might as well research the matter properly, and I went to work in two funeral parlours. I showed great respect, and I did a sort of apprenticeship by trying out embalming for about four hours--although not on a real body--which was quite interesting. These are the facts of life. It is "feet on the ground" not feet in the ground.

I also assembled coffins, putting on the handles and the nameplates and, as an ex-engineer, I used time and motion studies to prove how long it took and how it was done, whether by high technology or manually, using a screwdriver or a hammer.

Then I decided to look into professional charges. I was investigating two small independent undertakers and I

Column 792

asked what the professional charges embraced. Embalming was a separate charge and was an extra £25 or in some cases £40. I asked the companies to give me a professional charge that was generous to themselves and was not the minimum price. They told me that on average they charged for 10 hours' worth of professional charges, which would give them reasonable profit margins.

However, one of the takeover companies has a standard professional charge based on 40 hours per funeral, which is roughly £350, although it depends on the region, as there are large regional differences in the prices of funerals. During debates on the radio and on television, the companies stuck to that figure, and they have done so again during the past few days. We have substantiated that matter within the industry.

I shall read some of the letters that I have had from funeral directors with 30 and 40 years' experience, who have had doubts and they relate evidence that I suggest is conclusive that such professional charges are a direct rip-off, as are coffin charges. Disbursements are a separate matter and include the vicar's charges, church services, and gratuities. No one is arguing about the cost of those.

Let me quote the up-to-date figures. I have received strictly confidential information giving the names of 19 firms that operate throughout the country under one name, UKF. It is not a large company, but it has taken over 19 firms. I shall mention larger firms later. I am referring to 1990 prices. I have ignored the 16 per cent. increase in the price of coffins on 1 September 1990. A Chester coffin, supplied for £33.12, costs £170 to £200. The Norwich coffin, supplied for £60, costs £330 to £350.

The firms point out, however, that the accessories must not be forgotten. Metal handles cost £8.54 per set, but a charge of £42 is made for them. Nameplates can be supplied in plastic or metal. Plastic nameplates cost 69p. If all those costs are added up, they amount to only a reasonable £55, but the funeral charge totals £615. I asked the firms involved, and they did not try to hide the charges. One United Kingdom company has a published turnover of £2.5 million and profits of £500,000. It does not deny those figures.

Mr. Ashton : I understand that the latest figures supplied by Hodgson Holdings, the biggest entrepreneur in the business, show that its predicted profit will be£5.3million on a turnover of £30 million. Has my hon. Friend had any dealings with that firm?

Mr. Cunliffe : I have had many dealings with it, especially with its previous chief executive. After a brilliant entrepreneurial career, unfortunately he has recently left the company. Far be it from me to speculate about the reasons ; I do not know. However, I admire the entrepreneurial skill with which the company that my hon. Friend mentioned was built up. Its turnover increased from £14,000 to about £78 million.

The industry is contracting. The reason is that people are living longer. During the next few years, the annual number of people who die--at present 650,000--will come down to about 600,000. That leads to other problems, including the money that will have to be found for the care of the elderly. As a compassionate nation, however, we ought to be prepared to meet the challenge.

According to the Royal College of Nursing, the startling fact is that in 1985 there were 2,416,000 women

Column 793

over the age of 75 and that by the year 2001, which is not that far away, that number will have increased to 2,802,560--a 16 per cent. increase. In 1985, there were 525,000 women over the age of 85. By the year 2001, there will be 840,000, a staggering increase of 60 per cent.

In 1985, there were 1,202,000 men over the age of 75. By the year 2001, that figure will have increased to 1,598,660--a 33 per cent. increase. In 1985, there were 158,000 men over the age of 85. By 2001, that figure will have increased to 321,900--a 110 per cent. increase. One does not need to be a great mathematician to realise, having studied those figures, that the industry is contracting. Most of us welcome that fact.

I have received many letters about funeral company takeovers. There has been a tremendous reduction in the number of independent funeral directors. In the past, one did not shop around for the best price funerals. Automatically one went to the local undertaker who had been used by the family for generations. Hundreds of them have disappeared in recent years. At a private meeting with the chief executive of Hodgson Holdings, Howard Hodgson, I asked him, "How on earth can you reconcile the increased demand for your services with your masquerade of using the name of local family undertakers? The many letters that I have received prove it."

Mr. Ashton : Is not it a fact that Mr. Hodgson has said that, when he buys companies, he buys their good will, not their assets? The good will is the name over the shop, and that is what he pays for. My hon. Friend is right about that being a form of deception about the service required.

Mr. Cunliffe : My hon. Friend is right. Good will is attached to the name of small family undertakers. I discussed the problem with Mr. Hodgson. These large companies are employing high-profile publicity methods. Actors and acresses are used, including Sir Harry Secombe, who sings on some of the tapes. Incidentally, that firm is no longer called Hodgson Holdings but PHK International, and it has a French chairman. It has cornered 15 to 16 per cent. of the market. Another company has cornered 25 per cent. of the 650,000 deaths each year. Just a handful of companies control the market.

I was impressed by Mr. Hodgson, a young entrepreneur. When I spoke for the first time in the House in a debate on industry--this was in 1979--the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told me that the Government's policies would lead to a galaxy of entrepreneurs, the like of which had never before been seen in this country. I do not think that at that time we envisaged that the growth industry would be the funeral industry. However, this young man moved into it and did a remarkable job by turning Hodgson Holdings into a highly professional company which, as I have already said, has now been taken over.

Having absorbed hundreds of local undertakers, the companies have created a problem. I illustrate that point with a letter that I received :

"From the Manchester Evening News I see that you are to raise a question in the House with regard to big companies making "take-overs" in the funeral business and to the large price increases which stem from this. I applaud you in this endeavour because I have personally experienced unease in these methods. I have been engaged in the funeral business on my own account for the last 36 years at least and have attained our professional qualifications of Dip. F.D. and am a member of the BIFD"--

not the National Association of Funeral Directors--

Column 794

"In 1974 I formed by own limited company in my own name but as I neared retirement age, I decided to sell my share capital"-- to a firm that I shall not name. Again, it was a local firm hiding under the aegis of a big company, which is Hodgson Holdings. The letter continues :

"However in 1986 I was to discover that"

the company

"had been taken over by Hodgsons Holdings of Birmingham and that my consultancy was included but only as far as the Employees Protection Act allowed. Very quickly after take-over I came to realise that I simply could not accept their methods or standards I refused to sign my acceptance of the terms of contract being offered to me and resigned the consultancy as soon as was possible.

I find it hard to accept that having sold a limited company a 2nd time buyer can trade in my name"--

which illustrates the point that I am trying to make--

"but not continue in the style of limited company I feel most strongly that the professionalism that can be reasonably expected is now being rapidly eroded"--

the professionalism and standards of our funeral directors "I also consider that there is a further danger in that the professional bodies which were formed to uphold the principles". I put that issue to the National Association of Funeral Directors. The letter continues that to a great extent that body is being "membered and officered by servants of these same big companies." I have had a great deal of experience in such matters. Just recently, I have dealt with some television programmes and people who were supposed to represent the associations but who, at the end of the day, were playing the company men. That is understandable. Hundreds of funeral directors have been taken over, but what happens then? They face conflicting loyalties--the companies or their profession. The honourable conduct of their profession is challenged by profit motives and margins. People are subject to pressures about their beliefs and qualifications for this honourable profession. I challenge the NAFD : "Are you company men first and directors of your association second?" That is the issue with which we must deal. On every programme on which I have appeared during the past three or four years, people have said that they represented the NAFD but basically, they put the companies' view. They spoke for about 40 hours about the price of funerals. I am trying to make the profession--the industry--first class and honourable, to dignify it and to give it status in the form of registration. At the moment, anyone can be a funeral director.

The NAFD must make up its mind. Why does it oppose compulsory codes of conduct, but want a compulsory form of registration for funeral directors, for companies and for training? It cannot have it both ways, and that is the problem. The more independent funeral directors that are taken over by the big battalions, the greater will be the conflict of loyalties. That is one of the problems that must be endured. Unless we do something, the problem will accelerate and the industry will be treated with contempt.

Mr. Bowis : I should like to clarify--for my sake and perhaps for that of the House--the point that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is making. He spoke about trying to maintain

professionalism and good practice when small companies are taken over. I entirely agree, but a few minutes ago--when he quoted the letter--he implied that, when a small company continued under

Column 795

its old name despite a change of ownership, something misleading--if not dishonest--occurred. If that is what he is saying, there is a principle that crosses professions, including bankers. For example, there is no longer a Mr. Coutts at Coutts and Co. and the same is true of soap powders, bookshops and Fox's glacier mints. Fox's was taken over by Rowntree, which was taken over by Mackintosh. The change of name is not important, but, as the hon. Gentleman is rightly saying now, it is important that the standard of service continues irrespective of ownership.

Mr. Cunliffe : I shall reply to that question by repeating what I said to Howard Hodgson : "If you want a Rolls-Royce or Marks and Spencer image, why do you still retain the identity of the village undertaker? If you seek to raise the standards of professionalism and commercialism, why do you do that?" There is no answer. With respect, one would not suggest that, because bookmakers have lifted themselves up, we should all make lords of bookmakers.

There is no reason for companies to be so secretive. The public will understand and they would prefer an honest description of the undertaking with which they enter into a contract to the faceless men in boardrooms-- not just in this country. I shall speak later about some foreign companies that are buying their way into our industry. I received a second letter from an established funeral director, in which he said that he was pleased with my stance on the funeral profession on a television programme. He wrote :

"I was a Funeral Director for 30 years until March 1988 and very proud of my calling but not any longer. My company was purchased by Hodgson Holding's plc in March 1988. This, I strongly add, was not with my blessing but back stabbing in the Board Room allowed this." That is as good a way to put it as any other. The letter continues :

"In 1987 and 1988 I envisaged that if the trend of takeovers was to carry on the Funeral Profession would finish up being owned by large multiple monopolies and the bereaved families when they were at their lowest ebb could only finish up getting not as good personal service and higher charges. The matter was reported to the Monopolies and Fair Trading Commissions by myself"

but nothing came of it.

The writer goes on to say that he worked in the private trade. He says that he is not of my political complexion or disposition. He states that there is massive exploitation of employees, but, because of his contractual restrictions, he cannot say much more. What he does say is too much because of the restrictions placed on him. He wrote :

"I wish I could say more but free speech is not allowed." I would not go as far as that, but he states that it is far better that he does not write in detail about the companies under his control that were taken from him.

He submitted pages from the Merseyside telephone directory, which have been ticked to show every company that has been taken over. There are 18 companies in that region. About 14,000 funerals a year are carried out in Manchester and Liverpool. The service is fairly typical, although it is cheaper than in some other regions. The companies bear witness to the points about which we have been talking.

Column 796

Municipalisation is another relevant factor. What do authorities seek in providing a funeral service? The first intention is to provide a reasonably costed and dignified funeral service. A quotation is provided containing the full cost, including, importantly, disbursements prior to the funeral. Most companies separate the two costs. Funeral directors cannot negotiate disbursements because they are fixed. That is a fair comment. The service has to be a full service with the basic trimmings and with no corners cut. Everything must be managed with dignity and the service should be indistinguishable from any other funeral service. The funeral service must always benefit the residents within the local authority area, in terms of the service itself and in terms of a possible increase in the number of cremations carried out in council crematoria. Are the criteria met?

I advised two authorities on the municipal provision of funeral services. The services that we negotiated are described as follows : "I feel that without a doubt a reasonably priced, dignified' funeral has been provided and all the costs are known before a funeral takes place, thus providing some protection for consumers when at their most vulnerable. Criteria two, I feel also has been met in that a full service is provided to a very high specification". I have compared the service with that provided by private suppliers, from the manufacture of coffins, through all the elements to the funeral service itself. All that has been thoroughly examined. The municipal services are equally good. No problems are attached and there is more direct control even than that of a funeral director in a private company.

