Best Value
79. A number of witnesses suggested that the
Best Value process offered a way of focussing the attention of
local authorities on the 'Cinderella' service of cemetery provision.[185]
Best Value requires all local authorities to review and assess
critically all their services, including cemeteries, over a five-year
period, and to produce a 'best value performance plan' which sets
out the authority's key aims and objectives and gives details
of its past, present and future performance against targets. Following
an authority's service reviews, inspectors from the Audit Commission
test how good the service is, and how likely it is to improve.[186]
80. As part of the Best Value process, the Government
has set performance indicators (BVPIs) for a range of local authority
service areas, to facilitate comparisons between local authorities
across the country. Unfortunately, no BVPI has been set for cemetery
services. However, in addition to the statutory obligation to
measure BVPIs, authorities are encouraged to set local performance
indicators that reflect their communities' priorities. A number
of authorities have elected to use cemeteries and crematoria performance
indicators, under the broader heading of environmental services,
as part of the best value framework. These cover issues such as
the percentage of burials accommodated within five working days
of notification; unit cost per burial (gross); and number of woodland
graves pre-purchased, providing wider choice of interment options.[187]
81. A full list of these indicators, and the authorities
using them, were provided to us by the Audit Commission, and can
be found with the rest of the evidence submitted to this inquiry,
or in the database of local performance indicators available at
http://www.localpilibrary.gov.uk/bvpppi.htm.[188]
In addition, some local authorities have worked together to form
benchmarking groups to compare service standards in cemetery provision.
One such group has been has been formed covering much of Wales
and a number of authorities in the South West of England.[189]
82. Separately from the Best Value process, the Institute
of Burial and Cremation Administration (IBCA) has produced a 'Charter
for the Bereaved'. In order to become members of the Charter,
burial authorities must show that they are able to meet 33 basic
standards connected with funeral provision. The Charter also contains
objectives for burial service provision, and helps authorities
to set priorities for future development. IBCA told us, "Members
of the public can be assured that an authority which has adopted
the Charter is committed to providing excellent service."[190]
83. The Institute has also developed an Assessment
Process which authorities can use to help prove that they are
providing Best Value, and to use in conjunction with the Charter
to form plans for improving the service. The Assessment Process
provides the authority with a score and a ranking against other
authorities, and, IBCA told us, "is a powerful tool for proving
continuous improvement."[191]
The Audit Commission noted that at least two authorities who have
reviewed their cemetery services as part of the Best Value process
did so alongside their application for the Charter, and described
this as "helpful".[192]
84. The Audit Commission told us, "Although
this service constitutes a minor area of local authority expenditure,
it is one that impacts on people in a personal way at a highly
sensitive time in their lives. The Commission's early work in
this area suggests that good practice identified in partnership
with the relevant professional bodies should be used to inform
any minimum standards."[193]
We therefore recommend that all local authorities conduct their
Best Value reviews of cemetery services with reference to IBCA's
Charter for the Bereaved; and that they aim to meet the standards
of service set out in that document. Future Best Value Performance
Plans should assess performance against these standards.
85. The Audit Commission also told us that they would
be publishing a series of service specific documents on the theme
of 'Lessons from Inspection', saying, "These publications
will further improve our evidence base as to the critical success
factors involved in delivering high quality public services."[194]
We welcome this initiative, and we recommend that the Audit
Commission publish in due course a 'Lessons from Inspection'
document on cemetery provision.
Friends groups
86. We received a number of memoranda referring
to the positive role which has been played by 'Friends' groups,
and similar organisations such as private charitable trusts, which
have taken an interest - and in some cases control - of their
local cemeteries.[195]
There is also a National Federation of Cemetery Friends, linking
together a number of individual Friends groups. The formation
of these groups is in many ways a very welcome development. They
can be the catalyst for significant action in the renovation and
continued good management of a site, as we heard from Jane Horton
of the Friends of the General Cemetery in Sheffield:
[Our Friends group] has been
fundamental to the cemetery. The cemetery fell into disrepair
and serious trouble after the Second World War. ... They were
running out of burial space in the 1950s. The cemetery company,
and it was a commercial company that owned the cemetery, abandoned
the site in the 1950s and it became an eyesore. It is very close
to the city centre in Sheffield and it became an eyesore and was
effectively abandoned. Following the take-up by the City Council,
because they procured it from the company, the management of it
was not there. We formed the Friends of the Cemetery in 1989 which
was really a response to local community feeling about the terrible
neglect of the site. We have been around since 1989 and since
then we have basically whipped up a huge amount of local community
support for the cemetery and we have a very, very active membership.
We are now taking shared management responsibility for the site.
If it was not for the work we are doing the site would still be
in the same state that it was in in the 1960s and 1970s.[196]
We heard that Friends groups are often also enthusiastic
organisers of new initiatives such as ecological and historical
trails and educational schemes which enhance the value of the
site to the local community.[197]
We strongly encourage anyone concerned about their local cemetery
to investigate the possibility of setting up a 'Friends' or similar
group. Good practice on the formation of Friends groups
should be disseminated both through conservation bodies, such
as English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Civic Trust,
the National Federation of Cemetery Friends, and the British Trust
for Conservation Volunteers, and through those concerned with
cemetery management, such as the Institute for Burial and Cremation
Administration and the Confederation of Burial Authorities.
87. Some of our witnesses went further than simply
welcoming the formation of 'Friends' groups, and in effect suggested
that they were the answer to the regeneration of our cemeteries.[198]
However, volunteers with the same degree of energy and enthusiasm
as that displayed by Jane Horton and her colleagues are scarce.
Where these exist, management of sites can be handed over to Friends
groups, but overall responsibility for sites should remain with
the community as a whole. We encourage local authorities to
work constructively with local 'Friends' and similar groups, but
stress that in doing so they should not seek to abdicate their
own responsibility for the proper maintenance of cemeteries, both
working and closed.
146 Ev p.20; p.27; p.42; p.54; p.56; p.59; p.87; p.89;
p.110; p.120; p.173; p.199; pp. 201-202; p.215; Q144; Q341; Q512;
Q539; Q556 Back
147 See
para 58 below. Back
148 Eg.
the Burial Acts of 1853, 1855, and 1857; the Cemetery Clauses
Act 1847 Back
149 Ev
p.84; Annex. See also paras 58-62 below. Back
150 Ev
p.13 Back
151 Annex;
ev p.38; Q348. Back
152 Ev
p.83 Back
153 Ev
p.83. See ev p.4; p.33; pp. 66-67; p.77; p.110; p.119; p.153;
p.167; pp. 173-174; p.199. Back
154 Ev
p.83 Back
155 Q289.
Sheila Cameron has now been appointed Dean of Arches. Back
156 Annex Back
157 Ev
pp.84-85 Back
158 Annex Back
159 Q292 Back
160 Annex Back
161 See
paras 113-127 below Back
162 See
para 56 above Back
163 Ev
p.79; p.214 Back
164 Local
Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977 Back
165 See
ev p.50; p.55; p.68; p.153 Back
166 Ev
p.86; p.144 Back
167 Ev
p.76; p.86 Back
168 See
paras 113-127 below Back
169 See
paras 88-96 below Back
170 Ev
p.125. This does not include those projects where a small amount
of work to a cemetery - or a green space which may once have been
a cemetery - has been funded within a larger grant. Back
171 Q422,
Q427 Back
172 Q412 Back
173 Q421,
Q432 Back
174 Q94 Back
175 First
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1998-99,
The Heritage Lottery Fund, HC 195,
paras 125-131. See also Fourth Special
Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Heritage
Lottery Fund: Responses by the Government and the Heritage Lottery
Fund to the First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
Session 199899, HC 386, paras xxii-xxv. Back
176 Ev
p.179 Back
177 Ev
p.181 Back
178 Ev
p.179 Back
179 Q442 Back
180 Ev
p.37 Back
181 Q79.
See also ev p.73 Back
182 See,
for example, ev pp.36-37; pp. 185-187; Annex; &c. Back
183 See
para 43 above; see also paras 97 and 98 below. Back
184 Ev
p.16 Back
185 Ev
p.5; p.16; p.40; p.107; p.122; p.140; p.144; Q315 Back
186 Ev
p.209 Back
187 Ev
p.208 Back
188 Ev
pp. 210-212 Back
189 Ev
p.209. See also ev pp. 201-202. Back
190 Ev
p.15 Back
191 Ev
p.16 Back
192 Ev
p.209 Back
193 Ev
p.210 Back
194 Ev
p.209 Back
195 Ev
p.26; pp. 43-44; pp. 45-48; p.60; p.77; pp. 112-118; p.121; p.139;
p.146; p.167; p.205; Ev not printed (National Federation of Cemetery
Friends); Q85 Back
196 Q78 Back
197 Q87 Back
198 Ev
pp. 47-48; p.60 Back