European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

The new clause has been promoted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I take it that the commission has done careful research into how it would provide an extra guarantee that is not currently provided. The hon. and learned Gentleman should look at it carefully to understand how it is meant to work, but it is an overarching tool that, as I understand it, we currently do not have. As I said before, as a non- legal person, for me the most important thing is the safe- guarding of our equality laws and the need to match what has been done so far at European and international level.

Brexit is increasingly nothing to do with what leave politicians promised to the people. I fear it is becoming an ideologically driven process to turn this country into some sort of deregulated free-for-all, in which the progress we have made over the past four decades to protect individuals from exploitation and discrimination, in tandem with our European neighbours, is sacrificed on the altar of sovereignty. The British people did not vote to give away their fundamental rights and protections. If Parliament does not amend the Bill, let nobody claim that this is the will of the people.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I apologise for my brief absence from the Chamber during the debate—it was because of the excitement of a Delegated Legislation Committee.

I wish to say a few words about why I feel unable to support the proposals to bring the charter of fundamental rights into UK law, but before I do so I acknowledge the huge importance we should all place on the scrutiny of this historic piece of legislation. The Bill is of course a critical part of the implementation of the huge decision made by the people of the United Kingdom in the referendum last year, and it obviously has a crucial role to play if we are to avoid a regulatory gap in relation to aspects of our law that are currently covered by EU legislation. Although I do not feel able to agree with the new clauses and amendments we are debating, I fully respect the intentions of those who have tabled them.

At a time of great change for this country, it is important that we find ways to work across party divides to come together to make a success of the process of implementing the referendum result and leaving the European Union. My goal for a successful outcome is a new partnership with our European neighbours, with which I hope those on both the leave and remain sides of the debate can be comfortable. It will, of course, be important for Ministers to listen to a spectrum of views before the final terms of our departure from the EU are settled, and I know they are strongly committed to doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

That was certainly the stated intention when the charter was originally drafted, but the judicial activism of the ECJ has seen the scope of the charter expanded. Essentially, what we are talking about is the division of power between our courts and our legislature. I do not believe that we have the national consensus to deliver such a significant change to our constitution as to enable our domestic courts to strike down our laws.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend talks about the expansion of the charter through the role of the ECJ. Can she give us an example where it has actually been the charter that has caused that expansion? In reality it is the European convention on human rights rather than the charter of fundamental rights that has tended to lead to an expansion.

[Theresa Villiers]

Of course, the key expansion as far as the United Kingdom is concerned was the confirmation by the European Court of Justice in the Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson case that the charter did actually apply to the United Kingdom and that the opt-out that was supposedly obtained by Tony Blair was not valid.

That brings me to my final reason for scepticism about the charter and the amendments. I was an MEP during the period when the charter was drafted in the EU constitutional convention with a view to inserting it in the abortive EU constitution.

[Lady Hermon]

As a former and, I have to say, very distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who did a really good job in that office—I mean that most sincerely, although I rarely have the opportunity to say it—the right hon. Lady will know that the UK withdrawing from the charter of fundamental rights will have an impact on the Good Friday agreement and on the perception that half of the community in Northern Ireland will have of respect for human rights, rightly or wrongly. Will the right hon. Lady therefore encourage the Government to draft a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which is, of course, also a key part of the Good Friday agreement?

[Theresa Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government and, I am sure, all successive Governments will remain strongly committed to the Good Friday agreement and to the protection of individual rights. As she will appreciate, of course, the agreement expressly referred to in the Good Friday agreement in relation to human rights is the European convention on human rights. However, I fully understand her point of view on this matter, and it will always be important for us as a Chamber to respect individual rights. The tenet of my speech is that we do not need the charter to enable us to do that. We have extensive legal frameworks available to us as a Parliament, and through our judiciary and legal system, and that will ensure that we properly protect our citizens, whether in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Let me turn to my final reason for concern. I well remember the clarity of former Prime Minister Tony Blair about the fact that the charter would not be given legal force. As far back as 2000, the Prime Minister and the Europe Minister of the day stated that very clearly for the House. In 2003, the Labour Government’s lead negotiator on the convention, Peter Hain, said there was no possibility of the Government agreeing to incorporate the charter. In 2007, Tony Blair told Parliament that we had an opt-out from the charter, and this approach was supported by a number of pro-EU groups, such as the CBI. Even my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) expressed scepticism about the charter and described it as “a needless diversion”.

While the ECJ may since have ruled that the opt-out secured by Mr Blair was nothing of the sort, we now have the opportunity to see those promises fulfilled. We have a long history of protecting the rights of the individual against the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. We have ample means to do that in the future, with hundreds of years of case law and statute establishing strong principles of accountability in our unwritten constitution. We can legislate in the future if we ever find any gaps in our current framework. We do not need the charter to protect our citizens, and I appeal to Members not to accept the amendments being debated today.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I rise to support amendments 101 and 105, tabled in my name. They relate to the debate we had about environmental principles on day two of the Bill’s Committee stage, and particularly about new clauses 60 and 67, and new clause 28, which I also tabled.

As it stands, UK laws that arise from EU laws such as regulations and directives and that do not comply with the general principles of EU law can be challenged and disapplied. Administrative actions taken under EU law must also comply with the general principles. I say that by way of clarification, because I think a lot of people are trying to follow the debates in this Chamber during the Committee stage, and they are perhaps wondering what on earth we are talking about, so I am trying to make things as simple and as clear as possible for the public out there—and perhaps for some of us in the Chamber as well.

That is the situation while we are members of the EU. Post Brexit, though, schedule 1, as I interpret it, places unnecessary and unjustified restrictions on how these principles will be applied. That is what my amendments seek to rectify. Paragraph (2) states that retained principles will be only those that have been recognised or litigated by the Court of Justice of the EU in a case decided before exit day. Only those principles will be retained in domestic law; others will not, even if recognised in treaties. In the debate on day two, the Minister said in response to new clause 28 that this was because we needed a cut-off point and could not have ongoing interpretation of directives that would affect the situation in the UK. However, I would argue that there is still a real lack of clarity, and a danger that if we allow only principles that have been litigated on to apply after exit day, the non-controversial ones that people do not have a problem with will end up falling away, while only the controversial ones are retained. It is also unclear whether these general principles include environmental principles, as the term “general principles” has not been defined by the ECJ or by the treaties. If environmental principles are not explicitly recognised as general principles, they could be lost entirely. I hope that the Minister can give us a bit of clarity on that.

Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 explicitly limits the legal remedies available when general principles are contravened. Under this paragraph, UK courts will no longer have the power to disapply domestic legislation on the grounds that it conflicts with these general principles. They could only be used like the pre-exit case law of the CJEU to inform the interpretation by UK courts of retained EU law. Paragraph 3(2) therefore appears to narrow the scope for judicial review that currently exists. In the previous debate, some of my colleagues argued very eloquently as to the importance of judicial review in environmental cases but also highlighted the fact that it is often inadequate, and increasingly so, given the cap that is imposed. Paragraph 3(2) would further narrow the scope of judicial review and make it harder for the public to hold the Government to account. As discussed last week, it is vital that the courts are able to enforce the environmental principles.

Amendments 101 and 105 speak to those points. Amendment 101 clarifies that all existing principles of EU law will be retained in domestic law, whether they originate in the case law of the European Court, EU treaties, direct EU legislation or EU directives. It also makes it clear that the key environmental law principles in article 191 of the Lisbon treaty are retained. Amendment 101 therefore expands the meaning of general principles to specifically include the environmental principles. Following on from that, amendment 105 seeks to retain the right of action in domestic law for the public to hold the Government to account for their breaches of the principles.

I know that the Government are proposing an environmental principles policy. I have lots of questions about how that would operate—whether it would be on a statutory footing and so on—but at this stage I ask the Minister to confirm whether they will publish at least an outline version of what that principles policy would look like while there is still time to consider it and its implications for this Bill. So far in Committee, Ministers have been very fond of asking us to take their word for it, but I am simply not prepared to do that: I want to see what these policies would look like.

Will the Minister also explain the Government’s objection to the idea of having internationally recognised principles of environmental law enshrined in UK statute? The Government could include the basic principles in UK law by accepting my amendments. Not least, that would provide us with much needed reassurance that the Environment Secretary will win out against the International Trade Secretary in ensuring that future trade deals with countries such as the US will not lead to imports of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-pumped beef on our shelves. The Environment Secretary has encouragingly said that the UK should say no to chlorine-washed chicken from the US and that we are

“not going to dilute our high food-safety standards or our high environmental standards in pursuit of any trade deal”.

But as was pointed out during last week’s debate, the environmental principles set out in the EU treaties have been instrumental in decisions such as the EU ban on imports of hormone-fed beef, the moratorium on neonicotinoid pesticides, and the control of the release of genetically modified organisms in the EU.

The debate on day two saw a degree of political consensus emerging around the value of environmental principles such as the precautionary principle, as well as in other areas, particularly the Environment Secretary’s mooted plan for a new independent body to hold the Government to account. I hope that when we consider the governance gap on a future day, we will hear more about his plans for that body. I think we also got confirmation from the Environment Secretary, although it was only a nod from a sedentary position, that he intended to follow the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation and introduce an environmental protection Act. I hope that we will hear more about that and the timetable for it. I understand that the much delayed 25-year environment plan may be with us in the first quarter of next year, a fisheries Bill is coming from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the agriculture Bill is due, I think, after the summer recess. If the Government are going to introduce an environmental protection Act before exit day, they will have their work cut out for them. I would be grateful to hear a bit more about that.

New Southgate Cemetery Bill [Lords]

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This private Bill was introduced in the other place in January 2016. It is being promoted by New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Ltd to enable it to use the burial space in the New Southgate cemetery more effectively and to provide greater capacity for new interment and burial in future years. The cemetery lies in my constituency, close to the boundary with Enfield.

The promoters, which I will refer to as the NSCC for brevity, are responsible for the administration of the cemetery under the terms of the Great Northern London Cemetery Act 1976. In 1990, ownership of part of the cemetery was transferred to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United Kingdom. The cemetery has real significance for the Baha’i community because one of its greatest spiritual leaders, Shoghi Effendi, is buried there. I understand that the Baha’i National Spiritual Assembly has expressed its support for the Bill.

People may ask why I am here today talking about cemeteries. Well, put simply, the problem is that the New Southgate cemetery is running out of space. Some 180,000 interments have been carried out there, but only around 1,800 burial spaces remain. With an average of 180 burials a year, all spaces are likely be full within 10 years if action is not taken. The Bill would address that problem by granting two new powers to the NSCC and the Baha’is. Those are based on powers already available to local authority-run cemeteries in London under section 9 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1976 and section 74 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007.

First, clause 3 would provide the promoters and the Baha’is with the power to extinguish rights of burial in grave spaces in the cemetery where a right of burial has not been exercised for 75 years or more. That would enable them to reclaim unused graves and make them available for new burials. Before those powers can be exercised, the Bill requires notices to be displayed in a cemetery and published in newspapers. The NSCC would also need to serve notices on the registered owner of a grave, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Historic England. The Bill provides that if the registered owner of the burial right objects, the right of burial cannot be extinguished. If anybody else objects, the right cannot be extinguished without the Secretary of State’s consent. Compensation is payable where burial rights are extinguished.

The second main power conferred by the Bill is set out in clause 4 and would enable the promoters and the Baha’is to reuse existing graves. That would involve the following process: removing remains, excavating the grave to its deepest possible depth, reinterring the disturbed remains in a casket at the bottom of the deeper grave and using the additional space above the reinterred remains for new burials.

Under the Bill, that could be done only where two conditions are met: first, that no burial has taken place for at least 75 years; and, secondly, that no exclusive burial right previously existed, or the right of burial has been extinguished using the provisions in the Bill. If the Bill is adopted, the NSCC or the Baha’is would be able to authorise re-use without the current requirement for a licence from the Secretary of State under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.

Before exercising this power, the NSCC and the Baha’is would have to give notice, as I described earlier in my remarks. If an objection is made by the registered owner of the extinguished right of burial, the owner of a memorial on the grave or the relative of a person buried there, the powers may not be used for a further 25 years. The Bill requires the promoters and the Baha’is to keep records of any memorial removed, and a public record of the disturbance and reinterment of remains.

Prior to the promotion of the Bill, the promoters consulted cemetery users, local authorities, various religious orders and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on what they intended to propose in it, and the response to that consultation was positive. No petitions were deposited against the Bill in either House.

The Bill was given a Second Reading by this House following a debate on 29 November 2016, where it was proposed by the former Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate, David Burrowes. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to his work on the Bill and on so many other important parliamentary and constituency matters. We miss him.

Consideration of the Bill took place in an Unopposed Bill Committee on 24 January 2017. I gather that the Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out during those proceedings that cemeteries can sometimes be important wildlife habitats—a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Concern was expressed about a statement by the promoters regarding the maintenance of the cemetery and potential habitats, and corrections were subsequently made.

A constituent also got in touch to challenge a statement regarding the extent of tree protection orders. She believed that the TPOs referred to in Committee all related to land that had been sold by the NSCC and that no longer formed part of the cemetery. I took that up with the NSCC. I am encouraging it, of course, to do all it can to protect trees in the cemetery. It has acknowledged that, while some of the trees in the cemetery are indeed covered by TPOs, not all are. It has also confirmed that, while the TPO referred to does cover the land that was sold, it also still covers some of the trees in the cemetery. That exchange led to a further correction of the evidence.

It is regrettable that these corrections were needed, but the NSCC has given a commitment to carry out a nature conservation assessment prior to any exercise of the powers conferred by clause 4. That assessment would comply with the standards set out in the technical guidance on the reuse and reclamation of graves in London local authority cemeteries, which is dated October 2013, or any subsequent replacement document.

I should make it clear to the House that the Bill does not give the promoters any additional powers with regard to trees, wildlife or nature conservation. The NSCC remains bound by the same rules on planning, conservation and TPOs as any other landowner. Nothing in the Bill changes that.

In response to other matters raised in Committee, three further undertakings were given by the NSCC. First, it undertook that, within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, it will publicise the power to extinguish burial rights in the cemetery in a newspaper circulating in the Greater London area. Secondly, before exercising any of the powers conferred by clause 4 of the Bill, the NSCC will carry out a survey of the faith groups most affected by the Bill’s proposals, to ensure that relevant faith and cultural sensitivities are taken into account fully in exercising the powers conferred by the Bill. The results of that exercise will be published along with proposed best practice. Thirdly, the NSCC undertakes not to sell for commercial gain any memorial that is removed under clauses 3 or 4 without the consent of the registered owner.

To demonstrate its compliance with the three undertakings I have outlined, the promoters have promised to send the Ministry of Justice a copy of the relevant publication or assessment, so that Ministers can place it in the Library of the House if they feel that is appropriate. Compliance with the final undertaking can be monitored under clause 5, which requires the promoters to make a record of each memorial removed and to deposit a copy of that record with the Registrar General.

Parliament was dissolved for the general election before this Bill received its Third Reading, but the Bill was revived in this Parliament. I hope that the House will support the Bill today in order to give New Southgate cemetery a sustainable future for the benefit of my constituents and the local community. It is a sensible measure that is needed to ensure that we have more burial space in north London for my constituents in Chipping Barnet and for residents living in a wider area in the boroughs of Enfield and Barnet and beyond. The changes proposed are relatively modest and reflect the position that already applies in relation to cemeteries owned by local authorities. It is only because New Southgate cemetery happens to be privately owned that statute does not already provide the powers sought in the Bill. The promoters have given important undertakings about how those powers will be exercised. As a result of this debate, these are now formally on record, including the commitment to notify the Minister at the Minister of Justice in the relevant circumstances.

There are important cultural reasons to back this legislation. Barnet and Enfield are among the most ethnically diverse boroughs in the country and are home to people of many different faiths. Burial is preferred over cremation for many in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox communities. The NSCC tells me that its experience with the black Caribbean community has also indicated a preference for burial by many families.

