§ No. 10, in page 15, line 22, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
§ No. 12, in Clause 18, page 17, line 13, leave out '1946'and insert 1926'.
§ No. 13, in page 17, line 21, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
§ No. 14, in Clause 21, page 18, line 43, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
§ No. 17, in Clause 22, page 21, line 46, leave out '1966' and insert '1946'.
§ No. 18, in page 22, line 20, leave out '1966' and insert '1946'.
§ Mr. RossiThis series of amendments is put forward on behalf of relatives of 199 those who are buried in the cemetery. Many of the relatives are concerned by the powers which Camden is taking unto itself to close up tombs, remove tombstones and disinter bodies.
In Clauses 17, 18 and 21 these powers are conferred upon the council. If the interment took place after 1946, the council must take certain steps to notify the relatives of its intentions. It must post a notice on the gates of the cemetery, circularise a notice in the local newspapers and send a notice to the last known address of the relatives. If the interment took place before 1st January 1946, there is no need at all for the local authority to notify the relatives. One could have a situation in which someone whose mother or father who was buried in the cemetery in 1945—which is not so long ago for the human memory—was not notified and found that the tomb had disappeared completely without his knowledge.
The object of my amendment is to move the time limit back from 1946 to 1926. Of course, the period of time is a matter of judgment. One has to take account of people's feelings. One cannot push the date too far back to make it ridiculous, but I think that 30 years is too short a period for this type of operation.
Another amendment replaces the year 1966 with the year 1946. This relates to the clause by which people are given the right to reinter their relatives' remains themselves. As the Bill stands, that right exists only where there has been an interment after 1966, which is only 10 years ago. That is too short a period, and the right should be given where interment has taken place since 1946. Again, it is a matter of judgment to get the right year. In these circumstances, I believe that the right of interment should be extended back 30 years rather than left at 10 years.
Although I have not carried the House with me so far, I hope that on this issue, on which human feelings run very deeply, I shall strike a chord of sympathy.
§ Mr. Ronald BrownI had long discussions this afternoon with the promoters of the Bill on this very human problem. They admitted that 1st January 1946 is a compromise between, on the one hand, an obligation on Camden to 200 establish the names and addresses of and serve notices on individual owners of rights of interment and, on the other hand, their being able to establish any active interest in interments after more than 30 years. The 30-year period was accepted by Parliament in almost identical provisions in the 1975 General Powers Act in respect of Nunhead Cemetery. We are therefore dealing with an accepted standard adopted by the House as recently as last year. Thirty years is accepted as a reasonable period by interested Government Departments.
It should be borne in mind that in all cases there will be newspaper and on-site advertising under Clause 2, Clause 18(2)(a) and Clause 21(2)(a) and (b). Therefore, the obligation to trace owners and relatives in respect of interments since 1926 would seem to be the promoters to be unduly onerous, particularly since the House declared its view as recently as last year.
§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)I do not speak as a London Member although I was born in London and was educated very near Highgate. I am worried, however, that Camden does not seem to have any recognition of consecrated ground. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke lightly of the fact that 30 years is long enough to remember someone who has died. This is a matter which should cause us to pause a little and ask how safe are our graveyards and monuments. We are remembering not only famous men but anyone who has died. People may have been famous only in their own families. How, therefore, can Camden so lightly disregard consecrated ground in this manner?
§ Mr. WhiteheadI agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I speak not as a London Member but as a Camden ratepayer who is connected with the Highgate Cemetery. Many members of my wife's family were buried there a long time ago. Highgate Cemetery, which is a monument to the great Victorian obsession with death, was essentially filled up in the 1920s, and we are talking, therefore, of a comparatively small number of people who are concerned about what might happen to the future of the graves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) 201 said that the House had declared itself on Nunhead Cemetery last year. That may be so, but it did not declare itself on Highgate Cemetery. There is a comparatively small number of graves kept up by emigrés living in this country who tend them carefully. Many of the graves date back to the 1920s and 1930s. It is not satisfactory for the promoters of the Bill to say that there can be no compromise and that the date 1946 must stand.
There is a body of opinion in the Highgate area which wants these graves kept and wishes to see proper sanctions retained. By accepting the amendments we would be respecting the views of those people, however small a minority they are, within the general community. Secondly, we would be adding just one other sanction in respect of the disposal of the graves, the remains, the gravestones and so on. It would be harder for the other lurid possibilities which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) raised earlier to come into effect, because Camden Council would be showing respect to the large number of people who have a direct personal link with the cemetery.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Mr. John Loveridge (Upminster)Even in these times there are married couples who wish to be interred in the same grave. An interval of 30 years is not very long when one thinks that many men nowadays die at very young ages due to heart and other ailments. What is to happen when a widow wants to find her husband's grave and hopes to be interred with him but discovers that the grave his been removed? That seems exceptionally hard, and I hope that the council and the House will think again.
§ Mr. GoodhewIt seems to me that there are certain hon. Member in the House this evening who are prepared to be somewhat cavalier about this matter. I do not think it is a matter which the House should let pass lightly.
I am even more disturbed when I realise that earlier amendments which would give freedom to use parts of consecrated ground in the cemetery for social purposes have been ignored. That is an entirely unattractive approach to the treatment of a cemetery. Although I do not represent a Greater London 202 constituency, it seems to me that we are speeding down a rather unattractive road in imagining that we can simply brush aside the feelings of people by deciding that we should like to make a place of this sort into a social centre. In view of the general tenor of the amendments I hope that we might at least have support for this one, which would ensure that we are not so casual and cavalier about the feelings of people who may still be alive today.
§ Mr. RossiA unanimous view has been expressed about the amendment. I invite the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) to meet me on this. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I have refrained from doing so in respect of other amendments about which I feel equally strongly because I do not want to delay proceedings. However, the hon. Gentleman may wish to meet me on this matter.
§ Mr. Ronald BrownI can only say to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that he is drawing a picture of Highgate Cemetery as if it was somehow a remarkable place and the Camden Council was moving in and dealing with the matter in a bad fashion. The cemetery is in a derelict state primarily from interment of earlier years. It is so bad that the council decided something had to be done in all decency and humanity. To try to portray Camden Council as having misbehaved is appalling.
The House decided that 30 years was a sufficient time to advertise for any relatives of persons who had been interred. I do not think a case has been made for extending the period an extra 20 years. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that this matter was gone into in great detail. The promoters felt that there was nothing to be gained by the amendment and that it would only make it much more difficult to get on with the task of putting the cemetery into good order.
I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that the promoters initiated this task. The Friends of Highgate Cemetery expressed the view that the council should do it. The private owners of the cemetery have failed to do it for all these years. I should have thought it 203 was important that the House should try not to put any obstacles in the way of Camden Council in doing this work.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye". To the contrary, "No". The "Noes" have it.
§ Amendment accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. RossiI beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 16, line 2, leave out "twenty" and insert "fifty".
§ No. 15, in Clause 21, page 19, line 31, leave out "one hundred and eighty" and insert "three hundred and sixty".
§
No. 16, in Clause 22, page 24, line 38, leave out
'two hundred and twenty five'
and insert "five hundred".
§ Mr. Ronald BrownOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact that there is no Division has not been indicated to hon. Members who are outside the Chamber. Is it possible for hon. Members to be told that there is no Division?
§ Mr. RossiThe Bill provides in various circumstances for the payment of sums of money by the Camden Council to the relatives of people whose remains have to be removed from their existing graves and also for the removal of tombstones. 204 The amendments seek to increase the upper limits of payment. That does not mean to say that the sums now proposed would be payable. The cost would still have to be proved. These are upper limits.
The object of increasing the upper limits as contained in the Bill is simply to take care of the inflationary situation because, although the amounts suggested in the amendments are somewhat higher than in the Bill as originally proposed, they still do not allow for the full amount of inflation that would take place.
§ Mr. Ronald BrownI should like to comment that the amounts in virtually identical provisions in the 1975 General Powers Act were, respectively, £120 and £150. Those amounts were accepted by Parliament as realistic. The amounts in Clauses 21(5) and 22(8) have been set at £180 and £225—an increase over last year of 50 per cent. The advice of the Camden Cemeteries Department is that these figures are realistic, and they have been accepted as such by the relevant Government Department. The promoters of the Bill consider that the increases suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) are excessive. The figure of over £300 is extremely high and cannot be justified.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Bill to be read the Third time.