An increasing number of us say we worry about the cost of dying as much as the cost of living. “I can’t afford to die” might be a dark joke but it’s nearer the truth than many of us care to admit.
I acted recently as executor of the estate of an unmarried relative. He wished no public funeral. In my naivety I thought that would make things simpler and significantly cheaper. How wrong can one be?
Meters tick and cash registers ring from the moment the deceased person takes his or her last breath.
The registrar is the first port of call for most bereaved relatives. Despite having made an appointment and a round trip of 50 miles, I couldn’t register the death because it had been selected for “a level two” review. the inevitable question followed: “Can you come back tomorrow or the day after?” I could have wept.
When I was finally able to register the death the credit card had its first outing. A full extract of the death certificate, essential for dealing with a relative’s financial affairs, costs £10, making it a pricey photocopy.
Thence to the funeral directors. No public funeral; a totally private cremation. Surely this wasn’t going to break the bank? Wrong again. The “simplest package to meet my needs” would be a mere £3,320.
To add insult to financial injury, if I wanted the funeral director to insert the death announcement in the local paper I would have to “upgrade” my package. What do you expect for a piddling £3,320: a glass hearse and plumed black horses?
Unfortunately my relative did not leave his affairs in good shape. I promptly realised I would require a solicitor’s advice and help to obtain the necessary confirmation. Although personal experience tells me that there is no legal equivalent of Primark, professional fees of £200 per hour still took my breath away.
And so it goes on. For the simplest of funerals or,more accurately, no funeral at all, I find myself out of pocket to the tune of around £5,000 and counting. I suppose I am in the fortunate position of being able to meet the cost but, for an increasing number of Scots, funeral costs are literally a life and death matter.
Fuel poverty and funeral poverty affect the same sections of our population. Struggling families can’t be expected to salt away thousands of pounds to meet the cost of what is inevitable for us all. The Herald recently revealed that cash-strapped local authorities are facing a rapid increase in the number of so- called public health funerals for those whose families cannot meet the cost. The re-emergence of the pauper’s funeral and grave is another milestone on the retreat to 19th century insecurity.
Some families are taking steps to cut costs. There is a reported increase in the number of DIY funerals. Families are buying coffins on the internet and transporting the deceased to the cemetery or crematorium in their own or in hired vehicles.
Full marks for ingenuity and a desire to eliminate the middleman but it hardly represents a dignified send-off for our nearest and dearest.
The Scottish Government intends to press ahead with a bill on burial and cremation and other matters. The consultation on the proposed bill elicited only 181 responses, mostly from councils and other organisations representing vested interests.
Only a handful of individuals responded, perhaps because few of the questions related directly to the issue of funeral poverty.
The Government needs to accept that the cost of dying has escalated out of all control. It is difficult to understand how the double-digit annual increases can be justified.
My recent experience demonstrated how difficult it is to negotiate and question funeral costs for those closest to us. We are at our most vulnerable and wish to do our best for them.
The Government’s response to its recent consultation on burial and cremation indicated that there were few suggestions on how to address escalating funeral costs and growing funeral poverty.
An independent, forensic examination of the actual cost of funerals and legal services associated with wills and estates would be an appropriate starting point for long-awaited and much-needed regulation.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel