BSI has published its consultation standard for memorial fixing, which is broadly based on the National Association of Memorial Mason\'s (NAMM\'s) Recommended Code of Working Practice.

It includes the suggestion that a stone should be capable of withstanding a pull force of up to 150kg at 1.5m above the ground or the top of the memorial, whichever is lower.

Sam Weller of the Association of Burial Authorities (ABA) has welcomed the draft standard and its inclusion of ground anchor fixing systems, but believes it should include more details of foundations, including a requirement for them to be seated below the frost level.

The ABA agreed at a meeting in Portcullis House, London, at which the ABA/Zuurich Municipal Guide to Safety of Management in Burial Grounds was launched, to set up a working group to look at the question of who takes responsibility for the correct fixing of memorials (see November NSS). That is to be called the Memorial Safety Advisory Group and will meet for the first time on 17 January.

In the meantime, the group the Government has established to provide advice on changes to the laws and practices in cemeteries met for the first time on 13 December. It is a cross industry group that involves representatives of government, the memorial industry (including NAMM), burial and cremation authorities (including ABA, IBCA, CBA, the Cremation Association, the Local Government Association).

The Government, responding to a select committee report, said it wanted some basic information about cemeteries, starting with how many there are and who operates them. That research is already underway, headed by indepedent research consultant Dr Brenda Wilson.

In September last year Euro-ROC, the European stone organisation of which NAMM is a member, started anti-dumping procedures against granite coming into the EU from China and India. The Commission accepted there was a prima-facie case and embarked on an investigation of the allegations. In June this year Euro-ROC withdrew its complaint. The Commission contacted interested parties to ascertain if termination of the proceedings would be against the EU interests. No comments were received to that effect and the proceedings were terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures.