Memorandum by the Cemetery Research Group,
University of York (CEM 95)
INTRODUCTION
The Cemetery Research Group (CRG), based at
the University of York, has been operating since 1990. Its remit
covers research on the history of cemeteries both in the UK and
abroad; the cultural significance of all types of burial space;
and the development of past and current cemetery policy. It is
the only research institution of its type in the UK. The CRG has
strong links with the industry, and for that reason is in a unique
position to comment on the issues central to the Committee's Inquiry.
This brief overview will concentrate on a handful of key areas
which merit particular attention.
THE CULTURAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF
CEMETERIES
The ownership and management of burial space
has always been a core function of any organised society. In the
UK for much of the 19th and 20th Century, cultural ambivalence
relating to the status of the dead and their disposal led to the
gradual devaluating of the place of burial. This situation is
beginning to change. Society is becoming more attuned to the needs
of the bereaved. Greater attention is being paid to the ways in
which cemetery management can contribute to meeting those needs,
for example through the provision of special services such as
babies' and children's sections in new cemeteries. At the same
time, burgeoning interest in family and local history and in environmental
issues has revived interest in the merits of older Victorian sites.
Cemeteries are considered more important now than at any other
time since the end of the First World War. However, policy frameworks
do not reflect the growing value assigned to cemeteries. Burial
authorities often employ cemetery managers without the requisite
training; cemetery matters are rarely considered at higher, strategic
management level within local authorities; and successive governments
have failed to establish clear departmental responsibility for
ensuring that cemetery management is undertaken in compliance
with the law. Local authority managers with a desire to improve
their services are hampered by archaic legal frameworks and unsympathetic
bureaucracies. It is clear that a full review of legislation and
management practices is required.
THE CONDITION
OF CEMETERIES,
AND FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES
The narrative account of `death taboo and cemetery
neglect' has frequently been illustrated by the fate of a specific
handful of Victorian cemeteries in London, most of which were
set up before 1850. These cemeteries, which were originally owned
by private cemetery companies, fell into disrepair as the companies
edged towards bankruptcy. Many were acquired by local authorities
during the 1970s and 1980s, a time when cemetery management was
geared towards clearance and lawnscaping. Few local authorities
would now endorse such measures, but the image of `philistine
on a bulldozer' maintenance has endured, often fuelled by poor
management practices in the handful of private cemeteries that
are still operational.
A more accurate representation of the fate of
the majority of Victorian cemeteries is much more complex. Most
Victorian cemeteries are owned by local authorities and always
have been. However, capital expenditure on cremation, coupled
with a cultural disregard for burial, led to diminishing cemetery
budgets. Although the vast majority of Victorian cemeteries are
still used for burial, income is not sufficient to cover ongoing
expenditure. Massive capital expenditure is required to offset
years of under-maintenance.
Even if funds were available, authorities' powers
to repair memorials—an integral component of the cemetery
landscape—is restricted to actions that ensure that the
memorial is safe. Memorials remain the private property of the
families that erect them, and local authorities are not empowered
to institute restoration programmes. Changes in the law are required
to deal with a huge legacy of memorials with no owner, and to
ensure that this problem does not recreate itself with succeeding
generations.
The desire to `save' cemeteries has generally
met with a limited response from agencies that should have been
proactive in the cause of cemetery conservation. For perhaps a
decade now, the Victorian Society and English Heritage have addressed,
in a rather unenergetic way, the task of surveying cemeteries
to decide which features of which sites are worthy of grant-aid.
Funding based on the priority protection of
what is deemed `the best' will introduce a degree of elitism that
is not appropriate to the task of protecting cemetery landscapes.
Every cemetery is of integral importance to the history and development
of the community in which it is located. Decisions relating to
funding should therefore be based on other considerations. It
is suggested that attention be given to a guarantee of supporting
long-term revenue funding from the site owner; evidence of strategic
working with local planning and amenity agencies; and most importantly,
evidence of local community input to a management plan. Strength
of local commitment to a site—and not necessarily through
a Friends group—should be a principal requisite for funding.
MEETING THE
NEEDS OF
THE BEREAVED
The principal purpose of the cemetery is disposal
of the dead; this task should be completed with sensitivity of
the needs of the bereaved. The importance of a final resting place
has been underlined by recent trends in favour of the formal burial
of cremated remains and the erection of memorials over plots in
which ashes are buried. The Institute of Burial and Cremation
Administration must be congratulated on the production of a Charter
for the Bereaved. The institution of Best Value could be a valuable
vehicle by which important features of the Charter are established
as measurable good practice. At the heart of any strategy for
the improvement of cemetery management should be an understanding
of how such measures might enhance services for the bereaved.
Local authorities should be offered guidance on consultation with
user groups.
BURIAL IN
A MULTI-CULTURAL
SOCIETY
One of the more significant features of cemeteries
is their intention to serve the whole community. Many contain
sections dedicated for use by particular religious denominations.
However, some denominations retain a tradition of separate burial.
The Church of England has a substantial interest in burial, and
interments continue to take place in churchyards that remain under
the aegis of special ecclesiastical law. The status of the Church
of England as the Established Church means that the Church enjoys
particular privileges with respect to its burial space, the foremost
of which is the ability to pass responsibility for churchyard
maintenance to local authorities once the churchyard is declared
closed. Essentially, the Church has been able to enjoy the financial
benefits of interment without the responsibility to consider longer-term
maintenance. This measure is outmoded and overtly inequitable
in a multi-cultural society. The burial spaces of, for example,
Nonconformist denominations, Jewish communities and Muslim groups
are not afforded like protection. Legislative measures should
not privilege some types of burial space over others.
THE ROLE
OF THE
GOVERNMENT
Generally in the UK, only limited information
is readily available on the ownership, management and regulation
of cemeteries. There are a number of areas of concern to the Inquiry,
where lack of research has meant that there is no definitive statement
of affairs. For example, there is uncertainty about:
— the number of burial authorities
currently in operation;
— how many cemeteries are used;
— how many burial authorities anticipate
running out of space within a given timescale;
— common management structures;
— the number of denominational burial
grounds in operation; and
— the role of the private sector in
delivering burial services.
Space precludes a more extensive listing, since
the above by no means represents a comprehensive account of areas
where further research is required. Successive Governments have
avoided taking responsibility for overseeing matters relating
to cemeteries, and one consequence has been the absence of a centralised
funding source for cemetery research. Lack of research leads to
poor policy development. A principal finding of the Committee
should be to highlight the need for a full review of existing
management structures and practices.
OWNERSHIP OF
CEMETERIES
At present, ownership of burial space in the
UK comprises an ad hoc amalgam of small, medium and large
local authorities operating singly or jointly; charitable trusts;
the Church; and the private sector. Differential laws operate
depending on the ownership of the site, and substantial anomolies
exist. One area that is proving highly problematic is ownership
of cemeteries by private sector companies. The Victorian period
saw the rise of investment in cemeteries, and this century has
seen their decline. There has been a recent, albeit minor, revival
of interest in private sector investment in cemeteries, in part
a reflection of the growth of interest in green burials, and the
expansion of large-scale corporate enterprises such as Services
Corporation International. Burial will remain a loss-making enterprise
as long as reuse remains illegal, and the long-term viability
of new enterprises remains doubtful. However, there is no legislation
to regulate private sector interest in cemeteries: the option
remains open for such organisations to make substantial short-term
profit, and in the long-term rely on legislative obfuscation to
duck out of responsibility for ongoing maintenance. Legislation
needs to be framed to regulate new private sector involvement
in cemetery establishment, and designate responsibility and funding
for the future management of existing private cemeteries facing
financial difficulty.
December 2000
| 
