APABE ANNUAL MEETING 7TH MARCH 2014, 1.30-4.30 Room 1, Church House, 20 Dean’S Yard, Westminster
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APABE ANNUAL MEETING 7TH MARCH 2014, 1.30-4.30 Room 1, Church House, 20 Dean’s Yard, Westminster Minutes In attendance. Holger Schutkowski (HS) (Chair), Angela Boyle (AB) (Secretary), Joseph Elders (JE), Simon Mays (SM), David Hillelson (DH), Bas Payne (BP), Margaret Clegg (MC), David Baker (DB), Louise Humphrey (LH), Jane Sidell (JS), Philip Dixon (PD), Jelena Bekvalac (JBek), Judith Bernstein (JB), Rekha Gohil (RG), Jackie McKinley (JM), Richard Mason (RM), Julian Litten (JL) Apologies. Daniel Antoine, Quinton Carroll, Tim Howard, Elizabeth Popescu, Barney Sloane, Marcia Williams. Two new members, Becky Clark (BC) and Richard Mason (RM), were welcomed to the panel. BC is the new Deputy Secretary of the Cathedrals Fabric Committee for England (CFCE). RM is Deputy Director for Civil Justice, Administrative Justice, Coroners, Burials, Cremation and Inquiries at the MoJ. 1 Review of the new MOJ procedures (RG/JB) JE raised the matter of proposed changes to the Burial Act 1857. A review of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 is also underway. JB was aware of the Measure to amend the 1857 Act but was not aware that the MoJ was cited in the second Measure as it is specifically concerned with disused churches and closed burial grounds/churchyards. The item was therefore moved down the agenda for discussion. JB reported that it had been agreed in principle that a Measure could be used to amend the 1857 Act but subject to concerns raised by the MoJ. The General Synod approved the draft Measure on 18 November 2013. However, MoJ is concerned that any changes should not be to the detriment of the Justice Secretary.The draft amendment focuses on church powers and shifts emphasis away from the Secretary of State’s powers. Section 25 is primarily about the powers of the Secretary of State and he should not therefore be relegated to a minor clause. JB tabled the current provision; the Measure proposal and MoJ’s preferred wording (see annex) Approximately 1,300 applications a year are received for exhumation of single sets of remains compared with approximately 200 for archaeological purposes, and around 30 within the Faculty process. The formulation of the Measure needs to reflect the norm. JB noted the C of E thought that the MoJ wanted to retain dual control while in fact MoJ shared the C of E’s intention to eliminate the need for both a licence and a faculty to be issued in certain cases. 1 The question of whether individuals could be prosecuted for contravening the 1857 Act was raised. JB said that this would depend on whether or not the police were prepared to take action. In answer to a question, JB also explained that mausolea are regarded as a place of burial. Changes to the Burial Act 1857 Exhumations are already possible without a licence where the remains are removed under the authority of a faculty from one consecrated place of burial to another. (This has been the case since 1857.) But if they are moved within the same burial place or if they are removed to e.g. a forensic science laboratory (as was recently necessary in Oxford where the body of a murdered girl had to be exhumed) then both a faculty and a licence are required. The change removes this aspect of dual control. It also removes dual control in relation to cathedrals because the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England now has jurisdiction over human remains as a result of amendments made in the last Mission and Pastoral Measure. The Draft Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure JE reported that the intention is to enable the Consistory Court to give permission for building within a closed graveyard. He noted that a physically separate building is being treated in a different manner to an extension to an existing building. The proposed amendment is still with the Revision Committee. Royal Assent is unlikely to happen until 2015. The aim is to remove the situation whereby construction of an isolated building within a churchyard necessitates the exhumation of the entire churchyard. JB noted that an architect within the MoJ contributes to such decisions. PD mentioned that burials are often less than one foot below existing ground level and as advisor to the Dean and Chapter of Leicester Cathedral he generally advises excavation in order to avoid unplanned delays to a project. JM commented that planners should be better involved/informed and that building should ideally occur in a manner that avoids disturbance of human remains. HS asked DH to approach IfA about the possibility of attending trade fairs where developers are present. RG reported that a lot of developers contact her to enquire whether or not licences are required. The amendment is as follows. 2 4 Disused burial grounds After section 18 of the 1991 Measure there is inserted the following section – “18A Erection of buildings on disused burial grounds (1) Notwithstanding section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c.72), a court may grant a faculty permitting the erection of a building on a disused burial ground otherwise than for a purpose permitted by that section, provided that one of the conditions set out in subsection (2) below is satisfied. (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are – (a) that no interments have taken place in the land on which the building is to stand during the period of 50 years immediately prior to the date of the petition for a faculty, (b) no personal representative or relative of any person whose remains have been interred in the land during that period has objected to the grant of the faculty or any such objection has been withdrawn. (3) The power conferred by subsection (1) is without prejudice to any other power which the court has to authorise the erection of buildings on burial grounds.” Item 1a JM asked for clarification regarding reburial, specifically those burials which were excavated within the five-year period before the new MoJ procedures were put in place. She cited an example where three areas of the same cemetery are covered by three different licence periods. Osteological work is still being carried out on all the material. JB said that she would need to check with MoJ lawyers for guidance on dealing with such cases. BP said that a longer-term solution is required and suggested that applying for a variation on an original licence was one option but that the scope for variation is limited. RG noted that a deferral application allowed for requesting an extension to a reburial or depository requirement. SM raised the issue of whether or not a section 25 licence is required for removal of maritime human remains within the territorial limit. RG stated that this had not yet been clarified. 2 Minutes The minutes of the 2013 meeting were accepted as a true record. 3 3 Matters arising A letter from APABE was sent to Hugh Bayley MP in advance of the adjournment debate in Parliament about the putative remains of Richard III. Hugh Bayley referred to APABE’s recommendations in the debate. APABE made firm recommendations for scientific investigation of the remains but avoided any comment on the proposed place of burial. 4 Case work and consultation over the last year (HS/AB) 4a Cleveland Street, London (AB) This request came from Ruth Richardson via JL. Ruth was involved in attaining listed status for the poorhouse, which was built in the 18th century. In 1790 the remainder of the field in which the poorhouse stood was consecrated for burial. The poorhouse first became a workhouse, then an infirmary. The infirmary was purchased in the 20th century by the Middlesex Hospital, which was later closed. The burials were never removed and there is now a threat from development. Ruth Richardson wished to determine if there was any means of preventing disturbance of the burials. JL drew her attention to the advice provided by APABE on the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford as the two cases have much in common. HS suggested that the developer would be required to make an application to the MoJ under Section 25 and request permission to remove human remains at which point proposed treatment of remains would be specified. 4b Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford Approximately 400 burials of 18th and 19th century date were excavated by Oxford Archaeology. Permission for excavation stipulated rapid reburial of 50% of the assemblage and that no destructive sampling was to be carried out. Oxford Archaeology and Professor Mark Pollard are now asking for retention of the entire assemblage on a 10-year basis and permission to carry out isotope analysis on a 10% sample. There is a wealth of documentary evidence relating to the burials. Most of the adult males appear to be local and the majority of individuals within the group seem to be disease free. SM said that David Radford, Oxford City Archaeologist, has asked for the support of APABE. SM emphasised the importance of allowing for other potential analyses such as histology and DNA. JE said that the original judgement concerning the Radcliffe Infirmary had been a controversial one made by a former chancellor. It is possible to apply for permission to carry out destructive analysis. The figure of 50% was a very arbitrary one. JE has discussed the new application with the current chancellor who is open to discussion. 4 HS proposed that APABE and English Heritage should both submit letters of endorsement in favour of the application. Action: HS and SM to draft letters. 5 Richard III A meeting was held at the University of Leicester to discuss the human remains ascribed to Richard III.