The costs are well known. We have provided protection for the consumer and the services have been personally vetted on a random basis. The service is not distinguishable in any shape or form from other funerals. To date, there has been no adverse comment. I put that point to the National Association of Funeral Directors which mainly defends the large companies. How can it reconcile the fact that some of the large companies are now putting in tenders to provide municipal funeral services, with all the elements of the simple basic funeral about which I have talked, at roughly £350 to £400? They are the companies that, when not providing the municipal funeral service, charge about £800 to £900. They are the same firms. Are they short of work, or are they undercutting because there is a bit of a recession? What is happening? For many years, I served on the Bolton metropolitan authority. It provides a funeral service at £375, with disbursements included. Wigan provides such a service, with qualified people from the National Association of Funeral Directors.

There is a need to examine the matter in some detail--and I should prefer a Select Committee to do that--to lift the lid off the industry in every facet and to give evidence on it. If the NAFD or the big boys in the association gave open evidence, it would be subject to scrutiny by the House and by the public. What has the association got to lose by that?

I want to quote the classic example of Hodgson Holdings. I must be fair and say that it is not the only big battalion in the industry. There are Greggs, Chosen Heritage and Quartz, among others. Two of those companies comprise 35 to 40 per cent. of the industry now. The more mergers that take place between the companies, the bigger the potential for monopoly takeovers which will create an even worse position in terms of artificial prices.

Column 797

I do not accuse the companies of that at this stage, but I refer to the words of Howard Hodgson. He said that Hodgson Holdings now had 11 per cent. of the industry and was moving into the range of 15 per cent. He hoped that it would climb to 25 per cent. I do not believe that the aim of 25 per cent. being controlled by one company and 25 per cent. by another will be achieved, but that has been said clearly by the heads of the companies that I have mentioned. I make no comment on what happened to the person about whom I have spoken, because he has since left.

The aims of the Bolton municipal service are clear :

"The scheme provides a dignified funeral service at a reasonable cost The collection of the deceased from within the borough or within a 10 mile radius of the borough boundary."

That is fair comment. We should not like subsidies to other authorities which could be used to subsidise other features. That service also includes

"Embalming, dressing and a place at the funeral undertakers' Chapel of Rest. Free conveyance to the Chapel of Rest for relatives with transport difficulties. All arrangements at the crematorium or cemetery. A hearse and following limousine. A second hearse as floral car. The Funeral Service. An oak veneer coffin".

On the figures that I have supplied, an oak veneer coffin alone can cost £590 from private suppliers. The service also includes fees charged by the doctor. One company charges an average of £42.50, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) knows. The service also includes a clergyman and the crematorium. The list of services continues :

"Transport of deceased to church or chapel prior to disposal." The figure for all that last year was £366.

The National Association of Funeral Directors believed that it was unfairly criticised by the Office of Fair Trading. It has replied on many points, and I acclaim the fact that it has drawn up a substantial, important and dignified code of conduct. Hodgson Holdings wrote to me that it agreed with the Bill that I proposed on a code of conduct. The National Association of Funeral Directors said that it agreed, as did the big companies and the trade unions. Yet there is some opposition to the compulsory registration of the code of practice. I do not understand the logic of that.

We must consider how other elements in the industry react to any form of criticism. Their reaction is understandable. Although we as politicians are usually calm and meek, we become all prickles, like hedgehogs, when we are criticised. I understand that.

I am convinced, and I want the Department of Trade and Industry to understand, that there is cause for concern and a need for a genuine examination of the industry. Certain matters have still not been resolved. I hope that the Minister will give me some assurances and possibly undertakings, as the previous Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs did when I last debated the matter. The previous Minister promised that there would be immediate and urgent talks with the industry and the National Association of Funeral Directors. I hope that the Minister will have something positive to offer at the end of this debate to me and to other hon. Members who may speak in the debate.

I return to the report. It says that the code can have value only if it is demonstrably taken seriously and complied with. It also says :

Next Section

Home Page