DOCSLIB.ORG

The Report of the Working Group on Human Remains

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Report of the Working Group on Human Remains The Report of the Working Group on Human Remains Chairman: Professor Norman Palmer FSA Secretary: James Dowling Contents ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 1 Establishment and terms of reference 2 Human remains in English museum collections 3 Origins and destinations 4 Evidence submitted to the Working Group 5 Progress and parallels 6 Contemporary law in England and Wales 7 Consent 8 Associated objects 9 Ethics, principles and obligations 10 The problems requiring solution 11 Resolving the conflict 12 Recommendations 13 Statement of dissent from Neil Chalmers Appendix 1 Powers of disposal for museums 2 Law on human remains in museum collections – a working survey 3 Repatriation of Human Remains and the Human Rights Act 4 Case summaries relating to human remains 5 International Agreements 6 Professional and Institutional Approaches to Human Remains 7 Terms of reference 8 Draft Code of Practice for the Treatment, Care and Safe Keeping of Human Remains in English Museums and Collections 9 Working Group on Human Remains submissions 10 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): A detailed analysis 1 Chapter 1: Establishment and terms of reference ________________________________________________________________________ Establishment, membership and background 1. The Working Group on Human Remains in Museum Collections (Working Group) was established in May 2001 by the then Minister for the Arts, the Right Honourable Alan Howarth CBE MP, under the chairmanship of Norman Palmer, Barrister, Professor of the Law of Art and Cultural Property at University College, London, Chairman of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, Chairman of the Treasure Valuation Committee, with the following terms of reference: • to examine the current legal status of human remains within the collections of publicly funded museums and galleries in the United Kingdom; • to examine the powers of museums and galleries governed by statute to deaccession, or otherwise release from their possession, human remains within their collections and to consider the desirability and possible form of legislative change in this area; • to consider the circumstances in which material other than, but associated with, human remains might properly be included within any proposed legislative change in respect of human remains; • to take advice from interested parties as necessary; • to consider the desirability of a statement of principles (and supporting guidance) relating to the care and safe keeping of human remains and to the handling of requests for return; if the Working Group considers appropriate, to draw up the terms of such a statement and guidance; and 2 • to prepare a report for the Minister for the Arts and make recommendations as to proposals which might form the basis for a consultation document (to be used for 1 consultation under the Regulatory Reform Bill). 2. The decision to set up the Working Group followed recommendations made in a report on Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade, by the Select Committee on 2 Culture, Media and Sport (Select Committee), published in July 2000. That report recommended that: • there should be discussions with a view to preparing a statement of principles and accompanying guidance relating to the care and safe keeping of human remains and to requests for return; • there should be better access to information on holdings of human remains; and • the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) should undertake a consultation exercise on the terms of legislation to permit the trustees of national collections to remove human remains from their collections. 3. The Government welcomed the Select Committee’s recommendations, but felt that, prior to any consultation, it would be helpful for the Working Group to examine the whole issue comprehensively. 4. A further event leading to the establishment of the Working Group was a meeting between the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, and the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in London in July 2000. After that meeting the following statement was issued: ________________________________________________________________________ 1 Since enacted as the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. See generally paras 279, 462. 2 Seventh Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport, Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade (18 July 2000) paras 153-166, 199 (xiv)-(xvi). 3 The Australian and British Governments agree to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian indigenous communities. In doing this, the Governments recognise the special connection that indigenous people have with ancestral remains, particularly where there are living descendants. The Australian Government appreciates the efforts already made by the British Government and institutions in relation to assisting the return of human remains of significance to Australian indigenous communities. We agree that the way ahead in this area is a cooperative approach between our Governments. Our Governments recognise that there is a range of significant issues to be addressed in order to facilitate the repatriation of indigenous human remains. Addressing these issues requires a coordinated long-term approach by Governments involving indigenous communities and collecting institutions. Consultation will be undertaken with indigenous organisations as part of developing any new cooperative arrangements. Significant efforts have already been undertaken by individuals and particular organisations in this area. More research is required to identify indigenous human remains held in British collections. Extensive consultation must also be undertaken to determine the relevant traditional custodians, their aspirations regarding the treatment of human remains and a means for addressing these. The Governments agree to encourage the development of protocols for the sharing of information between British and Australian institutions and indigenous people. In this respect we welcome the initiative of the British Natural History Museum which has catalogued the 450 indigenous human remains in its collection and provided this information to the Australian Government. We endorse the repatriation of indigenous human remains wherever possible and appropriate from both public and private collections. We note that several British institutions have already negotiated agreements with indigenous communities for 4 the release of significant remains. In particular, Edinburgh University, following extensive consultation with the Australian Government and indigenous organisations, has recently completed repatriation requests of a large collection of remains. Our Governments look forward to continuing to address this issue in a cooperative and constructive spirit. 