Moreover, as I pointed out on Second Reading, there are important conservation reasons for supporting the Bill. If we fail to take steps to ensure that we use our existing burial space effectively, pressure will grow for new cemeteries. Establishing those on green-belt land or in other suburban green spaces would damage the quality of life for my constituents and would also see a loss of valued wildlife habitats. That is one of the reasons I am opposing such a proposal for a new burial ground on the green belt in Arkley in my constituency.

For all those reasons, I appeal to the House to support the Bill. I very much hope that it will be given its Third Reading this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a very few words. As others have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his always assiduous scrutiny of private Members’ business. I express my gratitude to the Minister for the work that he has done to agree the undertakings, and for his promises about the work that the Ministry of Justice will carry out as a result of those undertakings. I thank my constituent who contacted me about this Bill to express her concerns about nature conservation at the cemetery. Finally, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your careful scrutiny of the process. I am happy to commend this Bill to the House and I hope it will command a majority this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Draft Non-Contentious Probate Fees Order 2017

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 General Committees

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

May I first give my profound apologies, Sir Alan, for arriving late and missing the first 30 seconds or so of the Minister’s speech?

I must say something about the concerns that my constituents have raised with me about these changes. The Minister made a coherent case and I recognise that there is a degree of fairness in asking people to contribute to the cost of the legal system they are using, but some of my constituents are anxious and concerned about the additional bill they will face on bereavement.

I suspect that the matter has been raised with me because I am an MP for a London constituency and London is where the higher fees are likely to have the most significant impact, because property prices in London have risen in recent years so more estates in Greater London are likely to be affected by the higher fees than those in other parts of the country. The reality is that people have worked hard and saved hard over many years to pay for their homes and there is concern about the imposition of a significant increase in fees suddenly and without a graduated approach. I would be grateful if the Minister will explain.

The Minister says that the measure reflects the cost to the legal system of carrying out probate, but that suggests that those with smaller estates should also pay some fee. Will he explain why, just because an estate is large, probate costs the legal system dramatically more money to process? If this is genuinely about meeting the costs incurred by taxpayers for running the legal system, I find it a little difficult to understand why there is such a dramatic difference between smaller and bigger estates. I hope he will say whether the Government have really reflected on how the measure will impact on people living in London and the south-east, including my Chipping Barnet constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

Again, that is an important point. If someone has spent quite a lot of time inside, it is highly likely that they will be unused to the world of work and certainly to interviews. One of the things we are doing is having Department for Work and Pensions work coaches work with prison governors as part of the regime. Their job is to help to prepare prisoners, alongside rehabilitation companies, for life after release.

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

17. A constituent of mine has a criminal record but has been a law-abiding citizen for over 40 years. Should there not come a time when she is able to move on and no longer has to explain to prospective employers the mistake she made when she was much younger?

[Mr Gyimah]

My right hon. Friend raises a point around conviction and time spent. Obviously, there is the Ban the Box campaign, which we are supporters of, that encourages employers to look beyond these things, certainly when it comes to employing ex-offenders. I would be happy to speak with my right hon. Friend directly about the case of her constituent.

New Southgate Cemetery [Lords]

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is great that we are having a debate about the Bill. If I had not tabled a blocking motion, it would have gone through Second Reading on the nod. It is undesirable that issues such as this are not open to debate and discussion in this House.

The Bill touches on an area that successive Governments have long avoided. In 2004, the Labour Government held a consultation on the possible re-use of graves. The consultation lasted six months, and after about three years there was a response from the Government in which they said that they were definitely going to do something about it, and quickly. Nothing has happened since. A Minister in the coalition Government, the former Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Simon Hughes, said that they were definitely going to do something about it, but, again, nothing has happened. Perhaps the Minister on the Front Bench today will seize the moment to tell the House what the Government’s plans are in respect of the cemetery.

The issue is much bigger than is reflected in the terms of the Bill. I do not intend to divide the House on it, but in such a debate it is important to be able to ask a few questions. When my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) comes to sum up, I hope he will be able to respond to them.

