Toppling of Headstones at Cemeteries
Renfrewshire Council · 11 November 2024
Back to Petitions Board — 11 November 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
To: Petitions Board On: 11 November 2024 Report by: Director of Finance and Resources Heading: Petition – Stop Renfrewshire Council Toppling Headstones at Local Cemeteries 1. Summary 1.1 The Council has agreed procedures in relation to the submission of petitions including parameters for determining valid petitions and those areas where petitions would not be valid. 1.2 All petitions are to be submitted to the Board for consideration and a summary report is to be prepared on any petitions which are not considered to be valid in terms of the procedures. It is for the Board to determine the validity of such petitions. 1.3 A petition containing 1,549 signatures has been received from Mr D Barr, Friends of Hawkhead Cemetery in the following terms: - “Stop Renfrewshire Council Toppling Headstones at Local Cemeteries.” 1.4 Submitted alongside the petition was a list of reasons provided by those who had signed the petition, which covered a number concerns including a lack of respect for the dead and visiting mourners, the lack of notice/consultation and the cost of maintaining headstones which falls on to families. Also submitted was a document titled ‘Memorial Safety – An Alternate View’ which set out examples of different practice from other areas. This document has been attached to this report as Appendix 1 1.5 The Council’s Head of Operations & Service Development has provided a response to the concerns raised in the petition and where appropriate suggested actions to resolve them. This has been attached to the report as Appendix 2. 1.6 The role of the Board is to consider the petition and take the appropriate action in respect of the petition which will be one of the following:
Page 2
(a) that no action is taken, in which case the reasons will be specified and intimated to the petitioner; (b) that the petition be referred to the relevant director/and or policy board for further investigation, with or without any specific recommendation; or (c) refer the petition to another organisation if the petition relates to that organisation. 1.7 The principal petitioner, together with one supporter has been invited to attend the meeting. 2 Recommendation 2.1 That the Board considers the petition. 3. Implications of the Report 1. Financial – none 2. HR & Organisational Development – none 3. Community/Council Planning - none 4. Legal – none 5. Property/Assets – none 6. Information Technology - none. 7. Equality & Human Rights - none The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. If required following implementation, the actual impact of the recommendations and the mitigating actions will be reviewed and monitored, and the results of the assessment will be published on the Council’s website. 9. Health & Safety - none 10. Procurement - none 11. Risk - none. 12. Privacy Impact - none 13. Cosla Policy Position – not applicable.
Page 3
14. Climate Risk – not applicable List of Background Papers (a) Background Paper - 1 Petition Author: Euan Gray, Senior Committee Services Officer Tel: 0141 487 1099 Email: euan.gray@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 4
Memorial Safety - AnAlternative View Morning Councillors, Further to my email of Friday 15th March 2024,please find below: . Intoduction . Dean & Manor Road Cemetery . Overview from Douglas Swan/Tomason Consultants . MonuGrid- s,omething dtfferent . What the industry saYs . Scottish Govemment . ICCM Management of Memorials . And finally...an inspirational video INTRODUCTION The importance of memorial safety cannot be underplayed, and it is testimony to Renfrewshire Council that they have a dedicated team soleþ undertaking these responsibilities. The Scottish Government legislation allows for many things to happen within "Memorial Safety Inspections", these include: . Staking ¡ Trenching/Socketing o Repair where possíble . Laying flat The council as a matter of cogrse choose the latter option, FOHC have an alternative view to this practice. After extensive research, we wish the following to be considered. Firstly, the report from Rodger Bumett, a senior offrcial withNorth Yorkshire Council. Appendix 1
Page 5
IIOW IT \ryAS DOITE AT DEAI\I & MANOR ROAD CEMETERY. SCARBOROUGH Whatwas úhe bacþround to the restoration of úhe headstones in I)ean and Manor Road Cemetery? Dean Road dnd Mdnot Road Cemetery has been in Council ownership sincë the elosute of the Scsrborough Burial Board in the 1920's. The general msintenance had been sfficient to Ireep the ,"*r\"ry in reasonable order with the exception of the grøvestones and memorials, *iny ofwhich h'ad been subject to vandalism and general neglect- The path network and kerbstones was also an issuà wrth inconsistent reactive repaírs being carried out periodicaþ. The tree cover was aging and there was no understory ofyoung trees with møny 'oldercprrí-"n having to be removed as theyføiled This orten kd tofu"ln! damage to headstones with treesîoppting onto them and the subsequent tree removals being done in a somø,vhat rough *onnir-rith little regard to the dømøge cøused. At this time there was no procedure in llace for topple testing althoughiust after the proiect stated there was øn attempt to carry oø ,o*i-trsting ihouse whlch leil to a number of gravestones being pushed over and smashed. Tltis procedãre was hslted on my insistence ønd tlte subsequent public backlash. In 20j2 I wsi offered a new role within the Council tasked with engaging with a wider community, wfthvery little in the wøy of budget and only two members of stafi myself and a colleague, we approøched the local Probøtíon Service to develop a partnership workíngwtl ffindeii o, orange of proiects, the cemetery beíng one of them. This partneîshíp wä backed up by Uãtn ti" council and the Probation managers who funded the inítial training ín memorial restorstion. 'IVas a separate company/charity established to manage and coordinate the restoration? No not as such it was this Partnership between the Council and the Probatíon Service that delivered the proiect, they providedîhe mønpower snd hands on supervision, we provided the equipment, matei¡als ondiup"*isedthe proiect. Th,e initíø!traíning and capitøl equípment was^jointtyfunded by both the council and the Probation Trust.
Page 6
Are there any publication/press cuttings detailing the journey? The pørtnership wøs læpt at a low key due to the sensitive nature of the work and maíntaining the anorrymity of the Offenders and althoughwe won a Local Government awardfor the partnership, overall, we didnot court publicity. The Friends group and ourselves helped out by doing tours of the cemetery selling the project to the pørticipants, the Probation Trust díd receive a lot of local prøíse but we did keep the Offenders anorrymity paramount in any thing we did. I can see an early application for lottery funding, are you able to give some indication of how, who, what and when funding was made available? (data protection acknowledged) The applicationþr lottery Funding was completely separate to the Headstone Restoration project and hud no bearing on the outcome. 'lVere private donations/bequests sought? No there was no private money involved. Were the community paybackteam involved from the outset? Yes, the lrey was the Manager from the Probation service at the time (since retired) he søw the value of a high-profile project which had huge community brry in Together with the obvious beneJìts for the offenders in learning new skills in ø highly dísciplined ønd safety conscious envir onment. Was identification of lair holders established? By this I assume you mean the grave oteners, no it was deemed too dfficult with the øge of the memorials and the time and efort involved.
Page 7
If so, was there permission required? Because we decided the age of the memorials would límit the number offamíly members still contactable, we did a blanþet notice inþrming any relatives to contqct us if they had any concerns, no one díd. However, once the project startedwe had numerous relatives contact us wtth praíse and requests for further memorials withín the cemetery to be attended to- Did they contribute to cost of repairs/restoration? As above no one conttibuted. Was VAT applicable? Again, not applicable IIow were they invoiced? As above no costs were recovered þeør ín mind the majority of the repairs were materials only and some were extremely easy and cheap to repair, only the more complex brealcs were sti;hily more expensive. It was also deemed uneconomic to attempt orry recover of costs as thã t¡me involvedwouldfar outweigh any income received' 'Where no identification of lair holders was established, how was permission sought? As prevíously stated, itwas a blanlæt notice of intentíon to work on one section of the cemetery at a time, this wøs deemed øll that wøs required and we had no issues from it'
Page 8
what assurance/guarantee were yon able/required to issue? The workwas sypervised by nryself and my colleøgue who are both trained in the restoratíon of memorials as was the mnin supervisorfrom the Probation Semice. Betweenus we carried out quality control and rectified any failid repaírs immediately. This wøs not an issue as the ,"poirt were onþ signed offby us once we had inspected the repair. Were you able to get the restored headstones insured? The Council maintøín a public Liabítity Insurance which cover arry generøl issues withín the cemetery. Diil all work unilertaken meet 85841"5 stanilarils? yes, the workwqs all carried out to British Associatíon of Memorial Masons (BMMM) and National Association of Memorial Masons (NAMM standørds using onþ øpprovedpractices andmaterials. Did the work have a detrimental effect on local monumental masons? Not that we were aware of- was there any employment created, either directly or indirectþ? No however many of the offenders went onto work ín the building trade using the sffills they had learned through the Proiect-
Page 9
Are there any testimonials from the public with regards to the restoration work? We had lots of positive comments from members of the publíc but díd not læep a record of these. Mostþ it was verbalfeedback Is there any feedbacþ positive or negative from those involved in the restoration work? Lots of the offenders involved ìn the project said it was the most rewardingiob they hød been assigned oiþort of their community orders, however due to the sensitive nature of the client basã we dílnot lreep any records of these. We generalþ had no negativefeedback apartfrom the usual weather-related nature of the work. Are you aware of any other burial authority/friends group seeking details with regards úo undertaking a similar restoration? We bssed our restorstion on a sfunílar project at Hørrogate, hawever I could not recowtmend their method at it simply involved brrytng the brolæn portion on the headstone in the ground making the text on thàm unreadable. We decidedfrom the outset this wøs not something we woudwant to emulate, and tookthe view of "Do it once do ít right". with hindsight is there anything you would have done differently? Not really the project came to an endwith the retirement of the traíned supervisor and a clwnge ínthe mqnsgement of the Prabstian Servicewho refusedta accept same Public nablhty íssues with working generaþ on public owned land, not just the cemetery- Infifty years ofworkingfor the Local Authority this was probøbly the most rewardingiob I h*e-"ie, uniertøkenwltntlrc biggest community impact. But Iwas luclcy andwas able to work on the scheme without onyint"r¡"rence and althoughwe did it on a shoestring budget finance wss never questioned. This projectfrom the outset was not a rqce it was a slow "laboríous but highly rewarding job; it did involve a lot of our tíme both as council fficers inside our normalworking day and outside-
Page 10
Would you consider a visit to l)ean and Manor Road cemetery by F'OHC to be worthwhile? We would always welcome arryone to come and have a look or indeedwe would be happy to come and look at your proiect. Do you thinkwe have ¿ chance in succeeding? Our project succeeded simply because the supervisor and the management at the timefound the ioik interesting and a wortlry project- Together with the sheer effirt and determination of my colleøgue and myself we hàd good days and bad ones, sometimes you achieved a lot ío*Ln*"t váry littte depending on the calibre of the offenders. One thing it taught us was workingwith Offenderi X lri.ghly challengíng, ofienfrustrating but highly rewørding, you need a thick skin and deaf eørs but determination and øforgiving temperament- Once people initialty involved lefi the-employment of the Probation Service the whole scheme fell apart- Luckiiy by thenwe had co*pteited Dean Road Cemetery. A new mansgement regime took over wíth dffirent views qid ¡deots not compatíble with the project- However, by thenwe had restoreã ggU of Dean Road Cemetery, Subsequent topple testing has identified about twenty memorials tn need offurther restorative work but this is literaþ out of thousands of stones repaired- The key to arry projects like thís is avery dedicated and committed Community Paybackteam, a cleai objective with lots of co-operationfrom the Local Authority, who if they invest in the scheme with a dedicated fficer to help out, sourcing smøll amounts offunding and ensuring the political wheels are oíIed the rewards are tremendous' In a nutshelt this worlæd because of the close working relationship between the Community pøyback supervisor and myself qs lead Officer, we both are skilled hønds on people with an iníerest ord d"di"otionwhich-went way beyond the normal. We both saw the benefits of the project to the community, the Council, the Community PaybackOrganisation and the ^Olienders.'We never saw problems only solutions, we sow the opportunity andranwith it r e gar dl e s s of the bur e aucr acY. We stíll høve Manor Road to complete, in the short termwe have little hope of being able to do that but given time and some creative thinking it may be possíble.
