 Rwy'n cymdeinol i fynd i ddweud oes cael!" Yr 29 meyddiwn 2015 i ni, rydw i ddiwedd yn gyfas ymweld i ddarparu hyn i, ac i gynnwys iawn yr eich cyflawn yn teimlo, ond mae hwnna diwrnol ei amser. Fel y ddiwedd nhw, y cyfrif unprecedented cyflawn yn traffaith cisferu ym ddechrau, a byddwn ni wedi glas i ddau eu pwysig ym mddangos yn y format. A syddo i ddweud os eich cysyllydd cerdd acceptanceu â'r caneri. Agenda item 1 is our only business today, and it's to take evidence on the burial and cremation Scotland bill from Scottish Government officials. I welcome Dr Simon Cuthbert Kerr, burial and cremation bill team leader, and Graham McGlashan, principal legal officer of the Scottish Government. I invite Dr Cuthbert Kerr to make an opening statement and then we'll move on to questions. Dr Cuthbert Kerr, please. The purpose of the burial and cremation Scotland bill is to provide a modern and comprehensive framework for burial and cremation, which is suitable for the needs of 21st century Scotland. The current legislation is very old. The main primary legislation for burial is the Burial Ground Scotland Act 1855, while the Cremation Act 1902 is the key primary legislation for cremation. In a number of ways, the current legislative framework struggles to meet modern expectations and requirements. The bulk of the bill is based on recommendations from two sources. The Burial and Cremation Review Group was set up by the then health minister in 2005 to review death certification and the law in relation to burial and cremation. The group reported in 2007 and made a number of recommendations. Many of those have already been implemented in the Certification of Death Scotland Act 2011, and most of the remaining recommendations will be implemented in the Burial and Cremation Bill. The other recommendations that the bill seeks to implement are those made by Lord Bonamy's Infant Cremation Commission. As well as those recommendations that will directly improve cremation processes involving pregnancy losses, babies and infants, the opportunity has been taken to improve processes around cremation generally. We have consulted widely on the recommendations both through a formal consultation exercise and through on-going engagement with particular stakeholders. The bill reflects the process, and we would be happy to answer any questions that the committee has on the bill. The Burial and Cremation Review Group reported in 2007, and the Infant Cremation Commission superseded some of the recommendations that were made. Which of the recommendations that were made by the review group have not been legislated for either in the Certification of Death Bill 2011, or this bill? I think that the key recommendation that came out of the Burial and Cremation Review Group, which was superseded by Lord Bonamy's work, was the general position that processes for cremation seemed to be generally fine. The Burial and Cremation Review Group suggested that very little had to happen in terms of cremations. Obviously, Lord Bonamy's work superseded that. There are a number of recommendations made by the group that we do not intend to take forward on the bill. One of those is to do with the existing minimum distance between housing and a crematorium. The 1902 act requires a minimum distance of—well, the 1902 act requires that a crematorium cannot be built within 200 yards of existing housing. The Burial and Cremation Review Group recommended that that should be reinstated in the new bill but converted into metric measurement. We do not intend to take that forward. I think that there are one or two other minor matters in the from the Burial and Cremation Review Group's report, which we are not going to take forward. One of the more significant ones, perhaps, is to do with the reuse of headstones. The group suggested that where a burial layer was reused, the existing headstone could also be reused. One of the processes that they proposed for that would be for the headstone to be lifted and turned round with a new inscription placed on what was the back of the headstone. We raised that in our consultation paper and there were quite a lot of compelling arguments as to why we should not do that. That is something that is not included in the bill. If we stick with the distance, we have received from Falkirk Council a submission, and they say that we disagree with removing the existing provision that restricts the proximity of new crematoriums to housing. In our view, there are risks involved in reducing or removing the 200-yard limit. In the case of Falkirk Council's crematorium, an extensive area of new housing has been developed within 110 yards of the crematorium buildings. That has led to a number of unexpected issues, such as the increased use of the crematorium grounds by the new residents and their dogs. Have those situations been taken cognisance of before you decided to omit that from the bill? Indeed, that was an area that we looked at in particular detail. The main reason why we are not going to reinstate that is because we do not think that it currently works. One key factor is that the 1902 act prevents a cremation from being built within 200 yards of housing, which already exists. It does not work in the other direction. In other words, there are no restrictions on any development being built within a particular distance of an existing crematorium, so it only works one way. We feel that the 1902 act is particularly reflective of the fact that there was no planning system at the time when that act was brought into force. We have a much stronger and much more developed planning system today, and we feel that the planning system generally is the place to deal with the sighting of new crematoriums. New crematoriums or, indeed, new development close to existing crematoriums. Have you spoken to planning officials about your view in that regard? We have indeed, yes. One thing that the planning system currently does not do is treat the 1902 act as a material consideration. In other words, a new crematorium can be legitimately granted planning permission, even if it is built within 200 yards of existing housing. That was another reason why we decided to take the route that we have taken. We will certainly keep a close eye on that and look at any other submissions