| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Feb 2007 : Column 235WH—continued
On the reuse of graves, it is worth remembering that as long ago as January 2004, the Home Office published the consultation paper “Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century: The Need for a Sensible and Sustainable Approach”, which I have already mentioned. The consultation on that document ended in August 2004—almost three years ago—but a summary of the responses was not published until almost two years later, in April 2006. For reasons that were never explained, responsibility for the matter was then moved from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Almost another year later, there is still no new guidance on burial law or policy
from the Government. So far, the review has seen three Home Secretaries and two Departments, but no action. There is also a burial and cemeteries advisory group, which is made up of Departments and regional government bodies. The group is meant to offer advice and guidance, but it has not met since December 2004.
It is unfair of the Government to expect town councils such as Bicester to grapple with sensitive issues such as cemetery provision, without any help, guidance or advice. Given the scarcity of land available for burials and given that some burial grounds have closed because they are full, it is not surprising that the possible reuse of graves or burial grounds has been under consideration for some time. In its 2001 report, the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs concluded:
“It is the almost universal view of those in the burial industry that reuse is the only long-term solution not only to the lack of burial space, but also to the long-term financial viability of cemeteries. If the public are to continue to have access to affordable, accessible burial in cemeteries fit for the needs of the bereaved, there appears to be no alternative to grave reuse...For the reasons stated above, and assuming that the necessary safeguards are included, we are ourselves of the opinion that legislation should be introduced allowing burial to take place in reused graves.”
The university of York’s cemetery research group observed:
“Difficulties with burial authorities running out of space for interments have led to proposals favouring the reuse of graves. Reuse comprises what has been termed the ‘lift and deepen’ method, whereby graves are excavated to their deepest depth, with all remains - including bones and any coffin furniture - placed in a casket and re-interred at the bottom of the grave. A survey of 1603 members of the public found that the majority of people would not object to this system if it was well-regulated, and if disturbance took place only after 100 years.”
In its summary of responses to the consultation paper, the Department said:
“Most respondents were in favour of pursuing a re-use option for burial grounds, varying from those who consider the practice should be implemented immediately to those who regarded it as very much a last resort”.
the “lift and deepen” method was preferred”.
Some 18 months ago, the Minister gave a written ministerial statement in which she said:
“Arrangements are now in hand to discuss with burial practitioners and others the practical details of the changes needed to give effect to law reform in this area. In doing so, we will consider sympathetically the case for enabling the re-use of old burial grounds, seeking a balance between the interests of relatives and descendants and the wider needs of the local community. The further work now initiated is expected to be completed next spring.”
Of course, that would have been last spring. Her statement went on:
“Thereafter the Government will inform the House of their plans to bring forward proposals for burial law reform.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 2-3WS.]
Last May, in a press interview about the need to address the shortage of space in cemeteries, the Minister was quoted as saying:
“We have now got to make some decisions that have been put off and put off...We have got to be relatively prompt about it. This is not a problem that will go away.”
Clearly, it is not going to go away. Ministers have consulted and there has been a clear response to the
consultation, it must now be for them to get to grips with bringing forward proposals for burial law reform.
I move to the issue of compulsory purchase. There is no compulsory purchase power for local authorities to buy land specifically for cemeteries. I believe that district councils can use the very general powers in the Local Government Act 1972, which gives principal councils—I assume that that includes district councils—the power to acquire land compulsorily
“for any purpose for which they are authorised...to acquire land...whether situated inside or outside their area.”
Cemeteries are needed for the public good and it must be in the interests of the public good that local authorities are able to acquire land for cemeteries. The advantage of being able to acquire such land by way of compulsory purchase, if land owners are not willing to sell voluntarily by private treaty, is that the valuation office will set a fair market price. Compulsory purchase provides a mechanism of last resort by which local authorities could find land for cemetery use.
There appears to have been a further twist in the Bicester saga. The town council was led to understand that it might well succeed with compulsory purchase proceedings if it could identify only one site on the outskirts of Bicester that was suitable for a cemetery, but that it would be very difficult to take forward such proceedings if it identified more than one suitable site. I find that rather curious. The chief executive of Cherwell district council, Mary Harpley, advised me that
“with regards to the possibility of using Compulsory Purchase powers, such powers are usually contested by the landowner. The Council would have to prove that no suitable alternative to the use of that particular land was possible. To do that, the Town Council will have to document all the approaches they have made to landowners around the town. In the Planning Officers’ experience, without such documentation the Compulsory Purchase Order is unlikely to be confirmed.”
That is clearly a substantial administrative responsibility for any parish or town council to undertake.
Lastly, it follows that if there is no suitable land available within the town of Bicester, land will have to be found in neighbouring parishes. Surely, it must be right to ensure that district councils, as the local planning authorities, put provision for cemetery land into local plans and the local development framework proposals. There may well be landowners in neighbouring villages who have agricultural land that they are unlikely ever to get permission to use for anything other than agriculture. Such landowners might well be willing to sell that land for a cemetery, as it would probably be of greater market value than agricultural land.
