This is the second part of our update series explaining how we got to where we are, re the current Edinburgh Council Cemetery Management Rules, introduced on 16th August 2022.

If you have not already read it, we strongly recommend you read the following update first:

STAGE 1: Right Back to The Start – Cemetery Strategy Report – CCC Meeting 16th November 2021: https://t.ly/FAGp7

The takeaways from this 16th November 2021 meeting of Edinburgh Council’s Culture & Communities Committee (the Committee that oversee the Cemetery Management Rules) are:

• Robbie Beattie, The Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services Senior Manager at Edinburgh Council, rightly stated that the primary purpose of cemeteries was “to honour the dead and allow people to attend a grave and mourn a loved one”.
• Mr Beattie highlighted (twice in 10 minutes) that dogs in cemeteries were an issue and the issue was “contentious”.
• The Cemetery Strategy Report clearly states as one of its six strategic objectives that cemeteries should be “Poignant places of remembrance and reflection”.
• If you word search the Cemetery Strategy Report PDF for the word “dog”, it does not appear once. https://t.ly/DAXT1

STAGE 2

Edinburgh Council’s Culture & Communities Committee meeting on 1st February 2022

This is one of the most important meetings in this three year journey.

It is important to note that the Committee seemed to only consider two rule options during this meeting:

1: The proposed “dogs on leads” in cemeteries rule option.
2: A total ban on dogs in cemeteries

We do not support a total ban on dogs in cemeteries. We fully support access for dogs with mourners, and assistance dogs (which are already protected under the Equality Act 2010).

One Councillor during this meeting even goes as far as to say dogs accompanying mourners could be classed as “assistance dogs”. 

This meeting is where:

• Paul gave his first deputation to the Committee, live from Morningside Cemetery
• Robbie Beattie (Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services Senior Manager) presented the new draft Cemetery Management Rules for Committee consideration, pointing out that although Bereavement Services had tried to strike a balance with a “dogs on leads” proposal in the draft rules, there were other options open to the Committee
• Mr Beattie also clarified some issues around enforcement and costs, regardless of what direction the Committee decided to go on the new rules
• An Addendum (change) was proposed by Cllr Max Mitchell, to trial the proposed new rule of “dogs on leads” for one year (which was allowed)
• A Verbal Amendment was proposed by Cllr Amy Meechan, to agree to the trial but to change it from a trial of “dogs on leads” to a trial of “no dogs at all” (which was disallowed)

We will not repeat everything that was said in this meeting in this post, rather we will give you the most important points.

You can of course review the entire meeting yourself. You can view the attendance details, the agenda, the public reports pack, the motions & amendments, and the minutes yourself at this link: https://t.ly/7MLLx

You can also watch the relevant parts of the meeting in the webcast at the above link, to see and hear for yourself what Paul, Robbie Beattie and the Committee had to say.

Paul’s deputation is from approximately the 05 minute mark to the 22 minutes mark

The deliberation, questions, amendments, and voting are from 22 minutes mark to the 01 hour 20 minutes mark.

1: Paul’s Deputation

Paul gave a ten minute deputation to the Committee members, live from Morningside Cemetery, and then took questions from the Committee afterwards. He also submitted a written deputation which the Committee had previous sight of before the meeting. This written deputation contains the following paragraph (you can read the whole written deputation via the link above):

“It was expressed by the deputee that regulations in cemeteries clearly needed to be strengthened. Keeping dogs on leads was no solution as dogs had been seen misbehaving even when restrained"

All the Committee members thanked Paul for his deputation, acknowledging it must not have been an easy thing for him to do, and saying he made his points very clearly.

2: Questions to Paul from Committee

2.1 Cllr Amy McNeese Meechan thanked Paul for his deputation, said he had raised a good point re dogs urinating on headstones, and that she agreed it did not matter whether the headstone was recent or not. It was disrespectful “and could be someone’s gran”.

2.2 Cllr Max Mitchell thanked Paul for his deputation and the “frank & honest” emails he had sent. He asked Paul if he thought it was a reasonable step to remove professional dog walkers, introduce the “dogs on leads” rule, introduce new signage, have an increase in patrols, remove those who break the rules, and look at how things were in a years’ time?

Paul did not feel this went far enough. He felt offenders would “toe the line for a while, then revert back” to breaking the rules. He felt dog walkers were using cemeteries for exercise as they were “convenient”. Cllr Mitchell agreed they should be “quiet places”.

2.3 Cllr Hal Osler thanked Paul for his deputation and commented that there appeared to be a real lack of understanding amongst some dog walkers. However, she expressed concerns about a “no dogs” ban, citing it would mean “24/7 enforcement, and it may prevent people visiting graves that are important to them”. Paul felt that if there was proper signage, maybe including an explanation as to why it was inappropriate to bring a dog in a cemetery, then most people would obey these signs.

