The Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities has received much criticism on this blog in the past week.
I have received an assurance from the FCBA Secretary that a response will be forthcoming.
Archive: July 2014
Tradesmen and their tools – another adventure in the life of the vintage lorry hearse
Posted by David Hall
Whilst initially many people using Vintage Lorry Funerals were former Lorry Drivers, the recent business expansion has involved individuals from across the whole spectrum of employment and social backgrounds. In fact Lorry Drivers only account for 40% of the current profile, which includes Tradesmen and their Tools.
A modern day Joiner, or Chippie using the current vernacular, uses cheap saws that are often thrown away each night on Building Sites. However, in the 1950s a Craftsman took great care of his Tools which were lovingly cleaned at the end of each day. David Hall, who owns Vintage Lorry Funerals, uses his Great Uncle Bob’s saw from the 1950’s when he is preparing timber for the support structure which holds the flowers in a display. As David works he thinks back to his youth helping his Grandfather’s Brother on woodwork projects and remembers the stories his Uncle Bob would tell about his time in the Pit and World War I. Bob Wallace survived the Battle of the Somme but was put on a charge for an act of human kindness, giving a starving German prisoner a piece of his bread.
The picture above is of a Mechanic’s Funeral in Aldershot where David provided the giant spanners, oil cans and car jacks. The Leyland Beaver pulled out of Bradford-on-Avon at 0445 hours with the strategy of getting past Basingstoke before the traffic builds from 0715 hours being clearly established from previous funerals. David was through Basingstoke by 0700 hours and he parked in a lay-bye on the A30, assembling the spanners in their allocated positions as cars thundered by in the rush hour. The Leyland Beaver arrived early at Fleet, with David telling the Funeral Director, ‘You are better off looking at me, than looking for me!’ As the flowers were loaded quicker than expected, David asked the Funeral Director if someone could run him to the other side of the town where David’s Auntie lived. David had communicated each Christmas with his Dad’s Sister-in-Law but hadn’t seen her for over 40 years. She was very pleased to see him and her Daughter made a cup of tea, however, both ladies were very concerned when a black funeral car stopped outside the house. They were relieved when David explained it was his taxi. The funeral went very well apart from a delay at the Deceased’s house which was caused by the Widow making a detailed inspection of every aspect of the Mechanic’s Theme. The Widow also thanked David for providing the Ivy which supplemented the flowers and was her husband’s favourite plant. Pictures that David supplied of the funeral were placed inside a Memory Box by the Widow along with other items, which will mean a lot to their Grandchildren.
So when a Craftsman’s Family chooses the 1950 Leyland Beaver for his final journey then, where applicable, David can offer to supply tools lent by members of his Support Team, to supplement the flowers. This concept provides a memorable Tribute and also takes up the space created from reduced flower volumes in these difficult economic times.
Examples of Tradesmen and their Tools include:-
BRICKLAYER: trowels, spirit level, line
PLUMBER: blow lamp, copper pipe, water pipe
MECHANIC: spanners, jacks, oil cans
CARPENTER: block planes, saws, clamps
GARDENER: wheel barrow, spade, rake, fork
1930’s FARM HAND: gripe, slasher, sickle
GRASS CUTTER: A Lawn Mower kindly provided by Norton Garden Machinery.
The list continues to grow, and David awaits his next challenge.
Crem says no
Up at Sunderland crem there’s a book where you can write little messages to whoever you’ve come to visit. Isn’t that great? Linda Johnson has been popping in and writing little messages to her mum for the last eight years — and to her dad since Christmas. As she says, not everyone can stretch to flowers, but everyone can afford to jot a wee line to a loved one.
It’s a fabulous idea, a lovely touch, one that you’d like to see adopted everywhere. Genius. And doubtless a few crematorium managers will read this and… yawn. You don’t encounter much in the way of a service culture in many of our crems. You can normally gauge their service values by the state of their toilets.
Where were we? Oh yes, Sunderland’s brilliant book where you can write messages to the dead. Well, it’s an ex-book. It’s been snatched back. Binned, possibly. Turns out it was being abused. Linda had, let’s be kind, got completely the wrong end of the stick– together with all the other folk who’ve been writing messages to their dead ones for years and years. Doh, they were supposed to use the book to write what they thought about the crematorium — it was a comments book!!
If they’d known that, someone would probably have hung it from a nail in the toilet.
Now, you may say in a sentimentalising sort of way that the people at the crem, seeing what an excellent service their comments book was providing under the informal terms of its change of use, should have kept it where it was, nipped down to Staples and bought… a comments book, ta-da.
Don’t be so bloody soft. You’ve got to take a firm line with the bereaved, everyone knows that. Give them an inch and you don’t know where they’ll be commemorating their dead next. Come on, look at it from the crem’s point of view. They ALREADY HAVE A BOOK. Yes. With fees starting at a mere £47 and going up to an incredibly modest £263. “We also have an electronic book which enables families to view different dates of entry from the book of remembrance if they cannot attend on the specific anniversary of their loved one’s passing“, whatever the hell that means.
So there you go, Linda, get yer chequebook out. Sorted. Come on, they’re on your side, the crem for, as they say, “We always listen to what people tell us about how they would like to see bereavement services delivered and are considering what options are available to go with what is already available.”
Better now?
[Source]
About time too?
Lord Bonomy’s exasperation with the NHS, cremation authorities and funeral directors, whose ill-informed advice and guidance led so many thousands of parents of babies who had died to suppose that there would be no ashes after cremation, caused him to recommend the establishment of an inspectorate of crematoria:
Scottish Ministers should appoint an independent Inspector to monitor working practices and standards at crematoria, provide feedback to Cremation Authorities on how they are performing and to report to the Scottish Ministers as required. The independent Inspector should have authority to investigate complaints from the public about working practices and standards at crematoria, to adjudicate upon these complaints and report findings to the Scottish Ministers.
But he doesn’t stop there. He wants the clean-up to go further. Given the circumstances, it is entirely reasonable that he goes on to recommend that:
The role of the Inspector should be extended to the funeral industry in respect of which there is no current provision for inspection.
There’s a fine bombshell for a Friday morning.
Hat-tip to JB for highlighting this.
Tim Morris of the ICCM on the baby ashes scandal
We are pleased this morning to publish the responses of Tim Morris, Chief Executive of the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management to four questions we emailed him last weekend concerning the recommendations of the Bonomy Report which was set up in the aftermath of the Mortonhall Investigation Report. We are extremely grateful to him for taking the time to do this, the more so because he is under absolutely no obligation to do so. GFG questions in black, Tim’s response in blue.
1. I am not aware of any published figures regarding success rates for the recovery of ashes resulting from the cremation of ‘babies and infants’ (Bonomy) by crematoria in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Have the figures been collated?
UK figures in E & W have not been collated however the BBC has sent FOI requests to all local government crematoria. As you know, private crematoria are not bound by FOI legislation. The figures in Scotland were collated by the Commission and these reflect those previously collected by the BBC and identify those where no ashes or a limited number were returned. The private sector responded to the Commission.
2. Would you expect to see, or are you aware of, similar disparities in baby ash recovery rates between crematoria in the rest of the UK?
We are only aware of the case of Emstrey crematorium however on the basis of information relating to Scotland there could potentially be more.
At the outset of the Mortonhall issue the Institute couldn’t understand why any crematorium would treat the cremation of a baby differently to that of an adult. It is now evident that this was happening at a number of crematoria for many years. Dame Angiolini recognised the perceived difference between ashes and cremated remains as being the ‘fundamental issue’. The fact that ashes were recovered at Mortonhall and buried without the knowledge of parents is indicative of the view by some that there is nothing of the baby within the ash.
3. Bonomy recommends that the “ICCM and FBCA should review their respective technical training programmes”. Has the ICCM fallen short in its training provision to operators of crematorium equipment and subsequent sharing of best practice?
It has to be said that the Institute has not included specific baby and infant cremation training in its technicians training scheme however it had published articles on technique as long ago as 1997. At the time of the Mortonhall issue coming to light there was no indication that difference was being applied in respect of ‘ashes’ and ‘cremated remains’. No more excuses – the job needs to be finished. This recommendation is being addressed with a new training unit to be released in the near future.
4. Has the ICCM formulated and published a response to Bonomy? If so, may I have a copy?
I’ll forward the Institute’s newsletter this week when it goes out to our members. We are working closely with Sands who will also be sending out correspondence this week.
The report has been well received by the Institute’s board and we have commenced implementing the specific recommendations. We are certainly pleased in respect of:
* The definition of the terms ashes and cremated remains are to be defined in legislation as this effectively clarifies beyond doubt the ‘fundamental issue’ and difference of opinion between the FBCA and ICCM.
* Forms and register are to be made statutory documents as this will force a common approach and provide security of information for parents.
* The national investigation of every case in Scotland will be undertaken by Dame Angiolini as this might bring closure for some bereaved parents and get to the bottom of the root cause.
* The Scottish Government is making representation to its counterparts in England and Wales as we believe that the Ministry of Justice must now become involved.
* The recommended inspectorate. This is something that the Institute suggested in 2000 and 2004.
* Opposition to policy and guidance for the sensitive disposal of babies has been swept aside.
Institute members have been sent regular newsletters since this issue first arose informing them of progress with regard the work of the Commission and is the only organisation within the cremation sector that has posted the reports and newsletters on its website.
On a closely connected matter the main reason for the Institute’s first policy statement made in 1985 was to cease the clinical waste route for babies. This continued to be a hidden scandal for years. At last, and following a 30 minute documentary the Minister ordered a cessation of this route for babies just a month or so ago.
All that remains
There is no legal definition of ashes.
Perhaps you prefer to call them ‘cremated remains’. Or ‘tangible remains’. Or even ‘total recoverable remains’. Selecting just one term and assigning an exact definition to it was one of the jobs Lord Bonomy set himself in his report. The fact that there remains no legal definition has resulted in confused and misleading guidance to the parents of babies who have died.
Does it really matter what you call them? Yes, it does. It comes down to what you think ashes are.
Are they what remains of a dead human after cremation?
Or are they the remains of a dead human + coffin + anything that was placed in the coffin after they have been cremated?
On the one hand, the Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities offers this directive to those who advise the parents of children who have died:
“In cases where bereaved parents desire the cremation of an infant or of fetal remains, they should be warned that there are occasions when no tangible remains are left after the cremation process has been completed. This is due to the cartilaginous nature of the bone structure.”
The inference of this directive is that ‘tangible remains’ are the remains of the body. The ash from the coffin and anything in it don’t count.
On the other hand, the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management defines ashes as both the remains of the body + coffin + anything in it. It all counts.
When this clash of definitions was pointed out to Tim Morris, chief exec of the ICCM, in 2013, he responded: “I have only heard about this distinction in the last few months.” Yup, the two representative authorities have been reading from different hymn sheets.
Everyone agrees that cremation is complete when the last flame has flickered and died. No one is suggesting that metal parts which survive cremation should be considered ashes.
And common sense tells us that the FBCA directive is nonsense. How on earth could you possibly tell skeletal remains apart from coffin ash? Only a fool would try to separate them.
Bonomy takes the view that everything that remains at the end of a cremation is ashes. His opinion is reinforced by the “widespread perception among the public” that this is so, “and that if that is not the perception among crematoria staff, then it should be.”
He identifies the conflicting perception of “representatives and staff of Cremation Authorities and Funeral Directors” who believe that “’ashes’ are what remains of the cremated baby.”
In doing so, he gets to the root cause of the misleading advice given to the public: the misguided “understanding that the bones are not sufficiently developed to produce remains led crematoria to convey to Funeral Directors, clergy and healthcare staff that there would not be, or were unlikely to be, ashes following the cremation of a baby” – because coffin ash doesn’t count.
This ‘understanding’, let us be clear, seems to have resulted from ignorance that skeletal remains can be recovered from a baby of 17 weeks’ gestation. So it is with ill-concealed understatement that Bonomy concludes: “The extent to which that information was accepted without question by healthcare staff, as illustrated in the MIR, is surprising.”
Bonomy wants cremation law in Scotland to define ashes as: “all that is left within the cremator at the conclusion of the cremation process and following the extraction of all metal.”
But as he points out, crematoria in Scotland comprise but 10% of the UK total. We clearly need a clarification of the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, too. The sooner the better.