that we get in that regard. At paragraph 24 of the policy memorandum, there is a reference to resumption and permission without any explanation of those techniques. Could you please explain what those entail and indicate in which countries resumation is currently being used? I certainly apologise for not signing that out in more detail in the policy memorandum. Resumation is a process whereby the body is essentially dissolved in alkyline hydrolysis. I believe that it is the reduction by alkyline hydrolysis of the body down to bones. The body is put into a machine that looks not unlike a cremator, but instead of being reduced to ashes by burning, it is reduced to bones by being dissolved in this solution. We are aware of a number of American States where the process is in use. I believe that it is in use in Florida and I think that it is in use in Minnesota as well. Permission has not yet got to the stage where it has actually been used anywhere. Permission is the process whereby the body is essentially freeze dried and then vibrated into ashes. Thank you very much for that. We have been told that a number of smaller companies in Scotland benchmark themselves against dignity and co-op, and it may well be the case that some local authorities do as well in terms of provision of services. For dignity UK, we are told that the underlying operating profit from crematoria rose from £19.9 million to £29.1 million from 2010 to 2014 at an increase of some 46 per cent. Underlying operating profit from funeral services rose from 49.3 million to 66.3 million from 2010 to 2014, which is an increase of 34 per cent. The revenue from crematoria was £55.2 million. Underlying profits as a percentage of revenue was 53 per cent in 2014, and the revenue from funeral services was £184.4 million. Underlying profits as a percentage of revenue was 36 per cent in 2014. Total revenue across the group was £268.9 million in 2014, with underlying profits of £84.9 million. Underlying profits being 32 per cent of revenues. Obviously, the committee is interested in the cost of burial and cremation, because we have heard from many sources that folks are struggling to meet those costs. Can you give us an indication of what you have done intensive research into these situations and have looked at costs, particularly local authority costs, in terms of the formulation of this bill? How do you think that we can deal with some of this large profitability, it seems? We have certainly looked long and hard at funeral costs, both Lord Bonomy and the Bill and Cremation Review Group noted the cost of funerals and the difficulty that some people experience in meeting those costs. Throughout the entire process, funeral costs have very much been at the front of our mind. The approach that we have taken with the bill, however, is really one that reflects the fact that we do not think that the bill is the place to deal with those costs directly. There are a couple of issues that we do want to try to address, particularly with local authorities. We have had extensive discussions with local authorities about why their costs are what they are and why those costs vary so much from one part of the country to another. We have also considered what we can do, if anything, to address that through the bill. One thing that we are still considering is whether or not we should require all local authorities to proactively publish all of their funeral related costs. Many already do that but not all do. We are still looking to see whether that would have any particular effect. Clearly that would not necessarily directly reduce prices, but we do think that that would increase transparency of prices. In terms of what we can do with funeral directors, there are relatively few options through the bill. I might ask my colleague to discuss that from a legal perspective, if that would be okay. That would be useful. I would also be interested to know if you think that the bill is not the place to deal with costs. Where do you think that that should be dealt with? I will have Mr McGlashan and then welcome back to Dr Cuthbert-Kriff. I mean, it was just to make a few comments around the restrictions in the Scotland Act around legislating in this area. Generally, we have to be aware of the reserve matters in schedule 5 and we are limited by what we can do there. One relevant reservation is the consumer protection reservation in schedule 5, which reserves the sale of goods and services to consumers. Anything with a consumer protection purpose behind it that we cannot legislate for in the Scottish Parliament is reserved to Westminster. That is one legal consideration behind not bringing forward any further provisions in relation to funeral costs, so that was all that I really want to say on that. Have we spoken to anyone in London to see if that power can be transferred here to deal with this situation so that the bill encompasses all aspects of burial and cremation? No, convener, I cannot say that we have had those discussions yet at all in terms of policy development. Dr Cuthbert-Kriff? No, we haven't so far. Can I take Claire Adamson and then Willie Coffey on those points, please? In the papers, there is mention of the fact that there is not a trade association or professional body for funeral directors. I would just wonder if you could maybe explain the reasons why it was not seen as a potential improvement in the situation for that to be established in some way with them? In fact, there are a couple of trade associations. There is the National Association of Funeral Directors, which tends to represent larger organisations such as Dignity and Co-op. There is also an organisation called the Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, which, as the name suggests, tends to represent the smaller independent companies. There is quite a lot of mixing and matching between the members. Many funeral directors, we believe, are members of both organisations. We have certainly worked with both of those organisations throughout the process, particularly in the consideration of funeral costs and what can be done to tackle those. There is no compulsion on someone who is providing that service to be a member of a professional body of any kind. That is the correct case. On the point about fees, is there any scope in the bill to allow a person to make payments whatever those are on a staged basis? I had an unfortunate case where a constituent came to me to complain that they had been asked to pay the entire fees up front. I will not stand in the comments that Mr McGlashan made. Is there any provision for us to include that as an entitlement to a staged payment? That would be for the person to agree with the funeral provider. That might be swaying into consumer protection territory. We may be limited in what we can do there. I cannot advise the committee, but I can see that there might be some difficulties in making provision in that respect in the bill. One of the frustrations that I always have is that we can resolve part of a problem, but not the whole problem, because the other bit is still reserved. However, what I would expect in such circumstances, particularly circumstances such as those, is that we should at the very least write to the UK Government to see if there is any chance of us being able to deal with that particular aspect, because it may be frustrating for us, those kinds of scenarios, but it is ultra frustrating for people out there who cannot understand why we are tackling a particular issue, but not the whole of that issue. It is often the most important part that we seem to have to admit, because we do not have the power. I think that we should be going back to going south of the border and seeing if we can sort those aspects out. I am looking at members. Mr Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I just have a couple of questions in terms of the bill that has been presented. If I could take it to section 5, subsection 1, it refers to places to keep bodies before burial. Is this an additional onus being put on local authorities to actually provide a place for human remains to be kept prior to burial? At the present moment, that would normally lie either with the undertaker or in the person's home or family home prior to going to the cemetery. Is this an additional burden that you intend to place upon local authorities to actually provide premises for bodies to be held until such times as the burial takes place? The original intention behind that section was a restatement of an existing duty in the 1855 act. The intention behind it was, as you described, although perhaps on a temporary basis to be stored before interment. However, since the bill was published and having spoken further on that matter to local authorities, it has suggested that that never happens, but the body is always brought directly by the funeral director for the burial. In which case we see that section 5 in its entirety would probably be unnecessary. I thank you for that clarification, because, as I said, if we are trying to simplify the system by putting additional costs on local authorities, it would be complicated that the system would be even further. I am glad that the intention would be to take this section out. The other one is section 7, where the right to erect buildings or a building. Basically, in this section, you are referring to local authority being able to sell a right to erect a building. Clarification on what you mean by erecting a building? The intention there is really to capture something like a chapel of rest, or indeed a memorial. It is not uncommon for burial grounds to have both such structures, particularly where the person or the people who are being memorialised are actually buried in that burial ground. In other words, the right to burial would not therefore exist, which comes with the right to erect a headstone. The function of section 7 is to allow somebody to make the application to build something like a memorial or a chapel of rest. You view this as an opportunity for local authorities to sell off existing land that has been designated as a cemetery to someone else to operate effectively a business? No, it would very much be something to do with the memorialisation. As an example, you might have somebody who wants to erect a chapel of rest to memorialise people from the local community who died in a war but who are not necessarily buried in that particular burial ground. It certainly would not be to allow the burial authority to sell land to somebody to operate a business on the burial ground land. It is useful to get that clarification, because the wording at the present moment, certainly my interpretation was that it would be to local authority to sell off piece of land for someone to create a building for that and how that building would be used. Can I go to section 13? Sorry, convener, I am just jumping through the sections. You have got here section 13.1, a right of burial is extinguished at the end of the period of 25 years, beginning with the day on which the right was sold. How did the 25-year figure come around? Who made those suggestions? We have, in terms of spice briefing, a figure of 50 years, and there is other reference to two generations from the last internment. So could you give some indication of where the 25 years go in? I should declare an interest here when my father passed away just before he passed away, it will be now 22 years ago. He bought two layers side by side because of the problems with a family layer where he was hoping to be interred and could not get interred. It is just to try and find out coming to that period if you introduce the 25-year limit. I have further questions on that issue, but if you could give me an indication of why the 25-year figure was used. Okay. Section 13 gives effect to one of the recommendations from the burial and cremation review group. The group recommended that the sale of layers in perpetuity should be ended. So we very much see two processes at work here. One is the restoration to use process, which he alluded to in terms of 50 years and 100 years. That would very much apply only where a layer had been sold in the first instance in perpetuity. The intention of section 13 is that, from the point at which it came into force, any layer would be able to be sold no more in the first instance than for 25 years. The purpose of that, however, is not to extinguish the ownership at the end of that period. In fact, section 13.2 allows the owner to renew that ownership for a period of 10 years and thereafter for a period of 10 years for as many times as necessary. The real function of that is to try to move away from the current situation where many layers become abandoned and the burial authority loses contact with the owner. The purpose of section 13 is to keep the currency of the owner with the burial authority for as long as possible. In other words, at the end of the 25-year period ordinarily, we would expect the owner to come forward and then renew the ownership for the next 10 years. The effect of that would be to ensure that the burial authority never lost contact with the current owner of the layer. Assuming that the changes in the legislation, if they were enacted, would not be retrospective. Indeed, no, they would not. They would only have effect from layers that were sold for the first time after the bill came into force. There are issues about the 25-year period, and whoever holds the papers for that particular layer is aware that they have to re-register every 25 years. Would that be something that the Government would be issuing in guidance to local authorities that they must inform anyone who purchases a layer that they would be their responsibility to come and turn up every 25 years to re-register their interest in that layer? Essentially, that is correct. We would look to make it clear that we would expect the terms and conditions of any sale to specify to the purchaser that they would then need after 25 years, as you say, to renew the ownership. In addition to burial authorities, funeral directors have a key role to play there, because they are often the ones who are doing the transaction between the purchaser and the local authority. As with burial authorities, we have spoken to them about this process. Would you envisage an additional charge that is being made during that 25-year period for re-registration? We would not want anything other than a nominal administrative fee to be charged. That is certainly not about resailing the layer. Thank you, convener. Just moving on to look at the availability of burial land. Could you explain to the committee what parts of Scotland face a reducing availability of burial land and why that is occurring? Also, looking at the policy memorandum, I wonder if you could expand on the statement in paragraph 51 about burial grounds remaining viable and active community resources and explain how they are used in this way. In terms of the availability of burial land, we understand that there is quite a variable pattern across Scotland. It is not quite as simple to say, for example, that urban areas have particular pressures while rural areas do not. We are aware that, in some urban areas, there are particular parts of, for example, a particular local authority area where burial is less available than it is in other areas. That may be because local burial grounds have no available space. In the consultation response, we got responses from some of the island local authorities who suggested that they were running out of burial space because of physical constraints. There are a number of different factors at work in terms of the availability of burial space. As I say, it is not quite as simple as saying that those areas are full and empty. In terms of the viability of community burial grounds as community amenities, traditionally, burial grounds have tended to serve a community that lives local to it. As time has passed, that is often not possible anymore. Many of the newer burial grounds, which have been created recently, tend to be quite far from the communities that they would otherwise serve. Of course, that has a number of factors. It means that a person—a number of effects, rather—can't necessarily be buried close to where they lived. It also puts pressure on people who want to visit the grave. We think that the restoration to use process could be used to bring back into use burial grounds that currently have no available space. I think that that would have a number of effects. The most obvious would be that it would allow people to be buried in that burial ground again. In addition, we often find that those burial grounds tend to fall into disrepair as fewer people visit them, as fewer people tend the graves that are there. We often find that those burial grounds are closed on unused spaces. We think that allowing such places to be restored to use would not only provide additional burial space but would help to revitalise those spaces for the communities. In terms of the availability of land, in recent times there were some difficulties in the Aberdeen area about land for the Muslim community, which has since been resolved, I have to say. In terms of land that is available for various religious groups—in a lot of cases, in terms of the Muslim faith and the Jewish faith—where burial has to take place quite quickly, how are we ensuring that there is land availability for that? Are we able to deal with the situation where folks have to be buried quite quickly, according to custom of religion? In terms of the pace at which somebody is buried, there is nothing in the bill to prevent that from happening. It is obviously dependent on burial space being available. What tends to happen is that burial grounds, whether privately owned or publicly owned, will have specific sections that are given over to members of a particular faith. The bill allows that situation to continue. Burial authorities are able to set aside particular sections of burial grounds for that purpose. In terms of consultation that you have done with the public, have there been many responses from different faith groups on that particular issue? Generally, we had responses to the bill and to the proposals from a number of different groups, including the Jewish community in Scotland and the Muslim Council of Scotland. I cannot quite remember the name of the organisation, but it is an ecumenical group that I recommend representing Christian faiths. We have had written consultation responses from them and we have had on-going dialogue with them to find out what they think about that. In paragraph 54 of the policy memorandum, there is talk of abandonment of layers. Why is the test of whether a layer is abandoned, not set out in the bill? When we consider that, we try to imagine the kind of situations in which it would