5. The membership of the Working Group was: • Mr Tristram Besterman, Director, The Manchester Museum, and former convener, Museums Association Ethics Committee; • Sir Neil Chalmers, Director, The Natural History Museum; • Dr Maurice Davies, Deputy Director, Museums Association; • Mrs Hetty Gleave, Solicitor, Hunters, and Chair, ArtResolve; • Sally MacDonald, Manager, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College, London; • Dr John Mack, Keeper of Ethnography, The British Museum; • Professor Sir Peter Morris, Nuffield Professor of Surgery at the University of Oxford and President of the Royal College of Surgeons; • Professor Patrick O’Keefe, Adjunct Professor, Research School of Asian and Pacific Studies, Australian National University; 5 • Dr Laura Peers, Lecturer in Ethnology and Curator of the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford; and • Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern, Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Cambridge. Professor Caroline Forder, Professor of European Family Law, University of Maastricht, was a member of the Working Group between May 2001 and July 2001. 6. The Working Group met on 16 occasions and invited evidence, receiving 47 written submissions and nine oral submissions. A list of the organisations and individuals who made these submissions appears as Appendix 9. All written evidence is available on the web at http://www.culture.gov.uk/cultural_property/wg_+human_remains.htm. Meetings with representatives of other governments 7. The Hon Philip Ruddock, (then) Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs accompanied by HE Mr Michael L’Estrange, the Australian High Commissioner, and by members of the staff of the High Commission, visited the DCMS on 11 December 2001 and was received by the Minister for the Arts and the Chairman of the Working Group, at a meeting at which the work of the Working Group was discussed. 8. Mr Martin Matthews, the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and Mr Rob Hole from the New Zealand High Commission, sat in as observers for the first part of the fifth meeting of the Working Group. Other consultation 9. In the course of a visit to Australia in 2002, the Chairman accepted invitations to discuss the work of the Working Group with the UK Deputy High Commissioner, the Federal Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Peoples, the Commissioner for 6 Tasmania of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the Legal Adviser to ATSIC and other officers, members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc (TAC), officials of the Commonwealth Government, officers of the Australian Museum and other museums, and Justice Alan Goldberg of the Federal Court of Australia
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The British Museum Report and Accounts for the Year
    The British Museum REPOrt AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 HC 400 £14.75 The British Museum REPOrt AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Museums and Galleries Act 1992 (c.44) S.9(8) Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 July 2012 HC 400 London: The Stationery Office £14.75 The British Museum Account 2011-2012 © The British Museum (2012) The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context The material must be acknowledged as The British Museum copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is also for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk ISBN: 9780102976199 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2481871 07/12 21557 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum The British Museum Account 2011-2012 Contents Page Trustees’ and Accounting Officer’s Annual Report 3 Chairman’s Foreword 3 Structure, governance and management 5 Constitution and operating environment 5 Governance statement 5 Subsidiaries 10 Friends’ organisations 10 Strategic direction and performance against objectives 10 To manage and research the collection more effectively 10 Collection 10 Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom Report by Sara Selwood University of Westminster with Maurice Davies, Museums Association
    A Guide to European Museum Statistics United Kingdom Report by Sara Selwood University of Westminster with Maurice Davies, Museums Association Introduction - Key Issues It is increasingly the case that hard data is required for a multiplicity of reasons: to support advocacy, not least to present the case for support to government; to assess museums´ efficiency in relation to funding; to inform decision making; to establish, develop and evaluate policies; to identify trends; to measure the progress that the sector is making, not least in terms of delivering government objectives. A current preoccupation is with measuring the impact of museums. Responsibility for national museum statistics falls to Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), the government's advisory body, which succeeded the Museums & Galleries Commission in April 2000. Following the devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, MLA´s remit is primarily confined to England. At the time of writing (October 2003) there is no dedicated statistical time series on museums, which covers the whole of the UK. The Museums & Galleries Commission's DOMUS database (see below) was abandoned after the 1999 survey, and the only other UK-wide, year-on-year time series are, Sightseeing in the UK and Visits to Visitor Attractions. These present the findings of annual surveys conducted by the National Tourist Boards of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which monitor trends in the visitor attraction market including museums. There are, however, an increasing number of regular reports, which cover local and regional trends (in particular, financial statistics) and the activities of different types of museums. Pulling together a national picture depends on the collation of existing data sets.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parthenon Sculptures Sarah Pepin
