Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for bringing forward this Bill, and for the clarity of its purpose, which he spoke about.

This is a thoughtful and timely proposal for addressing an issue that other noble Lords have raised, which is clearly important. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Not unsurprisingly, space in cemeteries is a key issue. In one of my villages, Westoning, there are six spaces left in a village of around 2,000 souls. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, said that he is in the waiting room; we are all in the waiting room—some of us just wish to wait a little bit longer than maybe he does. That point is very pertinent for some of my residents, who are very conscious that they want to be buried in their local village. For the 17 years I have been there, I have been helping them try to find a site, but it is not necessarily easy. You would have thought that in a village in the middle of the green belt there would be space, but when you take account of land ownership and in my area the risk of flooding in particular—obviously, you have to have a water table well below the depth at which you bury people—it is not simple. However, it is very important, and I recognise that.

Responsibility for burial provision rests primarily with local authorities. I am not quite sure of the case in London but, in many rural areas, the actual delivery is done by parish councils, religious bodies and churches. With the pressures due to land use, demographic change and different faith and cultural communities, the current framework is frankly increasingly stretched. The Law Commission’s ongoing review of the death management system has highlighted the complexity of existing arrangements and the need for a more coherent and long-term view.

I also want to highlight what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised. As he said, in the 17th and 18th centuries, this was a commercial opportunity. He mentioned the seven major cemeteries in London, one of which is Highgate Cemetery, which I had the pleasure of visiting about a year ago. That was set up as a private enterprise and made a lot of money, until it went bust. Running cemeteries is a long-term business. They are costly to set up and there are ongoing costs for a long period of time.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, mentioned the price of £24,000. For many people, that is way out of reach. I would not like to go back to the 17th-century provision where the nobility can have themselves buried nicely and the paupers cannot. It is very important that we look at this in the round. I take his suggestion that maybe we should look at extending the Bill to look at how we can reuse existing facilities, bearing in mind that that would also raise the whole issue of the ownership of those facilities.

We recognise the challenges and the sensitivities, but ensuring that all communities have access to dignified, appropriate burial space is a basic matter of respect. The Bill’s emphasis on consultation with faith groups, burial authorities and neighbouring councils is very welcome. We also note the context of the Law Commission’s work on grave reuse. Although the Government have yet to publish their full response, the commission’s proposals on strengthening safeguards, extending powers beyond London and protecting war graves demonstrate the scale of reform that may be required in the years ahead. The Bill does not pre-empt that work but provides a practical interim framework for local planning.

There will clearly be questions in Committee. One that I will focus on is the resource implications. As I mentioned, it is not just about the cost of setting up a cemetery but of looking after it for not five, 10 or 20 years but potentially over 100. That cumulative cost is significant, and many local authorities are severely stretched. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, implied that it would not necessarily be a burden on local councils but, as I understand it, as the Bill is written ultimately they are the backstop—if you are the backstop for anything, you need to make sure that you can afford it.

Given the stretched finances of local government, particularly after some recent cuts for some councils, what is the Government’s position on new burdens? This will be a new burden for local councils. Also, we need to look at the interaction between existing planning duties, the balance between local discretion and national prescription and the responsibilities for existing sites and how they will be managed. However, the principle that burial space should be planned for transparently, consistently and with due regard to community need is one that we support. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the House as we move forward on this Bill. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill and we welcome the opportunity to scrutinise it further.