§ 22. Mr. Freudasked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire North-East on 31 October, Official Report, c. 618, if he will make a statement on the application to erect a white marble tombstone in Mepal churchyard.
§ The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee)As I have explained by letter to the hon. Gentleman, applications for the erection of tombstones are not matters for the Commissioners. They are made to the incumbent, who must act within any regulations issued by the consistory court of the diocese and to which an appeal may be made.
§ Mr. FreudWhile I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, would he not accept that whereas, in the long term, environmental factors must be given priority, in the short term the Church Commissioners should be 626 rather more sensitive towards the heartfelt wishes of the deceased, especially in a case such as this? The churchyard contains many white marble tombstones, some of them commemorating members of the same generation of the same family as the person for whom the application has been refused.
§ Sir William van StraubenzeeI must be careful to avoid any comment on that case, which is now before the consistory court and is therefore sub judice. Furthermore, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must repeat that the Church Commissioners are not responsible for the erection of tombstones.