CEMETERIES (Hansard, 25 March 1974)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)
I beg to move, That the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1974, dated 12th March 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved. It is appropriate for me to bring before the House an order such as this in the dead of night. The order, although unsensational in its content and undertaken in the context of local government reorganisation, constitutes an important chapter in the history of burial law.
The law of burial developed rather messily and haphazardly in the middle of the nineteenth century. It has for many years been recognised as one of the most out-of-date and chaotic branches of the law. The most obscure and complicated aspects of it were those relating to the provision and management of burial grounds and cemeteries by local authorities, many of which, but not all, could work either under the Burial Acts 1852 to 1906 or under the even older, but at least more concise, Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847, which was applied by the Public Health (Interments) Act 1879. Some authorities operated grounds under both codes and there was no provision for switching from one code to the other.
The London Government Act 1963 undertook some rationalisation of the law as it related to London. For example, it applied the Clauses Act of 1847 to the cemeteries of London local authorities, to the exclusion of the Burial Acts. The opportunity for a more thorough overhaul was taken in the Bill which became the Local Government Act 1972.
The Act repeals, as from 1st April of this year, the Public Health (Interments) Act 1879 and the provisions in the Burial Acts 1852 to 1906, conferring powers to provide burial grounds. Instead, the 1972 Act starts again by conferring the power to provide cemeteries upon burial authorities, which are defined so as to include all local authorities other than county councils. This means that such power is conferred upon parish and community councils and parish meetings of parishes which have no parish council.
235 The Act empowers the Secretary of State to make provision by order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, with respect to the management, regulation and control of the cemeteries of local authorities. This is the first such order.
As a precautionary measure, the Act applies the code of operation contained in the Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847 to all burial authorities until such time as the first order made by the Secretary of State takes effect. The object was solely to ensure that, if for any reason it proved impossible to bring an order into force by 1st April 1974, burial authorities would still have a set of detailed powers for the operation of their cemeteries in spite of the repeals in the 1972 Act. But no one could really want to complicate the administration of the new burial authorities or of the many parish burial authorities which continue in existence by requiring them to operate temporarily under an Act of 1847 which most of them have never seen and which it would be very difficult indeed to obtain at the Vote Office or anywhere else. Hence the importance of ensuring that this order takes effect on 1st April 1974.
The order includes such material on the management of cemeteries as it seemed necessary to preserve from the vast mass of nineteenth-century legislation which is being repealed, but a number of additions and improvements have been made in consultation with the interested organisations.
It is intended to deal in further orders with special subjects like the registration of burials and the conversion of cemeteries to lawn cemeteries—these are important and contentious issues—and, indeed, to consolidate them with this one so that from now on burial authorities will have a concise and up-to-date code for the operation of their cemeteries.
What cannot be done in these orders is to deal with matters other than the management, regulation and control of local authority cemeteries, or to deal at all with matters related to cemeteries provided otherwise than by local authorities. I know that in various parts of the country there are problems with regard to cemeteries provided by bodies other than local authorities. I am seeing a delegation tomorrow night dealing with 236 a private cemetery not far from the precincts of the House which is now overcrowded and where various difficulties arise.
This leaves a number of aspects of the law of burial which could be dealt with only by a Bill, for which, regrettably, previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have been unable to find parliamentary time. These aspects of the law are now being considered separately by my Department with a view to a Bill being brought forward in the future.
Meanwhile, however, the 1972 Act and this order will have remedied the worst defects of the existing law of burial. I therefore commend this very useful order to the House.

§ Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)
Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the order, which I understand was drafted as to the greater part by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) but was overtaken by the events of the General Election and is, therefore, presented by the hon. Gentleman instead of by my right hon. Friend.
There are two matters on which I seek a brief explanation. First, I believe, that in Article 5(5) a new element has been introduced. It provides: Notwithstanding the consecration or the setting apart for the use of a particular Christian denomination of the part of a cemetery in which any body is to be buried the burial may take place without any religious service … Knowing how sensitive an area this is, I should like to have the assurance of the Minister that—if I may use a phrase used in this connection by a Welsh provincial newspaper—he has consulted all interested bodies.
My other question relates to Article 10, in which the right is given to a bishop of the Church of England, as regards the consecrated part of a cemetery, to object to any inscription on a tombstone or memorial. Why is this right given? If it is necessary for it to be enjoyed, why should it not also be enjoyed by the heads of other denominations? If it could be offensive for a particular inscription to be on a tombstone in a consecrated part of a cemetery within the 237 jurisdiction of a bishop of the Church of England and he may object, why cannot an objection be made by the head of some other denomination over part of a cemetery allocated to his denomination?

§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)
I notice that in Schedule 3 to the order there is a suggestion that Section 1(1)(a) of the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 should be repealed. That was a Private Member's Bill which I introduced and was the only Act which has ever reached the statute book through my offices. I think that I have some authority to ask this question. It is an Act which is fairly dear to my heart.
I should be grateful to have an explanation of this. If the Minister is a little short of an answer, I am prepared to talk for a moment or two longer. If it is to hand, I am ready to sit down.

§ Mr. Oakes
I will deal first with the point about the bodies that we consulted. I feel tempted to say that local authorities are statutory undertakers. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested to know that we consulted religious denominations, including the Representative Body of the Church of Wales. We also consulted local authorities and such bodies as the National Association of Funeral Directors, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Association of Master Monumental Masons and the National Union of Funeral and Cemetery Workers. Indeed, the Department has cast its net far and wide to make sure of agreement to the order.
Article 5(5) was agreed by the General Synod and the Churches' Main Committee. It is not new. The provision was in the Burial Act 1880 which provided for a burial with no religious service, notice of the burial being given. The article is almost consolidation of the Act of 1880.
Article 10 provides for the right of a bishop of the Church of England to object to the wording on a tombstone. Although it is little used, that is a valuable right 238 because of the nature of a cemetery. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) asked why this right was confined to a bishop of the Church of England and did not extend to clergymen of other denominations. We would not now have invented such a right, but in an order which is intended to be non-controversial it would have been more controversial to repeal the right than to incorporate it. The right existed under previous legislation and we have incorporated it because it would be more contentious not to do so.
I am delighted to tell the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that because he courteously gave me a little time I now have a note on the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern because I was successful in getting through the House a Private Member's Bill on dogs which the Government—which gave me facilities in getting the Bill through—amended substantially in a subsequent order. I understand that the subject matter of the Act so far as it relates to burials is covered by the order, which limits the period for which the rights may be granted. All the legislation on burials is now in one place, and the hon. Gentleman's Act is not harmed. Again, this is consolidation which does not detract from the Act. We are not removing any right.
I have answered the questions put by the two hon. Gentlemen and I commend the order to the House.