These issues need to be considered sensitively with the parish councils of any neighbouring parish. They should seek to identify sites that are sympathetic and accessible, as far as possible, and which command the support of local residents. Identifying sites in that way is probably best done through a planning system and the local development plan, but there seems to be no impetus or obligation on district councils to do that. I fully appreciate that this is an extremely sensitive subject, but further procrastination is not going to make it any less sensitive. Town and parish councils are being put in an increasingly difficult position. I am sure that others will be grateful for the Minister’s reply.
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for securing the debate on this subject. The issues that he has raised about the town of Bicester in his constituency will echo with you, Mr. Martlew, as the Member of Parliament for Carlisle. No doubt, many of the issues that he described will be more familiar to your constituents than to mine in an inner-city area. However, this is a problem across the board, and this is an important opportunity to discuss it.
I want to make it clear from the outset that we want to give as much help as we can to any individual authority that faces this problem, and I give the undertaking that my officials will work with the relevant local authority in the hon. Gentleman’s area to discuss the issues that they face.
As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important for people to have within their community a place to bury their relatives. For hundreds of years, that place has been the churchyard around the parish church, but from the 19th century, the increasing population meant that small churchyards could no longer provide burial space on the scale required. New cemeteries needed to be provided—first by private companies and then by local authorities. Many of those new burial grounds are now 100 years old or more, and many are becoming full. The cost of maintaining those grounds without income from burial fees has become so high that some have fallen into disrepair.
At first, it was thought that the answer would be cremation. Although it was unpopular when it was initiated at the end of the 19th century, demand grew slowly and steadily until the 1960s, when the number of cremations overtook the number of burials for the first time. Everyone thought that there would soon be no demand for burials and that the demand for cremations would increase exponentially, but that was not the case. The proportion of cremations reached about 70 per cent. some 15 years ago and seems to have remained steady at that level. It is difficult to predict certainties, but burial grounds are likely to remain important for society in the foreseeable future.
That is the lesson that the Government took from the work of the then Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs when it reported on cemeteries in 2001. It identified long-term problems with the maintenance and provision of burial space, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and a need to review the law and to provide renewed direction and priority for local authorities.
Since that report was published, the Government have undertaken a range of work to address the issues. We set up an advisory group of burial professionals and others, which meets regularly. We commissioned and published the findings of research on cemetery management. We issued a consultation paper, as the hon. Gentleman said, on a review of burial law, and published a summary of the responses. We published practical guidance for burial ground managers, and undertook a survey of burial grounds in England and Wales.
Since I took over ministerial responsibility for these matters in May 2005, I have met the all-party parliamentary
group on funerals and bereavement, and I pay tribute to its work under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner). I have discussed with ministerial colleagues who are responsible for local government and health the health and safety aspects of the maintenance of burial grounds. I have consulted and attended meetings of the Local Government Association’s safer communities board—I pay tribute to the work of councillor Bryony Rudkin—which has brought together local authorities with this concern, and I discussed the issues with them. I have met members of the burial and cemeteries advisory group and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and responded to many letters and questions from right hon. and hon. Members. I would not want any Members or anyone outside who is concerned about this matter to think that it was not being thought through and addressed. We must proceed, but carefully and sensitively, in consultation and in a pragmatic way. That is what we have sought to do.
The hon. Gentleman is right that no person or organisation is under a statutory obligation to provide a burial ground. The law that he mentioned imposes a responsibility to ensure that the dead are disposed of, and that is what happens. The dead are disposed of, and there has been no situation in which we have felt that we need a statutory obligation to enable the dead to be buried.
As the hon. Gentleman said, in shire counties, town and parish councils, as well as district authorities, all have the power to provide burial grounds. The Church of England has provided churchyards as a matter of practice for many hundreds of years, and a number of other religious organisations have provided burial facilities. Increasingly, private individuals and organisations have developed burial grounds on an entirely commercial basis, particularly in response to specific requirements, such as providing less formal or more natural or environmentally sensitive burial grounds. There is new private sector activity in addition to the involvement of local authorities and what the Church has traditionally done. There is a mixed economy that is dependent on demand and a sense of pastoral care, and that overall system seems to be the best way of moving forward.
There is a problem of burial space not being available uniformly or conveniently for all local communities. A question raised in the public consultation paper, which the hon. Gentleman also raised, was whether there should be a new duty to provide burial space. That suggestion attracted support, and many respondents thought that district rather than town or parish councils were the right home for such a duty. I believe that the mixed economy in which we do not say that a specific authority has the duty, while others do not, is the best way forward. The Government remain unconvinced about imposing a statutory duty placing an obligation on one authority at the expense of others. We do not believe that that is the right way forward. We want different solutions in different areas, rather than to step in and say how things should be done uniformly in all areas.