appear to a burial authority that a layer no longer had any active interest in it. That ranges from a number of different scenarios, from obvious disrepair to simply the fact that there does not appear to be any fresh flowers left at it frequently. Can I stop you there? That is a test in itself. It is not a particularly good one, considering that earlier you said that, in some cases, folks being buried well away because of space availability, there are less visitors. It is very difficult to take a test like that as one of whether or not a layer has been abandoned. Indeed. We deliberately cast that element of the test at quite a low level because of the variety of circumstances in which layers might be found, but that element does not operate in its own. For example, it would need to be 100 years since the last burial took place in that layer. Those two elements would need to work together. You are right to say that that test of abandonment is quite a low test. It is intended to be the initial examination by the burial authority of layers that might be suitable for reuse. The notion that the previous burial must be at least 100 years ago adds a little bit more of a safeguard to that. Beyond that point, there are then an increasingly severe set of tests that a burial authority would need to go through. We very much see that initial— What are those severe set of tests? We need to consider whether there are any archaeological or heritage reasons why the layer should not be used. Essentially, the bill sets out various stages in that process. The first is the one that we have just discussed, where it would appear that the layer has been abandoned and that there has not been a burial in the last 100 years. Burial authorities would then be required to consult with archaeological experts to see whether there were any particular reasons on that basis for the layer not to be used, and if there are any objections from those archaeologists at that point, then the layer cannot be reused. They also have to, at the same stage, speak to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Again, if the War Graves Commission at that stage raised an objection, then the layer cannot be reused. We see that as being the first stage of the process. The next stage then requires the burial authority to attempt to trace the owner and the bill sets out a number of processes for that, which will be supported by regulations. If the owner cannot be traced or does not respond, then the burial authority can move on to the next stage. However, if the owner does respond and objects to the layer being reused, then it cannot be reused. If there is no objection or if there is no contact from the owner, it is to conduct at a 12-month public notification period during which anybody would be able to object to the reuse. For certain parties, including the owner, of also anyone who is a relative of someone buried in that layer, an objection would prevent the layer from being reused. Someone else who objected would then find that their objection was considered by the burial authority, which might choose to not use the layer on the basis of that objection or to disregard the objection. It is only at the end of that process that a layer can actually be reused. Why has that been set out in guidance in terms of determination of whether a layer is abandoned and not on the face of the bill? The test of whether the layer has been abandoned is in the bill and the detail of the other processes is also in the bill. What we would want to do with guidance is offer some suggestions to burial authorities about what we mean by abandonment. That could be something as simple as the fact that no flowers have been left for a long time or that it could be something that is perhaps more solid. For example, the fact that the layer is in a state of disrepair and does not appear to be being maintained. The burial and cremation review group recommended restoration after 75 years, but it is 100 years in the draft bill. What led you to extend that time period? Essentially, that is in response to the consultation, both the formal consultation and the engagement with stakeholders. Listening to the public and stakeholders and extending. Absolutely. It was felt that 75 years was perhaps too short. Any other points from members in this area? I will return to a point about the layers, convener. It was asked by John Wilson. Was there any consideration given to whether a blood relative should have precedence over deciding whether a family member can be interred in a layer over the layer owners wishes? Sadly, if in some cases in the past the request to inter a family member has been denied by the layer owner, he is not a blood relative, but the person who has been trying to entail a family member clearly is a blood relative. Is there no consideration given to that? That is a common enough problem that I encounter over the years when families separate. The approach that we have taken to that is very much to replicate the current situation where the ownership of the layer rests in one person and the way that it transfers tends to be in succession, which in some cases would be via the bloodline. I have to say that I have not in the consultation for this. Nobody has raised that particular point. The approach that we have taken is to say that the person who purges the layer initially has the right to determine who is buried in the layer and to be buried in that layer themselves. When that person dies and the right passes to the next person, those same rights would rest in that person. The owner could, of course, choose to transfer the right of ownership to another person. I am not necessarily sure that there is anything in the bill to address that, and, as I said, it is not something that was raised in consultation. In that point, Tanger, from Willie Coffey, about who owns the layer, you mentioned that the person could sell that layer on. Why is there nothing in the bill to stipulate that the selling on of the layer should be prohibited? If the local authority who sells the layer to the individual, that is their record about who owns the layer. Would that mean that how would someone go about if they sold the layer on, then register the new ownership of that layer? You could end up almost like tick it out websites, not buying up layers from local authorities and then decide to sell them on to somebody else or hold on to them and then sell them where there is a shortage of layers and the demand is increased, selling those layers on without any restrictions being placed upon them. In the consultation paper, we asked whether there should be any restrictions on who the owner should be able to transfer the layer to, and the strong sense that came back was that they know that they have purchased the layer and that it is theirs to do with as they see fit. In answer to the question about the notion of people buying up layers and selling them in the way that you describe, the 25-year restriction that the bill will introduce at section 13 would act to control that, particularly in the sense that the local authority has particular powers to ensure that its information about who owns the layer is current. In other words, it can write out to the person that it believes owns the layer to check that they still do the layer, so that will help to control that sale process, at least in the sense that it should not allow the detail of the ownership to escape. Broadly speaking, the approach that we have taken is that if somebody buys the right to burial, it is theirs and they may do with it what they see fit. In terms of private cremation, paragraph 31 suggests that the position on private cremation is not clear, although it is currently recognised as illegal. Can you explain in more detail the current ambiguity and the specific issue that the bill is trying to address? I am sorry, convener. I was just reading the paragraph to which you referred. Essentially, the cremation act 1902 prevents cremation from taking place anywhere other than in a crematorium. When the burial and cremation review group looked at the issue, their reports seemed to suggest that there was some sort of ambiguity to that. I have to say that whatever reading of the 1902 act suggests that it is quite clear and that private cremation, by which is meant, cremation outside that crematorium, is in fact illegal and the bill will seek to continue that situation. Paragraph 72 of the policy memorandum states that the Scottish Government has established a working group to devise an application form for cremation. Is there remit limited to the design of the form, or will that group have a wider locus? I know that the group's remit is quite wide. It is a subgroup of the national committee on infant cremation, which has been set up initially to look at new cremation forms. We intend to use the group to look at forms generally for the whole process and beyond that to look at record keeping processes. Can you give us an indication of who is on that working group? Yes, absolutely. At the moment, we have a number of parents who have been affected by the ashes issues. We also have a number of funeral directors and a number of representatives of burial and cremation authorities. We also have a few industry representatives, including the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management and the Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities, who are represented on that group. If we can turn to inspections, what consideration has been given to the length of the appointment of the inspectors of burial, crematoriums and funeral directors and the number of inspectors likely to be needed, which is paragraphs 95 to 97 of the policy memorandum? Will inspectors be appointed for specific functions to cover each area or will they cover across all those areas? What do you currently anticipate the duties that they will be required to undertake? The model that we are working on at the moment would be one full-time inspector of crematoriums, one full-time inspector of burial and two full-time inspectors of funeral directors. Those are very much models that we have developed to give an estimate of the likely financial cost of the process. However, the bill gives ministers the ability to appoint as many inspectors as they think are required to give inspectors specific duties as ministers think are required. The bill allows ministers to set out the terms and conditions of those appointments. For example, the length of time for which they would be appointed. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent one individual from taking on more than one role, so they may have half of their time spent on burial and half of their time on cremation. The bill allows ministers to appoint inspectors with quite a high degree of flexibility. What would you envisage will be covered in complaints? What percentage of time would you estimate the various inspectors would spend investigating complaints? Will there be an appeals process after decisions are made by inspectors? If there is an appeal process, who would people appeal to? We would envisage that people would make complaints to inspectors. For example, the current inspector of crematoria has dealt with at least one complaint, which came to him through public channels. Our vision for the inspector is that, rather than being the person to fully investigate the complaint, it would possibly be better served to look at what gave rise to the complaint and make recommendations to the funeral director of the burial authority and cremation authority about how to prevent those situations arising again. We are very alert to the fact that there are a number of other complaints procedures in place. For example, the Office of the Public Ombudsman for local authorities. Indeed, local authorities own complaints procedures for private businesses. There are other routes such as trading standards or professional bodies. We tend to view those as being the primary route by which a complaint should be fully investigated, leaving the inspector to look at what gave rise to the situation in the first place and make recommendations to prevent that from the occurrence. The inspector makes recommendations. The complainant is unhappy about those recommendations. Is there an appeal process after that? If so, who do they appeal to? I'm sorry, I can pass over to you. No, I was just saying that the inspector powers are going to be set out in regulations and the powers are wide enough to make provision for reviews or appeals of decisions against inspectors