MP campaigns for child funeral costs to be paid for by Government

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

Too many people put themselves in debt for all sorts of things. If you follow this train of thought the taxpayer should pay for all children's clothes, all their food, all their toys and sports and school stationery, because children.

I say "all" but obviously we mean middle class people's children because the people who are supposed to benefit from this kind of thing never do. They wouldn't know this handout existed, and if they knew they wouldn't claim it, and if they claimed it they wouldn't know that when you get automatically rejected that's only the first step and you're supposed to appeal while getting your solicitor to tell you how to word a successful claim.

."

This really just plain wrong. The reality is that people come under considerable pressure to fund funerals which they often have no liability for, or to have a more elaborate, and more expensive one. In the real world there are lots of people who simply don't have the money to pay to bury a child or other relative. It is arrant nonsense to assert that the poor don't benefit from council funded funerals though the facility is not as widely known as it should be. It is also wrong to suggest that Councils automatically refuse to fund public health funerals.

getmore4less

I believe there is a subtle difference with child(<18) deaths.

The responsibility for the disposal/cost lies with the parents, for adults it fall to the estate and does not fall on specific individuals.

AIUI historically the expectation was that the owner of where the person died had the responsibility for disposal but this changed over time to the current situation where that only applies to hospitals with the councils picking up the rest(both can recover from the estate).

Without some digging to establish if the changes that transferred responsibility to the councils included insolvent/impoverished parents.

securityguy

"The responsibility for the disposal/cost lies with the parents"

Hmm, that's interesting.

The large print of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, S.46(1) giveth:

It shall be the duty of a local authority to cause to be buried or cremated the body of any person who has died or been found dead in their area, in any case where it appears to the authority that not suitable arrangements for the disposal of the body have been or are being made otherwise than by the authority.

but the small print of subsection (5) taketh away:

An authority may recover from the estate of the deceased person or from any person who for the purposes of the National Assistance Act 1948 was liable to maintain the deceased person immediately before his death expenses incurred under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above

I presume this is a reference to National Assistance Act 1948 S.42(1)

(1)For the purposes of this Act—
(a)a man shall be liable to maintain his wife and his children, and
(b)a woman shall be liable to maintain her husband and her children.

Presumably this means that for married couples, Public Health funerals are similarly charged back to spouses?

Pincher

Burial? Taylor Wimpey will be digging you up in a few years time to build new apartments.

When I die, I want Elon Musk to put on a space mausoleum.
First class people go as corpses, Business class go as ashes in urns. Economy allows 1kg of ashes in a labelled plastic bag.

Once fully loaded in Earth orbit. There is a choice of itineraries.

1. Sun dive. Straight to the heart of the sun, when the sun goes Supernova, you get scattered throughout the universe.

2. Solar orbit. Various, e.g. be like a comet, but I would prefer a perpendicular orbit to the ecliptic plane.

3. The deluxe option. After a grand tour of the solar system, using slingshot turns, we go for the Galactic Core.

I don't see the point of going extra Galactic as soon as we leave the solar system, but there are always weirdos who want to leave the galaxy in a hurry.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

"The responsibility for the disposal/cost lies with the parents"

Hmm, that's interesting.

The large print of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, S.46(1) giveth:



but the small print of subsection (5) taketh away:



I presume this is a reference to National Assistance Act 1948 S.42(1)



Presumably this means that for married couples, Public Health funerals are similarly charged back to spouses?

Spouses are no longer legally responsible for the funeral costs of their spouse. The sole responsibility is with the estate. If the estate does not have the funds then the cost has to be borne by the local authority or the hospital where the deceased died. I can't quote the legislation but is so well established that I have never heard it queried before.

Malthusian

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

This really just plain wrong. The reality is that people come under considerable pressure to fund funerals which they often have no liability for, or to have a more elaborate, and more expensive one.

True, but people put themselves "under pressure" to pay for all sorts of things they don't need, such as elaborate birthday parties or end-of-term parties for 16 year olds. This is not a problem that can be solved by taxpayers' money.

It is arrant nonsense to assert that the poor don't benefit from council funded funerals though the facility is not as widely known as it should be. It is also wrong to suggest that Councils automatically refuse to fund public health funerals.

I suggested no such thing. Nowhere in my post did I refer to public health funerals. I was referring to the proposed handout, which would fall into the same category as continuing care and needs-based disability benefits.

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

True, but people put themselves "under pressure" to pay for all sorts of things they don't need, such as elaborate birthday parties or end-of-term parties for 16 year olds. This is not a problem that can be solved by taxpayers' money.



I suggested no such thing. Nowhere in my post did I refer to public health funerals. I was referring to the proposed handout, which would fall into the same category as continuing care and needs-based disability benefits.

I apologise if I misunderstood what you were arguing. I assumed you were referring to PHF that was the main topic. Certainly the poor do benefit from them. My point was that it seems that people are often not made aware of the local authority's obligation. I would hope that a scrupulous FD would tell people before they commit to paying themselves. Because it is still, for many people particularly the elderly, a taboo subject there is still much misunderstanding. Society needs to change the attitude to death and the consequences. There should be no shame in having a PHF or in having a simple funeral.

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Spouses are no longer legally responsible for the funeral costs of their spouse. The sole responsibility is with the estate. If the estate does not have the funds then the cost has to be borne by the local authority or the hospital where the deceased died. I can't quote the legislation but is so well established that I have never heard it queried before.

In which case, I wonder if the same changes also affect children.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

In which case, I wonder if the same changes also affect children.

I know of no difference regarding children. A child may well have assets and therefore an estate.

davidgmmafan

The government response, as usual, is nonsense. You cannot simply say councils can waive this if they wish at the same time as salami slicing the government grant to local authorities.

Perhaps the PM thinks this should be a matter for individuals as some posters here have said but that is different to what she said.