It is at this point that Robbie Beattie (Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services Senior Manager) brings the draft Cemetery Management Rules to Committee for consideration, and to seek approval for public consultation.

Mr Beattie thanks Paul for his “powerful deputation”, acknowledging that Bereavement Services have worked closely with Paul & his family in the past, and they have tried to strike a balance in their draft Cemetery Management Rules to consider the differences across the 43 cemeteries that they manage.

However, he points out that their proposed “dogs on leads” rule is only one option – the Committee can overrule this, and there are several options available, including:

·         a total ban on dogs

·         a trial at Morningside Cemetery of “no dogs”

·         banning the exercising of dogs in a cemetery  

Mr Beatie acknowledged that some wording on new signage trialled a year ago was open to interpretation by dog walkers, particularly around cleaning up after a dog, and control of a dog, and could be improved.

3: Questions from Committee to Robbie Beattie

3.1 Cllr Amy McNeese Meechan commented that it will be distressing to see dogs urinating on headstones. She asked Mr Beattie if he had the resources for stronger signage and officer patrols in cemeteries, if a “total ban” was introduced, even on a trial basis.

Mr Beattie replied “signage is not a problem; it is a small amount, and we have an internal sign team to produce the signs. The enforcement is the same for “no dogs” as it is for “dogs on leads” – it is still going to require the same amount of checking up and education. There is no way to choose, based on enforcement”

Let’s repeat that:

“The enforcement is the same for “no dogs” as it is for “dogs on leads” – it is still going to require the same amount of checking up and education. There is no way to choose, based on enforcement”

Straight from the horse’s mouth – regardless of what rule Edinburgh Council’s Culture & Communities Committee chose to implement at this meeting, there would be no extra cost to enforcement.

We already know from Section 6 of the Cemetery Management Rules Report presented at this meeting, the following:

Financial Impact: If approved by the committee there will be a requirement to update signage in all cemeteries at an estimated cost of up to £1000 which will be contained within current approved budget.

So, there we have it – regardless of what rule Edinburgh Council’s Culture & Communities Committee chose to implement at this meeting, the total cost was going to be around £1000.

3.2 Cllr Hal Osler states that the most important thing "is that cemeteries are respectful places and that they are being abused. They have a specific purpose and there lots of green spaces in Edinburgh to use". She again cites concerns around enforcement.

Mr Beattie replies that there will always be a small minority who will not abide by the rules, citing issues at Warriston Cemetery. However, he again states enforcement would be the same for a “total ban on dogs” as it would be for “dogs on leads”, clarifying “there is no difference”.

Cllr Osler asked, “what is the penalty?” for breaking the rules. Mr Beattie replies “exclusion from the cemetery, and of course there is the Dog Fouling Act, Officers can issue a Fixed Penalty Notice of £80…although our Officers do not have the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices”.

Yes – you read that right. Bereavement Services Officers carrying out visits to Edinburgh Cemeteries do not have the power to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice, even if they see a dog fouling offence right in front of them.

We currently have a Freedom of Information Request in to Edinburgh Council, asking “how many fixed penalty notices were issued for dog fouling in Edinburgh Cemeteries in 2023”

I think we can all guess the answer.

3.3 Cllr Alex Staniforth asked Mr Beattie how often Officers visited cemeteries to try and enforce the rules, and whether he thought simple rules are “easier for the public to self-police” as the public will inform each of the change and that will result in easier enforcement.

Mr Beattie replied “it can vary between cemeteries; some are visited every day and others every two weeks. There are hot spots. Simple rules can be easier, it was “no dogs” before, and many of our neighbouring Local Authorities have a “no dogs” policy, and many private cemeteries have a “no dogs” policy – it is a bit like the “No Ball Games” sign in green spaces…everyone understands what that means” 

3.4 Cllr Amy McNeese Meechan asked again, re enforcement and number of Officers, “it would require the same staffing, for each option?”

Mr Beattie replied “yes, the same overall bodies, regardless”

3.5 Cllr Catherine Fullerton asked, “if we went for the “no dogs” option, do you think that word would get around, and people would accept it?”

Mr Beattie replied “Absolutely. Once you get the message out, that there are no dogs allowed, it would not be the same resource used year after year – we would have a years graft, to get the message across”

4: Addendum – Cllr Max Mitchell

“Agrees officers will report back to committee one year from implementation detailing compliance, complaints, and any enforcement actions in relation to the new management rules”

Cllr Mitchell introduced his Addendum, commenting that “Does grieving really end? Cemeteries are not like other green spaces, and people entering should be aware of this. They are quiet places of reflection”.

Cllr Mitchell asks for a trial period of one year, for a “dogs on leads” rule, stating “word will get out, a cemetery is not a park, people will be excluded if dogs are not under control, and fined if they foul”.

