When I was studying in the United States, an Orthodox student told me how much he admired that great British-Jewish institution which, in his eyes, gave us the edge over our transatlantic cousins: the burial society. To join a Jewish funeral scheme generally requires membership of a synagogue as well – a condition that has ensured higher synagogue affiliation here than in the States.
But while the traditional lock-in might have served congregations well, some members continue to chafe at the system, for if they want to move communities, they find that the cost of burial transfer can be prohibitive. The current system militates against a religious free market.
Critics of the current set-up believe that it fails to take account of changes in lifestyle and there ought to be greater flexibility. As they grow older, parents may want to move closer to their children and grandchildren – a pattern that is perhaps accentuated by the contraction of regional communities.
Alternatively, a couple may decide to leave the big city and retire to the coast or the countryside. This may have been a factor behind the surprising 16 per cent rise in the Jewish population of south-west England between 2011 and 2021, which was revealed in the last census.
But then one partner dies or becomes ill, precipitating a move back to their original place of residence, either to be with family or old friends or settle in a Jewish home for the elderly. Families may be left having to make burial arrangements at a less convenient location because of the cost.
Periodically, there are calls for change by making it easier and cheaper to transfer from one burial society to another. But synagogues retain a vested interest in the status quo that provides an incentive to belonging to them, an interest they may cling to even more closely give that affiliation to synagogues (outside the Charedi population) appears weaker than it once was among the younger generation. Ideally, burial society membership should be decoupled from synagogues and joining the latter should be simply on the basis of religious conviction or community participation rather than securing a final resting-place.
In theory, it could be possible to devise a national burial scheme open to every Jew with members maybe supplementing subscriptions with a small top-up to their chosen community. However, it would be hard to persuade denominations to set aside their religious differences to make such a scheme feasible.
A different option that has been floated is that pensioners, if they had subscribed to a scheme for a certain number of years – let’s say 35 – would be guaranteed their local burial and no longer have to pay in: so if they moved city, they could join a synagogue there without having to maintain membership in their former home in order to preserve burial rights.
A more radical possibility is if someone were prepared to buy a plot of land and start an independent Jewish cemetery that would bypass synagogues altogether – although land would not be easy to come by. In fact, plans to do that in north-west London were announced around a decade ago but ultimately came to nought.
While there may be a constant rumble of discontent over the difficulties of transfer, it has not yet built to a clamour that would force the various authorities to rethink. But there remains a case for the Jewish Leadership Council, which was founded as a strategic body, to launch a review into the area. As part of that, the JLC could commission a survey on how loyal people are to their current place of worship and, if burial rights were not an issue, whether they are actively thinking of switching shul.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.