Page 11
DOUGLAS S}YAN & SONS/TOMASON CONSI]LTAIITS We invited Douglas Swan of Douglas Swan & Sons Monumental Sculptors, Kirkcudbright. Douglas, whilst being impressed with the condition of the Cemetery, he highlighted that the money could have been better spent. Here is what he said: Hello Desmond I am sorry for the delay in responding to your email and thank you for meeting me on the 10rh. Hawkhead Cemetery is in really good condition compared to many I have visited in the greater Glasgow area, it is actually encouraging to see a council with a maintenance programme and a safety policy in place. The intervention by ofñcials did not touble me at all I have been around long enough to know we had tweaked their curiosity. The good news is that Renfrewshire Council appear to be following the Government Cuidelines, however it would be good to know just how qualified the staffwho are carrying outthe work actually are. I hope that in time they shall consider restoring some of the memorials which have been laid flat. We would love to re set the firefighters memorial just to show how simple a task it can be. However, if we are not invited by them to do so then I am afraid we cannot do that. They may however come to us for some training and when .t¡/e carry out training, we repair a number of memorials as part of the training course so there is hope yet. It is obvious that there seems to be a bit of conflict between your group and Renfrewshire Council, friends groups tend to be seen as a bit of a pest to such bodies as by just being there you are keeping an eye on what they are doing- If you can find some common ground then this may assist you both to meet your aims, I *óot¿ say that I found Hawlùead good, but with a bit of guidance and not too much expenditure it could be even better. If for example the Council can claim ownership of cert¿in lairs and memorials then Heritage Lottery funãing could become avulableto them to restore some of these headstones which are after all recording the heritage of Paisley. I did enjoy my visit as I had never been to Hawlçüead before and despite the headstone which are lying flat and the official intervention, it was a pleasant experience- Kind regards Douglas Swan Tomason Consultants
Page 12
MONUGRII) please see the website tink and YouTube link for a short demonsfiation video. IOWAT - Reinforced Soil Structures (iowatgroupinc.com) https://voutu.beÆ2 3 z3NeWGw WtrA*T TIIE INDUSTRY SAYS Advice and guidance from the Local Government Ombudsman England and Wales Executive Summary General Advice Information RiskAssessment a a Councils have an overridìng duty to take, as far as reasonably practicable, measures to prevent rnjury or death from unstable memorials' Councils must balance the (sometimes slight) risk of injury on the one hand and the certainty of distress and outrage if memorials are laid down on the other' a a Councils should give public notice in advance of carrying out a general testing programme. Councils should notiff individual owners of rights of brrial that testing is to be caried out, unless records are out of date, or urgent action is required in the interests of health and safetY. Councils should notiff the owner of the right of buria! if known" if a memorial fails the test. A council should display, inthe cemetery itself and onthe cor¡ncil's website,lists of memorials which faite¿ the test. Individual notices should be placed on or near a memorial which fails the test, giving the council's contact details and the period for making contact. Councls may offer demonstrations oftheir safety testing procedure to owners and interested members of the Public. a a a a Councils should have a system for assessing the risk posed by individual unstable memorials. Simply to lay down all memorials that move is inappropriate'
Page 13
