Friday 3rd July 2026
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberLocal Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to talk about last thing on a Friday being the graveyard slot. This is a very serious topic. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for tabling this Private Member’s Bill and for giving me the opportunity to meet with him yesterday to talk through what he wanted to do and the principles around the Bill. I also thank my noble friends Lord Stansgate and Lord Brooke for speaking to me in advance of the Bill coming before the House.
I start with a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, used: that every family should have access to a dignified burial close to their community. That was a very important phrase to someone who has been involved with local government for as many years as I have, and I know he has. It is very important that we keep our focus on that. I recognise the importance of the provision of burial space. I have some reservations around the necessity for the Bill, which I will come to in a moment.
The Bill as proposed would require local planning authorities to include suitable provision for burial space in their local plans and put that on the statute book as a separate issue to other issues that come forward for planning. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the policy expectations for what should be considered in the development of the plan, including local plans and in decision-making. The framework for what should be considered is set through policy and not statute, to offer the necessary flexibility to local planning authorities across the country to consider their local area and the specific needs of the local population.
It is a matter for local authorities to allocate local resources in line with their priorities, and this includes burial provision. In areas where this is an issue, such as London or Cambridge, many local authorities already include specific policies on burial grounds in their local plans. We want to ensure that local planning authorities can do this where there is a concern, but are not required to allocate where there is not an issue in their local area. The current NPPF includes policies to ensure that there is provision for community facilities and public service infrastructure in local areas.
The current version of the NPPF does not directly reference burial spaces. However, it sets out that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places that make sufficient provision for community facilities such as health, education and cultural infrastructure. It also allows for the provision of burial space on green-belt land. That might respond to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about treating that kind of development differently.
We consulted on an updated National Planning Policy Framework between September 2025 and March 2026. The draft NPPF is clear that development plans should promote the creation of healthy and inclusive places and the provision, retention and enhancement of appropriate community facilities and public service infrastructure. It is up to a local authority to determine the local need for those facilities, which could include burial grounds, as many local authorities have already done.
The proposed NPPF also offers protections for existing burial grounds through setting out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is unlikely to apply in situations which would involve the whole or partial loss of undeveloped land which is used for a cemetery or burial ground. Furthermore, the draft NPPF sets out that burial grounds are a form of development where there are benefits to approval outside settlements and that they are not inappropriate in the green belt. We received over 20,000 responses to the consultation, including a small number on this specific issue. We are currently analysing all those responses and intend to publish our response with the new NPPF in the summer.
The Law Commission’s recent report was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. We are acutely aware of concerns around burial space, which were considered in that report. While the report did not call for statutory burial provision, as the Bill does, it did address a number of issues, such as burial ground management and records, which my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are leading on. We will publish a government response to the Law Commission report in due course, and I look forward to working with MoJ colleagues and local government as we take these important issues forward.
Turning to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stansgate for taking us through the history of burial and how it works. I found the HS2 excavations and some of the information that they have thrown up really fascinating. We have had our own example of that in Stevenage, where Roman remains were found when we were excavating sites. It is fascinating. Both he and my noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the fact that the Bishops are not present today; I am sure that they will have their own views and that they will get involved in the Bill at a later stage. When my noble Lord Stansgate referred to the “midnight Bill” as the Anatomy Act 1832, it put me in mind of a much more up-to-date version, which was the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which saw us here at four o’clock in the morning—that practice was not limited to the 19th century. Of course, I am also aware of the issues around Bishop’s Stortford in the Bill that came through this House that he mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Brooke spoke about being in the waiting room. I hope he has as long a wait in that waiting room as we would all want him to have: we want to see him here long into the future. Both he and my noble friend Lord Stansgate mentioned the Church of England. Of course, burial on land consecrated by the Church of England is governed by the faculty jurisdiction and is a matter for the Church, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Brooke will continue his dialogue with the Church of England on that.
On the point that my noble friend Lord Brooke made about green policy, I want to highlight the very good practice we are seeing in some areas of providing for green burial grounds, which is very creditable. I pay tribute to my colleagues in local government for their action in this respect. I think that has been a really great development in recent times.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked what the Government are currently doing on the provision of burial space. We are aware of increasing local pressure on burial spaces in some parts of the country. He will know that we do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for burial grounds, which are managed locally, and that there is no statutory duty on local authorities to make that provision. It is a matter for each local authority to allocate local resources, but the Law Commission’s recent report means that we are very keen to engage with stakeholders, including local authority representatives, to understand how, in the context of responding to the commission’s recommendations, we can best facilitate local provision and management of burial capacity going forward. Certainly, it is my intention to do that.
I have already spoken about the Law Commission recommendations. There is, of course, a very close connection between the work streams that the Law Commission has under way on this, and we will consider the most practical approach to publishing our response, including the timing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, mentioned the specific requirements for different communities in terms of burial practices, as did my noble friend Lord Stansgate. Measures have been taken in recent years to update crematoria, in particular, so that they better reflect and understand the needs of different cultures and faiths. It is for local authorities to deal with this because they can decide what their priorities are, depending on the groups they represent locally. We are keen to engage closely with representatives from faith communities on all issues in relation to death management, particularly when we work on that response to the Law Commission’s report.
The noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Jamieson, referred to the issue of funding for this. As I think was mentioned, it is a very long forward commitment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was talking about Highgate cemetery. These are of course long-term commitments that have to be made by local authorities, so, if the Government were to support this Bill, we would consider relevant impacts, such as those set out in the new burdens doctrine. I hope that responds to those questions.
It is of course appropriate for these matters to be addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and needs, which may of course include the specific needs of their diverse communities and local population. This is a timely intervention because of the progress of the National Planning Policy Framework, so I am incredibly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for prompting me, as we go through the stages of publishing the next version of the policy framework, to look in particular at this issue. We will respond to the recent consultation in due course and of course we will keep the matter under review, in the light of all the consultation responses we have had and the contributions in the House today. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Friday 11th September 2026
(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberLocal Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for managing this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, and all noble Lords who have contributed so constructively. How we bury our dead is a hugely important issue, but one which is too often overlooked or which people feel uncomfortable talking about. It should not be so.
Edmund Burke said that society is a partnership of the dead, the living and the unborn. It is only right that we can lay our loved ones to rest with dignity, and therefore right that local authorities make the necessary provisions for burial space. Just last month, it was reported that 17 local authorities in London will run out of space by 2040, and Camden, Hackney and Tower Hamlets already have. So, as the noble Lord says, there is a need for this timely Bill, which promises to address a gap in our planning framework to ensure that these issues are addressed. We look forward to its progress in the other place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for bringing this very important matter to us through this timely Private Member’s Bill, which helpfully coincided with the publication of a new National Planning Policy Framework. It remains the Government’s position that local matters, such as burial space, are best addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs of their local communities. I appreciate the comments from my noble friend Lord Stansgate on this.
Some of the events we heard about the other day in the Chamber—genuinely shocking events that took place—highlighted that this is an issue where, although local authorities play a key part, there may be further work that government can do in terms of regulation and so on. I echo the thoughts expressed in the Chamber to the families of those affected by that recent scandal.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectations for what should be considered in local plans and in decision-making. I am pleased to update the House that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August. The definition of “community facilities” in the NPPF has been updated explicitly to include cemeteries and burial grounds, in recognition of concerns raised that these local assets have not been sufficiently recognised in national planning policy. This means that all relevant policies in the NPPF relating to community facilities also apply to cemeteries and burial grounds. This includes that development plans should be informed by an understanding of any existing deficits and additional requirements expected in the availability of community facilities and, where appropriate, should allocate land specifically for community facilities. That applies to local authorities in London as well, of course.
I hope that the recent changes made to the NPPF provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the concerns he has raised have been carefully considered. They were extremely important and are now reflected more clearly in national planning policy.