Cllr Mitchell’s Addendum was Seconded.

5: Verbal Amendment - Cllr Amy McNeese Meechan

Cllr Meechan introduced a late Verbal Amendment. She acknowledged that Cllr Mitchell’s Addendum is ”useful and helpful, I support trialling whatever is decided, but I am less happy with allowing families like Paul’s to go through another year having to complain or have these upsetting incidents happening to them, in order to supply data”.

Cllr Meechan is bang on the button here – another year.

Cllr Meechan wanted a trial of “no dogs in cemeteries” for a year, particularly as it had been stated that the Council resources required would be identical, the same staffing and the same investment. She states, “given what we have heard today, the “no dogs” option is the more straightforward option”.

Cllr Ethan Young and Cllr Fullerton both express support for Cllr Meechan. Cllr Young formally Seconds the Verbal Amendment.

6: Councillor Comments on Addendum and Verbal Amendment

6.1 Cllr Mitchell does not agree with the Verbal Amendment proposal, feeling it is too much of a substantial change to be submitted verbally, and on a point of order, it should have been submitted earlier, for the Committee's consideration.

6.2 Cllr Meechan points out that she had not heard Paul’s deputation until this morning, and he made a lot more valid points in this, that were not in his written submission. She felt, given what they had heard this morning, her Verbal Amendment was worth putting forward, and it had been Seconded by Cllr Young.

6.3 Cllr Fullerton states that she agrees with Cllr Meechan, Paul’s deputation "touched my heart, and if we were in his shoes, it would be hard to disagree – walkers can not see what their dogs are doing when they are running around off lead, cemeteries are a quiet place for loved ones, not for dogs running around – walkers will have to walk a wee bit further. I truly believe the public will accept this over time”

6.4 Cllr Osler again raises her concerns around enforcement and worries that “the minority are ruining it for the majority, we will lose the support of individuals who have done nothing wrong. We need to take people with us, remind people what these places are for, people are intelligent, spend a year educating, review in a year, and ban if it’s not working”.

6.5 Cllr Phil Doggart expresses concerns about an elderly mourner vising a grave with a dog, and that the Verbal Amendment is not specific in wording.

6.6 Cllr Mark Brown feels it is “draconian” to impact on mourners with dogs, although “does not understand why anyone would use a cemetery for exercising a dog”. He feels an outright ban “does not sit right”.

6.7 Cllr Chas Booth comments that Paul’s deputation was “powerful” but “the time is not now” for a “total ban”. He does not support the Verbal Amendment

6.8 Cllr Ethan Young comments “it is easier to enforce a “no dog” rule, it is more straightforward. People understand it, it is not a radical approach. An owner still cannot control their dogs toilet habits on lead. It should be assistance dogs only, no forces to enforce, no forces to educate – dogs with mourners could be classed as assistance dogs” 

7: Outcome

The Convener of the Culture & Communities Committee rules that he is not allowing the Verbal Amendment, as it was submitted too late, and is too “radical” a change for a Verbal Amendment. He allowed discussion of it because Paul’s deputation “had to be allowed to have an impact”

The Committee notes the report and approves the draft Cemetery Management Rules to be issued for public inspection, with the “dogs on leads” rule.

Phew…

So, what did we learn from this meeting?

• Although the draft Cemetery Management Rules were based on a “dogs on leads” rule, there were several other options open to the Committee, including:
  • a total ban on dogs
  • a trial at Morningside Cemetery of “no dogs”
  • banning the exercising of dogs in a cemetery  
    
    
• Robbie Beattie (Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services Senior Manager) and several Councillors believe, eventually, the public would self-police a stronger ban. It would not require increased Enforcement.
  
  
• There would be NO EXTRA COST in Enforcement, regardless of what option the Committee decided upon. This was reiterated by Mr Beattie several times.
  
  
• The total financial impact would be approximately £1000, for new signage.
  
  
• Currently, the “penalty” for dog owners breaking the rules is “exclusion from the cemetery”. Council Officers from Bereavement Services do NOT have the power to issue a £80 Fixed Penalty Notice, even if they see a dog fouling offence happening right in front of them.
   
• The Committee had the option of trialling several options: a complete ban, a partial ban, a targeted ban, a ban on exercising dogs etc, and not putting Paul and his family, and others in their position through another TWO YEARS of this upset (not the “one year trial” talked about).

The Committee eventually “revisited” the Cemetery Management Rules at a meeting on 7th December 2023…a full sixteen months after the new Cemetery Management Rules were introduced, and a full 25 months after the meeting discussed above.

We will do a similar breakdown of that meeting soon.

Paul was not invited to the 7th December 2023 meeting, to give his thoughts and opinion on whether the trial period had been a success….