Making memorials safe . Councils should hove regard to ølternatives to laying down íf a memorial foíls the test. . A temporary support andwarning notice is likely to cause less public outrage than laying large numbers of memorialsflat- . Layiig do*n may be necessary but only to prevent a genuine hazard to health and safety that cannot be remedied by a temporary support- . Temporary stabilisation for a reasonable period affords owners the opportunity to repair the memorials. 'We commend the practice of councils that establish hardship funds to assist owners who cannot meet some or all of the repair costs, and councils that pay for all repairs themselves in the interests of preserving the amenity of their cemeteries or where no responsible person can be found. "In comparisonto Renfrewshire Council's Policy, which is as follows" Renfrewshire Council's PolicY SC OTTISH GO\rERNIVEN]L Burial ground memorial safety: Local authority guidance w It is unfortunately not possible to reach lair owners in advance of an inspection and work being carried ooi b.tt marker notices and signage at each cemetery are in place to provide lair holdérs with information to contact us for details on how to ensure their memorial meets the required safety standards. 1 1
Page 14
ICCM MANAGEMENT OX' MEMORIALS Notifiing Grave Owners - Burial authorities must advise glave owners when memorials are found to be unsafe, although consideration of the practicalitres of this process must be considered. This will mean writing to the last known address of the owners of memorials less than 30 years old (see LACO Schedule 3 Para. 4 for detail), in addition to all other publicity. This is an extremely important part of the process, as burial authorities have been severely criticised for not attempting to communicate with o\ilners. There i5 ¿ danger that if the proper notification process is not followed, including publicity of the process, warning signs and letters to grave o\ilners, the authority could be reported to the Local Govemment Ombudsman and accused of maladministration of the process. Whilst raising awareness cannot guarantee that there will not be complaints about the process it has been proved to reduce the numbers of complaints to a manageable level in most cases. Should complaints be received, experience has shown that the clear majority of unstable memorials are due to a lack of dowelling on consfuction and installation, or the use of unsuitable foundations- Risk Assessment Deciding on the most suitable means of making safe and ensrning that this is proportional to lhe potential risk: Identifu hazards and their potential to cause harm (large memorials) - Iarge memorials can kil aná if they are unstabie immediate action should be taken to remove the risk if at all possible, ty sãfüng into the ground, repairing the memorial or by laying flat. Cordoning and Luoi"tt máy be ináppropriate and a more substantial barrier, to standards indicated in HSE:HSG 151 -Protecting the Public' Identiff hazards and their potential to cause harm (lawn ty¡re memorials) - cnnsideration shoutd be given to the fact that these smaller memorials tend to result in less serious injuries anã, particularly if the memoríals are back-to-bactio they are less likely to fall in such a way as to result in a maior injury. In addition to this the owners of lawn type memorials, as they are predominantþ the newer memorials in a burial ground, are more likely to be contactablá Actions such as simply placing notices on'back-to-back' type memorials, cordoning individual graves or even whole sections, dependant on the number of failures, may be coÑdered by the authority to be an appropriate way of managing the risk. In addition to ihysicat action each memorial should have a notice placed upon it, as indicated previousþ. fnir type of action may be deemed both appropriate for the control of the risk and sensitive to bereaved families.