or decisions of Scottish ministers as well to suspend or revoke licences. The regulation making power is certainly wide enough to allow for reviews or appeals to be made in regulations. It seems to me that, from what we've heard this morning, that route is not clear at this moment in time. I think that in terms of the legislation and the regulation behind it, that route has to be clear. People have to know what the process actually is, because there's nothing more frustrating for folks than not knowing what their rights are or where they go next if they are unhappy about the situation. If we could get some more clarity on that, that would be extremely useful for the committee. In relation to the inspector's proposed role in assessing applications for exhumation, what do you anticipate the criteria for considerations is likely to be? Will there be a fee for such applications? If so, what is the authority for charging? Will it be set at a level to ensure cost recovery only? We wouldn't imagine that there would be an application fee. The process that we have in mind is one where the person who has the authority to make the application for the exhumation would discuss the feasibility of the process with the burial authority, which is not particularly different from what happens currently. The key difference would be that, rather than the applicant having to go to the court as present, they would instead go to the inspector, who, essentially, if they were satisfied that the person had the right to make the application and were satisfied that the process itself would be feasible, should approve it. In relation to maintenance and repair of headstones, I do not think that it is covered in the bill, but I really have to ask it, because it concerns quite a number of my constituents. As you know that a number of headstones in Scotland's cemeteries have been staked against wooden posts tied and bound, because maintenance standards, I suppose, have changed over the years. Is there likely to be any solution to that? I cannot see, convener, that there has been any progress in that. It is a sad state of affairs when you visit a cemetery to see so many stones keeled over or attached to wooden posts and tidal-ish string and so on and so forth, and that deteriorates over years. Is there any mention of that in the consultation, and is there any plan to include some kind of guidance in the bill? That is certainly something that has underpinned this entire process. One of the reasons why so many headstones are laid down is because the owner, who is the person who has primary responsibility for maintenance, is either no longer maintaining the grave or cannot be found by the burial authority should they wish to try and encourage them to maintain it. As I understand it, many burial authorities tend to take on the responsibility themselves. From speaking to burial authorities, there is a lack of clarity about what rights they have to take action with something that they do not own. A number of them have told us that under health and safety legislation they have to make sure that the burial ground is a safe place. I understand that that is often the basis on which they do things like you describe, which is to bring headstones down and so on. That is one of the reasons why we have proposed to limit the initial length of ownership of a layer so that one of the key purposes to ensuring that the burial authority knows who owns a layer is so that they can contact them if there are any maintenance requirements. Generally speaking, at section 6 of the bill, the ministers are given the power to make regulations concerning the management of burial grounds. The intention there is that those regulations would put a duty on burial grounds to make sure that the burial ground is safe. England and Wales have the local authority cemetery order 1977, which sets out a wide range of powers and duties in that regard. We would intend to use that as a model for Scottish regulations. It seems to me that the liability remains the layer owner. I do not think that that will solve the problem, because there are so many stones. I am sure that the layer owners are known and identified, but no action has been taken to repair the stone, probably, because it is too expensive. Is there any further thinking in that regard to see whether that problem can be overcome? In discussion with burial authorities, we have asked what their current arrangements are for canyon outmaintenance. Most tell us that they have an annual budget, particularly with local authorities. The size of that budget varies, so the extent to which they can bring down a headstone or repair it varies significantly. The processes that can be carried out, we would expect the regulations to offer some examples of the kind of processes that we would expect a burial authority to carry out, to make sure that the burial ground is safe and whether that would stretch to requiring them to, for example, repair the headstone so that it remains upright, rather than making it safe by laying it flat is something that we will still have to consider. Mr Wilson, please. To follow-up on that one again from Wally Coffey, one of the issues that I picked up a number of years ago was the fact that a great deal of vandalism was caused in one of the cemeteries and headstones were being deliberately pushed over by someone or a group of individuals who were basically causing a great deal of damage. Now, there was a dispute between the layer owners and the local authority about who was responsible for repairing the headstones and there were issues raised about security and maintenance of the cemetery itself and who was getting access to the cemetery. How would this legislation in any way help that situation where there is a dispute between the layer owner and a headstone through acts of vandalism, not through natural the pins rusting away, but where there is deliberate acts of vandalism being caused within a cemetery? How would the owners of the layers resolve any issues and is there anything in this legislation that could be put in place to help assist that process? At the moment, the bill does not address that issue directly in terms of who would be responsible in that scenario. I think that the regulations that were made possible at section 6 would certainly give local authorities, in fact, much stronger powers to establish local rules that would govern things like when a burial ground is open and when it is closed. That would help to prevent people from getting in at times when the burial ground is not well lit or is not particularly busy with people. The other thing that those regulations can potentially do is to talk about access. Just as we think that the regulations will give them particular duties to ensure the safety of headstones, we would imagine that the regulations would talk about things like perimeter walls and fences and gates and so on to ensure that those are up to the standards that we would expect. That, in turn, would help to reduce the likelihood of people being able to gain access to a burial ground when it was otherwise locked. The committee in its recent work has looked at licensing issues, particularly in the air weapons and licensing bill, which should be scrutinised to a great degree. The draft bill provides for a licensing scheme to be set up, if necessary, and those are at sections 65 and 66. What work was undertaken prior to the bill being drafted to establish a need for licensing? I think that the genesis of it comes from both the Bill and Commissionary Review Group and Lord Bonami's work, which suggested that the current situation whereby there is no independent scrutiny or licence requirements of funeral directors is not necessarily sustainable. We asked the question in our consultation paper as to whether or not a licensing scheme and, in fact, inspection of funeral directors would be considered desirable. The response to the consultation suggested that it would be. Since then, we have worked quite closely with funeral directors to try to establish what kind of licensing scheme, the extent of the licensing scheme, the cost of the licensing scheme would be appropriate. That is work that is still on-going. Our financial memorandum sets out a model whereby the inspection of funeral directors is very much linked to the licensing of funeral directors. Essentially, if the inspection was satisfactory, then the licence would be granted. We are still looking at various options for that. I think that a key issue for us is whether or not a licensing scheme is, in fact, necessary. Although we feel that the vast majority of funeral directors operate appropriately, we are aware of others who do not. We intend to use, in the first instance, inspectors over a year or two of inspection to keep under review funeral director practices and to make recommendations to ministers as to the desirability and the benefits of a licensing scheme. If you do not use a licensing scheme, what other methods or models can you use to regulate the industry? I think that, in the first instance, the inspection regime is a potential route for that. The policy intention is that inspection would be introduced first of all and that would be a way to ensure that consistent minimum standards were being met across the whole industry. Based on inspectors' work, if they considered that that is sufficient, that might be enough to require no licensing scheme and no alternative. If, however, they were to recommend that a licensing scheme would be useful, then that is the way that we intend to go. There is a lengthy list of regulations and sections from a wide range of legislation that are being repealed at schedule 2. I think that the committee would be grateful if you could write to us and give us an indication of what part of the policies they relate to. I would imagine that the committee, after this session, might well write to you about other aspects of the draft bill 2. It is pretty complex. While we have gone through a huge amount today, there might be other items within the draft bill that we catch sight of, comprehend at a later stage and we will certainly be back to you, I am quite sure. Finally, the majority of the bill does not have specified commencement dates. What are the indicative timings for the various parts and the associated regulations that the Government is currently working towards? Broadly speaking, we would look to commence the key elements of the bill within a year to two years. We would look to commence those aspects relating to cremation initially. Those are the aspects that relate to something that is not working as it should at the moment. We would try to bring forward cremation improvements as soon as possible. We would also like to bring forward inspection as soon as possible, because a lot of the improvements to cremation need to be tested by inspection. We would then lead on to improvements in burial, which are perhaps less pressing than the improvements to cremation. That is the broad timescale. I was wrong about that, and finally, Willie Coffey. I apologise, convener. I just had a final question that I was hoping to ask. We are talking about modernising the entire process. Is there any consideration given to whether, in the national records and the register of deaths, that a person's layer reference in place of burial can be recorded? The reason I ask that is that, sometimes, when you encounter a potential relative buried in a cemetery, it is often difficult to track back the way to find their history and so on in the national records. Is there any way of closing that gap so that that is made much easier for families that want to do that sort of thing? I think that that is something that we have scoped to look at. The bill certainly puts a requirement on burial authorities to keep a burial register, and we will prescribe the form of that, so that should produce general consistency across that part of the process. We are considering how all of those different registers and all the different archival information links up, so that is certainly something that we can take under consideration. Thank you, because there is no connection between the local authorities' layer reference information and then back to the national records to identify whether it is in fact the same person. Can I thank you very much? That concludes our evidence session. I have no doubt that gentlemen will be in touch. Our call for evidence on this bill closes on 4 December, and we will take further oral evidence after that date. I now close the meeting.