Planning for a range of local services is vital to local government functions. Respondents to our consultation said that inclusion of burial needs assessments in local
planning arrangements was a sensible and achievable goal. We are attracted to the case for better planning for adequate facilities, and it seems sensible to identify ways in which the different levels of local government, Churches and private concerns can work more effectively together to provide not only enough burial space, but a range of different sorts of burial grounds within the context of the different demands that local authorities must respond to when making their local plans.
On land acquisition, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was arguing for a short-circuiting of the compulsory purchase arrangements. Local authorities and other public authorities must go through a number of procedures before they are entitled to take over land because they are expropriating private property. It is absolutely right that they should not be able simply to point to a piece of land and say, “We want that.” If they want land, they need to go out to the market and they should not be able merely to say that they want to appropriate it.
New cemeteries are most likely to be needed in built-up areas, where land is liable to be in short supply and subject to competing demands. It would be difficult to argue that burial grounds should be afforded priority over other important land use requirements, such as housing, schools and hospitals. Balancing local priorities is the job of local planning authorities and it would be hard to justify a special status for burial ground applications in the planning system. Neither do we think that well founded local objections to planning applications for burial grounds should be given any less weight simply because a burial facility is at stake. We are encouraging local authorities to put that in their local plans, but we should not have a new compulsory purchase provision enabling them to say that because the land is for burial they must grab it, or that because the application is for burial space the normal consultations are unnecessary.
I appreciate that land that might otherwise be used for housing or commercial purposes will attract a premium, but that is inevitable. Introducing valuation controls for land sold for burial use, even if that seemed sensible on the surface, would be unfair for landowners if they received less compensation because their land was to be used for a burial ground rather than for other purposes. On the whole, respondents to the consultation paper took a pragmatic approach to these difficult issues and recognised that the costs of providing burial grounds might simply have to be borne by those who wanted them. Those costs would have to be reflected in burial fees and other charges.
We appreciate that the costs and administrative procedures involved in acquiring land for burial can be significant, especially for smaller authorities. In such circumstances it may be particularly helpful to discuss with the relevant district councils how best they can help parish councils.
On the reuse of old burial grounds, we are moving forward innovatively. In the first instance, we are supporting London boroughs in the reuse, at their discretion, of burial grounds that are more than 75 years old. We must proceed with caution and sensitivity because people have deeply held feelings. We are taking the matter forward, but we are starting by looking at how it works in London. That may show that people are prepared to take what is often considered to be a drastic step.
Carbon Capture and Storage
1 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on carbon capture and storage. I apologise to the Minister in advance because I have a cold, and if I start coughing and spluttering during his response, that will have nothing to do with his answers on this hugely important subject. Indeed, I am sure that they will be so favourable that he will manage to dissipate my affliction and I will be so enthused that my adrenaline will surge.
Once in every generation, an industrial opportunity comes about whose scale and potential are so mind-blowing that it must be grabbed and realised. When something of that magnitude comes along, it is also incumbent on those in authority, who pursue the public purpose, to recognise the scale and importance of such opportunities. They must ensure that the decisions that they make and, indeed, those that they do not make, which can cause delay, do not put such projects in jeopardy. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should tell the Minister that his pen is just to his right and slightly underneath the desk, if that is any help—I can see it from here. The Minister is now effecting pen capture and storage.
My proposition is that, given its scale and potential, carbon capture and storage, which will give us a foothold in the hydrogen-based economy, is just such a concept. The second part of that proposition is that it is absolutely necessary that the Government and public authorities ensure that nothing that they do or do not do prevents the early realisation of that potential. Let me give a couple of quotes to indicate the extent of what we are talking about.
The British Geological Survey—the Minister will recognise this, because he helpfully pointed me towards it in a parliamentary answer a year or so back—estimates that potential carbon dioxide storage capacity in the UK sector of the North sea is 755 gigatonnes, which is an immense amount, given that Scottish CO2 output is only 50 million tonnes annually and that worldwide CO2 output is 8 gigatonnes annually. In other words, according to the British Geological Survey, almost a century’s worth of the CO2 produced in the world could, theoretically at least, be stored in the North sea alone.
That one concept gives us an indication of the extent and importance of what we are discussing. If the technology works and can be mastered and pursued, it could probably make the single biggest immediate contribution to addressing what the Prime Minister and many international authorities describe as the biggest question facing the planet: the inconvenient truth about global warming and the industrial processes that have spilled so much carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. We are therefore looking at something that could make the single biggest contribution to addressing that problem.
Let me quote the United Kingdom Hydrogen Association, as well as talk specifically about the hopes that we have for the Peterhead project in my constituency. The project involves the pre-burn separation of methane into carbon dioxide and hydrogen, so we would, in effect, be building
a hydrogen refinery. Another way of looking at the power station, therefore, is that it will be a refinery producing vast quantities of hydrogen. The association, which promotes the possibilities that the hydrogen economy could offer this country and others, says:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |