Funeral Director Licensing Working Group minutes: May 2025

Attendees and apologies

Attendees

• James Blackburn, Scotmid Funerals
• Ephraim Borowski, Scottish Council of Jewish Communities
• Gerry Boyle, Dignity
• Rachel Bradburne, National Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD)
• Nick Britten, NAFD
• Jim Brodie, Brodie’s Funerals
• Andrew Brown, Co-op Funeralcare
• Ross Corse, John Corse Funerals
• Dietmar Hartmann, Pushing Up the Daisies
• Bobby Hopkin-Hoggarth, British Institute of Embalmers (BIE)
• Joe Murren, Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors (SAIF)
• Mark Porteous, Porteous Funerals
• Andrew Purves, William Purves Funeral Directors
• Callum Ross, Ross Funeral Directors
• Robert Swanson, Senior Inspector of Burial, Cremation and Funeral Directors
• Terry Tennens, SAIF
• Laura McGlynn, Scottish Government
• Ruth Wilson, Scottish Government

Apologies

Rizi Mohammed, National Burial Council

Items and actions

Key points

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. Apologies were received from Rizi Mohammed.

The first topic discussed was the remit of the Group and this was agreed to by members.

The Chair outlined that there had been unavoidable delays recruiting additional inspectors due to matters out with the Burial and Cremation team’s control. Despite this, the Chair stressed that this remained a priority for Scottish Government.

The Chair invited general discussion of the points raised in the paper; namely whether inspectors needed time to bed-in before licensing was pursued, and the gaps that licensing is required to fill.

There was discussion of how long the bedding in period might be. Scottish Government confirmed that this was one of the matters on which the group’s views were particularly sought.

There was broad support for pursuing the licensing regime as quickly as possible. It was noted that there were different models that could be adopted – for example, all funeral directors could get a licence on registration, or alternatively could be granted a provisional licence, which would then be upgraded to a full licence following inspection. If the latter route were taken, it would be important to ensure strategies were in place to prevent some businesses taking advantage of being granted a licence while others were still waiting for review.

Scottish Government raised questions about any gaps that an inspection regime is unable to fill, and there was discussion of whether licensing could prevent rogue funeral directors from setting up a new business if their previous licence had been revoked. This was considered to be a strong preventative measure, which is not possible under inspection regime.

There was also discussion around the benefits of having a licence number that would be needed to register burials or cremations – this should be part of a register that would be searchable by the public and burial/cremation authorities.

Scottish Government asked, if it were possible to generate a registration number through the existing register, whether requiring funeral directors to provide a number on burial forms would be useful.

It was agreed this could be a useful step, and that if funeral directors did not provide a number, it could prompt the relevant burial or cremation authority to alert Scottish Government or inspectors that a company was operating without being registered. Scottish Government could then update the register with details, and inspectors could gather intelligence on the businesses activities to understand if an inspection was warranted.

The complexities of implementing a registration number requirement were discussed, including the need to develop secondary legislation to amend burial forms, and whether evidence would be possible to demonstrate a provided registration number was legitimate.

The situation in Hull was raised as an example of harm that must be prevented, although it was also acknowledged that harm in that instance was, in large part, because of the lack of witnesses and follow up at direct cremations.

The matter of direct cremations was discussed more generally; it was accepted that remedying any issues with this system was out of scope of licensing, but concerns were raised, particularly considering evidence that they are becoming more common and there may be room for abuse.

The Senior Inspector of Burial, Cremation and Funeral Directors indicated that some of this evidence would feature in his upcoming annual report.

The Inspector also noted that licensing was unavoidably complicated; often inspection suggests individuals rather than companies are the problem. Individuals can move between companies, and without mandatory training, there is very little that can prevent it.

There was debate around whether the definition of funeral director was sufficient. Some felt it needed improvement, but the pragmatic view was that we should work with what we’ve got.

Before closing the meeting, Scottish Government confirmed they were committed to working collaboratively on licensing. Key requirement for the Scottish Government is to demonstrate that there are identifiable gaps, and that licensing can in practice fill them.

Actions

Action 1: Members agreed to email Scottish Government setting out their views on where we are, where we should go, and why inspection regime alone cannot bridge that gap.

Action 2: Scottish Government to consider scope for registration number.

Action 3: Scottish Government to provide regular email updates on progress to members, and to use blog where a greater range of feedback could be useful, or where updates are of wider interest.

Action 4: Scottish Government to be in contact by end of May at the latest with timings and topics of meetings for the rest of the year.

Contact

burialandcremation@gov.scot