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 02075, 9 June 2017 By John Woodhouse and Sarah Pepin The Parthenon Sculptures Contents: 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? 2. How did the British Museum acquire them? 3. Ongoing controversy 4. Further reading www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Parthenon Sculptures Contents Summary 3 1. What are the Parthenon Sculptures? 5 1.1 Early history 5 2. How did the British Museum acquire them? 6 3. Ongoing controversy 7 3.1 Campaign groups in the UK 9 3.2 UK Government position 10 3.3 British Museum position 11 3.4 Greek Government action 14 3.5 UNESCO mediation 14 3.6 Parliamentary interest 15 4. Further reading 20 Contributing Authors: Diana Perks Attribution: Parthenon Sculptures, British Museum by Carole Radatto. Licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Commons Library Briefing, 9 June 2017 Summary This paper gives an outline of the more recent history of the Parthenon sculptures, their acquisition by the British Museum and the long-running debate about suggestions they be removed from the British Museum and returned to Athens. The Parthenon sculptures consist of marble, architecture and architectural sculpture from the Parthenon in Athens, acquired by Lord Elgin between 1799 and 1810. Often referred to as both the Elgin Marbles and the Parthenon marbles, “Parthenon sculptures” is the British Museum’s preferred term.1 Lord Elgin’s authority to obtain the sculptures was the subject of a Select Committee inquiry in 1816. It found they were legitimately acquired, and Parliament then voted the funds needed for the British Museum to acquire them later that year.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Museum Annual Reports and Accounts 2019
    The British Museum REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 HC 432 The British Museum REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2020 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 9(8) of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed on 19 November 2020 HC 432 The British Museum Report and Accounts 2019-20 © The British Museum copyright 2020 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as British Museum copyright and the document title specifed. Where third party material has been identifed, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/ofcial-documents. ISBN 978-1-5286-2095-6 CCS0320321972 11/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fbre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofce The British Museum Report and Accounts 2019-20 Contents Trustees’ and Accounting Ofcer’s Annual Report 3 Chairman’s Foreword 3 Structure, governance and management 4 Constitution and operating environment 4 Subsidiaries 4 Friends’ organisations 4 Strategic direction and performance against objectives 4 Collections and research 4 Audiences and Engagement 5 Investing
    [Show full text]
  • Empty International Museums' Trophy Cases of Their Looted Treasures
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 36 Number 1 Winter Article 5 April 2020 Empty International Museums' Trophy Cases of Their Looted Treasures and Return Stolen Property to the Countries of Origin and the Rightful Heirs of Those Wrongfully Dispossessed Michael J. Reppas II Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Michael J. Reppas, Empty International Museums' Trophy Cases of Their Looted Treasures and Return Stolen Property to the Countries of Origin and the Rightful Heirs of Those Wrongfully Dispossessed, 36 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 93 (2007). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. EMPTY "INTERNATIONAL" MUSEUMS' TROPHY CASES OF THEIR LOOTED TREASURES AND RETURN STOLEN PROPERTY TO THE COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN AND THE RIGHTFUL HEIRS OF THOSE WRONGFULLY DISPOSSESSED MICHAEL J. REPPAS II * The discovery of the earliestcivilizations [in the 19 th Century] was a glorious adventure story.... Kings visited digs in Greece and Egypt, banner headlines announced the latestfinds, and thousandsflocked to see exotic artifactsfrom distant millennia in London, Berlin, and Paris. These were the pioneer days of archaeology,when excavators.., used battering rams, bruteforce, and hundreds of workmen in a frenzied searchfor ancientcities and spectacular artifacts. From these excavations was born the science of archaeology. They also spawned a past.I terrible legacy - concerted efforts to loot and rob the The ethical questions surrounding the acquisition and retention of looted property by museums and art dealers were once a subject reserved for mock-trial competitions in undergraduate humanities and pre-law classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Feldmann Heirs and the British Museum
    P a g e | 1 Anne Laure Bandle, Raphael Contel, Marc-André Renold March 2012. Case Four Old Master Drawings – Feldmann Heirs and the British Museum Arthur Feldmann – British Museum – Artwork/œuvre d’art – Nazi looted art/spoliations nazies – Institutional facilitator/facilitateur institutionnel – Judicial claim/action en justice – Negotiation/négociation – Settlement agreement/accord transactionnel – Deaccession – Ex gratia payment/versement à titre gracieux In May of 2002, the British Museum was confronted with a restitution claim by the heirs of the Second World War victim, Arthur Feldmann, regarding four Old Master drawings. The Commission of Looted Art Europe, who represented the claimant, and the British Museum, jointly sought guidance from the Spoliation Advisory Panel. The British Museum was advised by the Attorney-General as to whether the British Museum Act allows the restitution of an art object in order to meet a moral obligation. The Attorney-General deferred the issue to the High Court, which held that restitution was not possible without an act of the Parliament. Eventually, the British Museum’s authorities followed the recommendation of the Spoliation Advisory Panel and compensated the family with an ex gratia payment. I. Chronology; II. Dispute Resolution Process; III. Legal Issues; IV. Adopted Solution; V. Comment; VI. Sources. ART-LAW CENTER – UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA PLATEFORM ARTHEMIS [email protected] – https://unige.ch/art-adr This material is copyright protected. P a g e | 2 I. Chronology Nazi looted art - Arthur Feldmann had a collection of about 750 Old Master Paintings. They had been seized by the Nazis after their occupation of Czechoslavokia during the Second World War.
    [Show full text]
  • [2005] Decision
    Page 1 2 of 3 DOCUMENTS Attorney General v Trustees of the British Museum (Commission for Looted Art in Eu- rope intervening) Chancery Division [2005] EWHC 1089 (Ch), [2005] Ch 397 HEARING-DATES: 24, 27 May 2005 27 May 2005 CATCHWORDS: Charity - Disposal of asset - Power - Museum's collection including looted objects - Heir of previous owner having moral claim to their return - Statutory prohibition on museum disposing of objects in collection - Whether Attorney General or court having power to authorise return - Whether trustees having power to ignore limitation defence to effect return - British Museum Act 1963 (c 24), s. 3(4) (as amended by Museums and Galleries Act 1992 (c 44), s. 11(2), Sch. 8, Pt I, para 5(a)) HEADNOTE: The trustees of the British Museum considered a claim brought by the heirs of F that four old master drawings in the museum's collections had been the property of F and had been stolen from him by the Gestapo during the Nazi oc- cupation of Czechoslovakia. The trustees were sympathetic to the claim and asked the Attorney General to permit the restitution of the drawings to F's heirs on the ground that it was morally right to do so. There was a principle which permitted the Attorney General or the court to authorise a payment out of charity funds where there was a moral obliga- tion to make such a payment, however, the Attorney General was concerned that the prohibition in section 3(4) of the British Museum Act 1963 n1 on the disposal of objects comprised in the museum's collections prevented the application of that principle to authorise the restitution of the drawings.
    [Show full text]
  • 20010 Bulletin Single Pages
    evidence framed in a way which the cynical might deduce as TECHNICAL HAPPENINGS AND RUMOURS IN being no more than a means of deterring even the most THE ‘HERITAGE WORLD’: determined lobbyist. However, some readers may not be familiar SOME NOTES ON DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE with ‘language that government understands’ in this area – in a PAST HALF YEAR nutshell promotion of public access and cultural diversity as by Edward Manisty fundamental objectives. Director, Heritage and Taxation Advisory Service, Christie’s On pages 26 to 34 inclusive of his Review, Sir Nicholas examined the possible expansion and modification of the fiscal incentives available towards retaining important chattels in this country and for encouraging gifts and sales to public collections. He came up with some thirteen Recommendations to this end, the NEWS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, implementation of which would require modifications to MEDIA AND SPORT (‘THE DCMS’) existing law and practice. Earlier in the year the House of n 28 July 2005 Heritage Link, a charity engaged in Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Opromoting the historic environment, issued a statement in demanded a Treasury response to these Recommendations3, regard to its recent meeting with the new Culture Minister, and notably that in regard to the extension of Gift Aid so that David Lammy. The Minister was noted as saying that “...he looks the donation of significant artworks to public collections might for support from the sector to promote the heritage ‘offer’ be offset against income and corporation tax4. It fell to the across government and in particular to the Treasury“.
    [Show full text]
  • When Repatriation Doesn't Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 2020 When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations Ellyn DeMuynck Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Museum Studies Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations __________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences University of Denver __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts ___________________ by Ellyn DeMuynck March 2020 Advisor: Christina Kreps Author: Ellyn DeMuynck Title: When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations Advisor: Christina Kreps Degree Date: March 2020 Abstract This thesis analyzes the discourse of repatriation in connection to the Encounters exhibition held by the National Museum of Australia in 2015. Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander artifacts were loaned to the Australian museum by the British Museum. At the close of the exhibition, one item, the Gweagal shield, was claimed for repatriation. The repatriation request had not been approved at the time of this research. The Gweagal shield is a historically significant artifact for Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians. Analysis takes into account the political economy of the two museums and situates the exhibition within the relevant museum policies. This thesis argues that, while the shield has not yet returned to Australia, the discussions about what a return would mean are part of the larger process of repatriation. It is during these discussions that the rights to material culture are negotiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Legislation and Other Requirements Register
    SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSENTS – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Crossrail Environmental Legislation And Other Requirements Register Document Number: CR-XRL-T1-GPR-CR001-00005 Current Document History: Revision Effective Author(s) Reviewed by: Approved Reason for Issue: Date: (‘Owner’ in eB *) (‘Checked by’ in eB *) by: 11.0 17-12-15 Updated to reflect updates on legislation 6 monthly 10.0 21 February Updated to reflect 2015 updates on legislation and new Crossrail document template layout Learning Legacy Document © Crossrail Limited CRL RESTRICTED Template: CR-XRL-O4-ZTM-CR001-00001 Rev 8.0 Crossrail Environmental Legislation And Other Requirements Register CR-XRL-T1-GPR-CR001-00005 Rev 11.0 Previous Document History: Revision Prepared Author: Reviewed by: Approved by: Reason for Revision Date: 9.0 28 February Updated to reflect updates 2014 on legislation 6 monthly 8.0 26 June 2013 Updated to reflect updates on legislation 6 monthly 7.0 14 Dec 2012 Updated to reflect updates on legislation 6 monthly 6.0 27 June Updated to reflect updates 2012 on legislation 6 monthly 5.0 13 Sep 11 Comments on Rev 4.0 issued for review 4.0 31-08-2011 Updated to reflect re- organisation and updates to legislation. Revision Changes: Revision Status / Description of Changes 11.0 Updated to reflect updates on legislation 6 monthly Learning Legacy Document © Crossrail Limited CRL RESTRICTED Template: CR-XRL-O4-ZTM-CR001-00001 Rev 8.0 Crossrail Environmental Legislation And Other Requirements Register CR-XRL-T1-GPR-CR001-00005 Rev 11.0 Contents Air Quality .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (British Museum (Natural History)) Order 1985
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. The electronic version of this UK Statutory Instrument has been contributed by Westlaw and is taken from the printed publication. Read more STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1985 No. 166 MINISTERS OF THE CROWN The Transfer of Functions (British Museum (Natural History)) Order 1985 Made - - - - 13th February 1985 Laid before Parliament 21st February 1985 Coming into Operation 18th March 1985 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 13th day of February 1985 Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 1 of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:— Citation and commencement 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Transfer of Functions (British Museum (Natural History)) Order 1985. (2) This Order shall come into operation on 18th March 1985. Transfer of functions 2.—(1) There are hereby transferred to the Secretary of State the functions of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under section 10 of the British Museum Act 1963 with respect to the amendment of Part II of Schedule 3 to that Act. (2) Accordingly, in section 10(2) of that Act, for the words from the beginning to “may” there shall be substituted “The appropriate Minister, that is to say, as regards Part I of the said Schedule, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or, as regards Part II, the Secretary of State, may”.
    [Show full text]
  • Burial and Cremation Law Reform
    BURIAL AND CREMATION LAW REFORM A RESPONSE BY A WORKING PARTY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW SOCIETY TO THE LAW COMMISSION’S CONSULTATION PAPER: ‘BURIAL AND CREMATION: IS THE LAW GOVERNING BURIAL AND CREMATION FIT FOR MODERN CONDITIONS?’ 1. The Ecclesiastical Law Society 1.1. The Ecclesiastical Law Society is a charity whose object is ‘to proMote education in ecclesiastical law for the benefit of the public, including in particular: (a) the clergy and laity of the Church of England and (b) those who May hold authority or judicial office in, or practise in the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England’. 1.2. The Society has approxiMately 700 MeMbers, Mostly Anglican and resident in the UK, but includes a significant nuMber froM other Christian denoMinations and froM overseas. It publishes the Ecclesiastical Law Journal and circulates newsletters, as well as organising conferences and seminars for Members and non- members. It is active in promoting the teaching of ecclesiastical law at theological colleges and as a coMponent of continuing Ministerial education. 1.3. It has established Many working parties on Matters over the past thirty years concerning the ecclesiastical law. 1.4. Professor Nick Hopkins sought the views of the Society on the Law CoMMission’s current project as part of its thirteenth prograMMe of law reform. The Society established a Burial Law Review Working Party in order to do so.1 This response has been endorsed by the ComMittee of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and is subMitted to the Law CoMMission with its approval. 2. Some initial thoughts on the current issues Consolidation as a minimum 2.1.
    [Show full text]