Page 15
This is ulhat we can achieve if we pull together. Below is a video of footage from Dean & ManorRoad Cemetery. I appreciate this is a lot to read, but with some serious consideration, I think you would agree that together we can make a difference. Best regards Desmond Barr Onbehalf of FOHC
Page 16
Renfrewshire Council Environment & infrastructure BRIEFING NOTE FOR PETITIONS BOARD Subject: FOHC Petition to “stop Renfrewshire Council toppling headstones at local cemeteries” Date: 11th November 2024 _________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY/TOP LINE Renfrewshire Council received a petition from Mr Desmond Barr, on behalf of the Friends of Hawkhead Cemetery (FoHC), dated 27 June 2024. The petition is titled ‘Stop Renfrewshire Council toppling headstones at local cemeteries’. The petition details seven areas of research by FoHC and asks that the Council give consideration to each of these areas. This briefing note considers each of the seven areas highlighted and provides the Council’s response. KEY POINTS Mr Desmond Barr, Friends of Hawkhead Cemetery, submitted a petition titled, ‘Stop Renfrewshire Council toppling headstones at local cemeteries’. The petition asked for Renfrewshire Council to investigate alternative methods to laying headstones flat and to address the upset of families and provide reason where possible in response to the comments within the petition. It should be noted that the alternative methods and areas for consideration have already been reviewed and a response provided to Mr Barr via Cllr Nicolson 29th April 2024. BACKGROUND There has been correspondence with members of Friends of Hawkhead dating back a few years. Most, if not all of the areas requiring consideration under this petition, have already been considered and responses provided. PETITION - AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Dean & Manor Road Cemetery 2. Overview from Douglas Swan / Tomason Consultants 3. MonuGrid – Something Different Appendix 2
Page 17
2 4. What the industry says 5. Scottish Government 6. ICCM Management of Memorials 7. Inspirational Video 1. DEAN & MANOR ROAD CEMETERY The first area for consideration under the petition concerns a report from Rodger Burnett, a senior official with North Yorkshire Council. The report details the restoration of headstones in a churchyard in partnership with the local Probation Service. The report describes a unique project carried out in a closed churchyard situation. By necessity, the partnership between the Council and Probation Service was kept low key, due to the sensitive nature of work, and because the anonymity of the offenders was deemed paramount. By contrast, Hawkhead Cemetery is a large fully operational cemetery which receives many visitors each day. It is anticipated that it would prove more difficult to preserve the anonymity of offenders, under such circumstances. The information provided also mentioned that the project required a lot of staff resource from dedicated officers, both inside and outside normal working hours. Renfrewshire Council are aware that a trial of a similar project was carried out in Scotland, but that the outcome was much less satisfactory, to the point that it was deemed unworkable. The main issues centred around offenders not turning up for work, and the need for continual close supervision to keep the participants focussed on the task. In addition, the advice from the National Association of Memorial Masons, in relation to training for the re-erection of memorials is: ‘The Fix and Secure Memorials assured by City & Guilds is for individuals with proven memorial masonry industry experience who are responsible for erecting memorials in burial grounds. The programme incorporates assessment of compulsory practical skills to fix and secure memorials, the confirmation of required trade knowledge and the successful completion of a written questionnaire’. 2. OVERVIEW FROM DOUGLAS SWAN, CONSULTANT It is understood that Mr Barr invited a consultant, Douglas Swan, to Hawkhead Cemetery, in his capacity as chair of FoHC. The Council were not aware of the visit in advance, but Officers became aware during their own routine visit to the cemetery. In the correspondence submitted in the petition, the consultant suggests that, if the Council can claim ownership of certain lairs and memorials, then Heritage Lottery
Page 18
3 funding could become available for restoration. This is deemed to be something that could be considered further, particularly for certain headstones with significance to the heritage of Paisley. However, the numbers of such memorials have not previously been established and this would be a significant piece of work to resource. However, Renfrewshire council would support an established ‘Friends of Group’ with this task, and the Scarborough Friends Group, referred to in the petition, appear to be an excellent example. 3. MONUGRID – SOMETHING DIFFERENT A link to a product called Monugrid is provided in the petition. Monugrid appears to be a product which provides an alternative to using concrete as a headstone foundation. Modern concrete foundations typically do not lead to the type of instability issues which would result in a headstone being laid flat. Renfrewshire Council currently install concrete foundations, compliant to British Standard B.S. 8415, in accordance with the requirements of registered Memorial Masons. The use of concrete foundations is an industry wide process which conforms with British Standards, the use of Monugrid is a relatively new technology and further review would be required before changing such a process. However, the approved practice of concrete foundations, constructed to the industry standard, is a well established and proven practice and typically is not the reason a headstone may fail. 4. WHAT THE INDUSTRY SAYS Information has been provided in the petition which is the ‘Advice and guidance from the Local Government Ombudsman England and Wales’. Unfortunately, this is not the guidance that local authorities in Scotland follow in respect of memorial safety. Renfrewshire Council’s policy and practices are based on the Scottish Government guidance, ‘Burial ground memorial safety: local authority guidance’. 5. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT The petition provides a link to the Scottish Government Guidance on memorial safety. As detailed in the response to point 4.Renfrewshire Council adheres to the Scottish Government guidance, and this forms the basis on which our memorial safety policy and practices are written.
Page 19
4 The following sections or parts of section numbers 12, 13 and 86, as taken form the Scottish Government guidance referred to, are of particular note in respect of the points intimated in this petition: Section 12. Local authority burial authorities are responsible for ensuring the safety of those visiting and working in their burial grounds. This means that regular memorial inspections should be carried out to achieve this. However, inspecting and taking action to make safe does not confer ownership. This guidance notes that the responsibility for the full and complete repair of memorials remains the duty of the lair owner. Section 13. All authorities follow their own procedures for locating and contacting lair owners to inform them of the need for repair, and this guidance sets out suggested methods of doing so. Where a burial authority is unable to locate a lair owner, it is a decision for each authority about what repairs they may carry out on an unsafe memorial, followed by action taken to make that memorial safe. Section 86. Volunteers should not be used to visually or physically inspect memorials to assess their safety. This should only be undertaken by appropriately trained and qualified burial authority assessors or other specialists, such as a structural engineer. 6. ICCM MANAGEMENT OF MEMORIALS The petition contains an excerpt from an ICCM publication re ‘Notifying Grave Owners’. Renfrewshire Council undertakes a programme of notifying lairholders, where contact details are available. This notification allows lairholders the opportunity to make repairs at a stage where the cost of repair is potentially lower. As per the Scottish Government’s guidance for burial ground memorial safety, “Inspecting and taking action to make safe does not confer ownership… the responsibility for the full and complete repair of memorials remains the duty of the lairholder.” The petition also contains excerpts for Health & Safety Executive Guidance in relation to risk assessment and large memorials. Renfrewshire Council has an obligation to meet its responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The first round of inspections across our cemetery and churchyard estate is now complete, this means that all memorials have been inspected in line with our memorial safety procedure. Duties placed under the Health and Safety at Work Act states that all steps reasonably practicable, must be taken to ensure a safe place for all. As such the actions of laying headstones flat conform to this duty and decision to lay flat are only
Page 20
5 made to headstones which are assessed as posing a risk to the Health and Safety of staff and members of the public. As part of our commitment to continually improving our processes, the service will seek to review all processes and procedures, in relation to memorial safety, before any scheduled re-inspection work commences and will continue to adhere to the duties placed under the Health and Safety at Work Act. 7. INSPIRATIONAL VIDEO Renfrewshire Council welcomes comments and feedback and strives to improve outcomes for our residents, where resources allow. 8. NEXT STEPS Renfrewshire Council acknowledges that the processes and procedures currently in place have caused upset for some bereaved families and lair holders in Renfrewshire. A review of the Burial Act (Scotland) 2016 is in its final stages. No direct reference has been made to Memorial Safety, however, as part of a Burial Authority Inspection regime, it is hoped that this might provide more structured guidance and a uniformed approach. As part of our commitment to continually improve our service, the Council will seek to review all internal processes and procedures, in relation to memorial safety. This will include: • All trained memorial safety staff will receive refresher training which will take cognisance of the currently accepted best practice in Scotland. • Procurement of an electronic cemetery management system which will provide a single database of information associated with a lair and aid in improving communication with members of the public following memorial inspection. This system will allow lair holders to access records electronically and be notified of changes following inspections. • Review our communication strategy and the information available to the Residents of Renfrewshire. We will continue to take all steps possible to contact lair holders as part of Section 13 mentioned above wherever possible. • Continue participation in a joint forum of Scottish Burial Authorities, where issues relating to memorial safety are regularly discussed. • Review our existing Cemetery Management Policy and Standard Operating procedure in line with Scottish Government Guidance and Renfrewshire Councils Policy Management process.