Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, we often hear that death is one of the few certainties in life, yet the question of where people may be laid to rest is all too often treated as an afterthought in our planning system. This Bill seeks to address that omission through a simple but important principle: every community should plan responsibly for the burial needs of its population.

At present, local authorities have powers to provide cemeteries, but they are under no statutory duty to ensure that sufficient burial space exists. In many areas, burial provision depends on a patchwork of local authority cemeteries, faith organisations and private providers, with no strategic assessment of long-term demand. The result is that, in some parts of England, burial capacity is becoming increasingly constrained, placing pressure on bereaved families and on the communities they serve.

The Bill does not seek to dictate where burial grounds should be located; nor does it impose unrealistic obligations on local authorities. Instead, it asks local planning authorities to do what they already do for housing, schools, transport and green infrastructure: assess future need, incorporate that assessment into their local plans, and publish a long-term strategy for meeting any shortfall in burial capacity. Planning is about looking ahead. We routinely plan decades into the future for homes, employment, land and public services. It seems only right that we should also plan for the final resting places that communities will inevitably require.

The urgency of this matter was recognised independently by the Law Commission in its comprehensive review of burial and cremation law. The commission concluded that England and Wales face growing pressures on burial capacity, particularly in urban areas. It described the existing legal framework as “fragmented and outdated”. It observed that many burial authorities are approaching capacity and that, outside London, councils generally have no powers to reuse old graves as a means of managing demand.

We can already see the consequences. Councils including Birmingham, Leicester, Slough and Luton, as well as several London boroughs, have all warned of diminishing burial capacity. I have seen at first hand the situation in Birmingham, Dewsbury and Kirklees, as well as in my home city of Sheffield. Although national surveys have found that around one in four local authorities has 10 years or less of burial space remaining, around one in six has less than five.

This issue has been particularly significant for many faith communities. For Muslims and Jews, for example, burial is a religious obligation, and cremation is not an acceptable alternative. Many Christian denominations also continue to place great importance on burial. Although the Bill has obvious benefits for those faith communities, it is not a sectarian measure. It is about ensuring that every family, whatever its belief or tradition, has access to a dignified burial within a reasonable distance of its community. Without forward planning, families may increasingly find themselves having to arrange burial many miles from where their loved ones lived, worked and worshipped. That creates unnecessary emotional distress at a time when people are already coping with bereavement.

The Bill also supports better land use planning. By requiring burial needs to be considered as part of a local planning process, it enables authorities to identify suitable land well in advance, rather than responding to shortages through emergency or piecemeal decisions. Early planning allows burial provisions to be balanced alongside competing demands for housing, environmental protection and other essential infrastructure.

Some may question whether these plans will place an additional burden on local authorities, and I recognise those concerns. However, the duties proposed are proportionate and aligned with existing planning processes. The Bill will not require every authority to provide a cemetery; rather, it will require authorities to understand local need, assess existing capacity and explain how any future demand will be met. Those are reasonable expectations for any effective planning system.

Others may argue that changing burial practices or increased cremation rates will reduce demand. While those trends are relevant, they are far from universal. Significant sections of our population continue to require burials, and demographic growth in many areas means that demand is likely to continue for decades. Ignoring the issue today will simply pass a greater problem to future generations.

This is a modest Bill but it addresses a genuine gap in our planning framework. It promotes foresight, rather than crisis management; supports local decision-making, rather than centralised prescription; and helps ensure that communities can continue to meet one of humanity’s oldest and most fundamental needs with dignity and respect. I hope that, whatever our views on planning policies are more broadly, noble Lords will agree that preparing responsibly for the future is one of the core purposes of local government. The Bill will help ensure that burial provision is no longer overlooked in that process. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their constructive comments. During the debate, my phone has been quite busy, particularly on the question of the attendance or not of the Lords spiritual. I have actually had a message from them, which I would like to share with your Lordships’ House. It says, “We apologise for this because it is ordination season and the majority of Lords spiritual are in their dioceses or ordaining new clergy. However, this does not reflect their lack of interest; actually they are very supportive of the Bill itself and welcome an opportunity to discuss taking it forward”.

Similarly, my colleagues at the South Yorkshire Muslim Burial Trust are watching, as are many others. Clearly, as we have heard, this issue goes across communities and faiths and, as we also heard, this Bill is serious. We have talked about all being in the waiting room. The fact is that we hope many of us will still be there to make sure that we see the change that this Bill requires.

Clearly, there may be disagreement between us on how we get to the destination, but it is clear from the debate, whether from the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Jamieson, or the Minister, that we have all acknowledged there is an issue. There is a problem: how do we deal with it? As I said, it was the luck of the draw: I put my faith in that lottery and my name came out with this Bill. I know that other noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, have talked about this issue in the past, and I look forward to getting into further debate in Committee.

During the debate, we heard £24,000 being charged for a burial plot. It is a huge issue, as that is way beyond the means of most average residents, and we have got to look at the supply side. Clearly, there are opportunities here: as I said in my speech, if we are planning for homes, businesses, schools et cetera, thought has to be given to how we deal with burials now. It is better if we do it by long-term planning rather than knee-jerk reactions when trying to find space. Clearly, this challenges London, as there are clearly land issues here. That is why I said that not every local authority has to have its own provisions. It is about asking how we deal with the need that is there.

As we heard from one of our contributors, death and taxes are a given in life and I really welcome the opportunity to present this Bill to your Lordships’ House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.