Graveyards (Health and Safety)

I wish to declare a triple interest. First, my constituency Labour party receives finance from the Unite union, which organises vicars who are specifically affected by the issue that I am raising tonight. Secondly, my constituency Labour party receives money from the public sector union Unison, and I will be proposing to the Minister that work in respect of health and safety in graveyards should not be contracted out to the private sector, but brought into the public sector and thus given to Unison members. Thirdly, I am the only qualified and competent topple- tester in Parliament today, so I have a vested—some might argue pecuniary—interest in health and safety in graveyards. I became a qualified topple-tester courtesy of the National Association of Memorial Masons, following intensive training at the Royal Brompton cemetery in Chelsea, precisely in order to ascertain the health and safety issues relating to graveyards across the country. Numerous constituents have come to me complaining about the practices of Bassetlaw district council. Having carried out a little research on the internet, I saw instantly that the problem was not confined to the constituency and district of Bassetlaw, but constituted a scandal with major consequences throughout the country. In February 2007 a programme of inspections was carried out by the private contractor on behalf of the council, and 1,848 headstones in two cemeteries were deemed unsafe. I made inquiries about the company that had carried out the inspections, Independent Memorial Inspection. I could not find any details about the company as it was not registered at Companies House, but I found two statements on its website. The first was:"““Within the last five years there have been three deaths directly caused by falling memorials and numerous injuries. Surveys have shown that as many as one in ten monuments are dangerous””." The second referred to today's ““climate of litigation””. I began to realise what was going on. According to IMI's website, 15 to 25 per cent. of Victorian memorials and 40 to 70 per cent. of lawn memorials are liable to be unsafe. As the vast majority of memorials in local authority cemeteries are lawn memorials—that is certainly the case in the Bassetlaw district—for 40 to 70 per cent. to be unsafe would be a major issue. I investigated further: I did my topple-testing, examined the science involved and received training at Brompton cemetery, an historic Victorian cemetery. I concluded that the idea that large numbers of memorials were unsafe was entirely fallacious. I know that that is true, because I have tested them. I have been to see memorial after memorial that has been deemed unsafe, but is in fact safe. What we are seeing is an over-zealous interpretation not of legislation, but of perceived guidance that does not actually exist. Bassetlaw district council wrote to me stating that it was following Health and Safety Executive guidelines that had been sent to it. I challenged Ministers to produce the guidelines, and found that the letters in question did not exist. I shall quote from the guidance that has been issued, but I concluded that 95 per cent. of headstones in the Bassetlaw cemeteries were safe. This is how topple-testing works. A pressure of 35 kg must be exerted on a headstone. If the headstone topples over, it is obviously unsafe. If I leant against a memorial, exerting 35 kg of pressure—slightly less than half my body weight, but half the average body weight—and it toppled over, there would clearly be a potential danger for the gravedigger and for others in the cemetery. I found that the headstones rarely toppled over. They wobbled occasionally, but the test is not to establish whether there is any movement, but to establish whether the headstones topple over. If there is the slightest suspicion of movement a headstone is deemed unsafe, and if it is deemed unsafe it is staked. So my constituents who visit their loved ones, perhaps at Christmas, may experience the indignity, embarrassment and humiliation of a staked headstone. The stakes are pile-driven into the ground—to hold the allegedly unsafe headstones that are not unsafe at all—to stop them toppling over. However, they should have toppled over in the first place if the topple test had been carried out properly; they should have been laid flat and dealt with. The stakes themselves are a hazard, in two ways. First, they are a trip hazard. Obviously, putting hundreds or thousands of stakes at an angle in an area through which the public walk creates a trip hazard. Secondly, more dangerously, the stakes have to be above the height of the memorial stone. If one falls on to a memorial stone, one could do oneself some serious damage. But if one falls onto a much narrower stake, one is likely to lose an eye. Slipping and falling there is a bigger risk; in other words, staking increases the hazard and does not reduce it. What is going on in our graveyards? There is IMI's myth of three deaths, but Peterborough council's website says that there have been six deaths. Where did these deaths happen? I have asked Ministers many questions. I have asked how many complaints there have been about unsafe gravestones in the past 20 years. The Church Commissioners say that there have not been any. But we are talking about Victorian headstones of huge weight, which would be dangerous if they fell on someone. There have been no complaints to the Church Commissioners, who therefore do not fear the insurers chasing them.