The cemetery has a long and interesting history. It was originally some 200 acres. Over a period of time—this is the ninth Bill relating to this land to come before the House, and there have been eight Acts of Parliament since 1855 covering New Southgate cemetery—more and more of the cemetery has been sold off. In 1976, the Great Northern transferred the ownership and management of the remaining parts of the cemetery to New Southgate. Since then, part of the cemetery has been sold off and part has been transferred to the Baha’is.

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Is it really unreasonable for land set aside to accommodate the dead to occasionally be sold off to accommodate the living? That does not seem an unreasonable thing for the cemetery to have done, and it is not really a reason to oppose the Bill.

[Mr Chope]

As I said, I am not opposing the Bill. What is unreasonable is that land retained to bury the dead was disposed of, and now the owners of that land, who profited from the sale of it, are saying, “We have not got enough space. We need special powers to reuse graves.” There is a difference between reusing graves in a municipal burial ground, where a local authority is accountable to local people, and reusing graves in a private burial ground, where there is no such accountability.

What worries me is that the local authority has apparently been unhelpful in allowing an extension to this area so that there is more space for the burial of the dead. More land has been sold than is needed now, but as soon as this organisation seeks to purchase a bit more land, all sorts of problems are apparently put in its way by the local authority—the very local authority that, I suspect, developed the houses on the land that was sold to it originally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

As I understand it, part of the cemetery was sold to the Baha’is because one of their religious leaders died while he was visiting London in 1957, and he was buried in the cemetery. That is why it is a place of particular pilgrimage and interest to people of the Baha’i faith. However, as my hon. Friend may have said earlier, it is not just Baha’is who are buried there. Our great hero Ross McWhirter is buried in the cemetery—it is some 40 years since he was cruelly murdered by the IRA. A lot of distinguished people have been buried in this cemetery. If Ross McWhirter has now been buried there for some 50 years, under the proposals in this Bill it will be only another 25 years before his remains can be disinterred. That puts these issues into perspective. I expect that members of the Freedom Association, which was founded by his twin brother, with whom he established the “Guinness Book of Records”, will still be going there for a lot longer than 25 years. It may well be that the grave of Ross McWhirter becomes a place to which people would wish to conduct pilgrimages, in the same way as, I think, many years ago, Ross McWhirter discovered in deepest France the burial site of the person who made the first rugby ball, and following that discovery, that grave itself is now visited by rugby enthusiasts.

We must not deal with these things lightly—I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate is doing that—but there is a potential solution to this if there was more co-operation from the local authority.

[Mrs Villiers]

One of the reasons I support this Bill is that using our existing burial space more efficiently will relieve the pressure to create new cemeteries elsewhere in my constituency—something that is likely to encroach on green-belt land, substantially detracting from and damaging the local environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I rise to urge the House to support this Bill to give new powers to the owners of New Southgate cemetery in my constituency. As things stand, within 10 years we will run out of burial space there, or we will come close to doing so. There is now a widely held view that the only way in which the public can continue to have affordable, accessible cemeteries is if we make better use of existing burial space.

As we have heard, public burial authorities in London already have some powers to lift and deepen existing graves that were last used 75 years ago, to create more space. The Bill would simply give to New Southgate cemetery broadly the same rights as those already afforded by Parliament to public burial authorities in London.

[Mr Chope]

Can my right hon. Friend surmise why those powers have, with one exception, not been exercised?

[Mrs Villiers]

I surmise that it is because the pressure on burial space is not so great as to require the use of such powers, but it is important that we equip cemeteries for the pressure that they will experience in the future.

[Dr Offord]

I may be able to help my right hon. Friend because when I was a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet, I was responsible for cemeteries, particularly the one in Hendon. The reason why the legislation was not used when I was the responsible cabinet member is that alternative locations were used. The Victorian planners of the cemetery originally decided that that land would not be used for burial, so we used those alternative locations, as well as other parts of the cemetery that were not originally intended for burials.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for supplying that information from his experience in the cemetery arena.

The powers conferred by the Bill would create new space for bereaved families. They would mean that a viable and sustainable burial ground could be preserved for the long term in the heart of the community it serves in my constituency. I am sure that the owners of the cemetery would, if they could, deal with the problem by acquiring additional land. However, the adjoining space is already built up with houses or is recreational land. Rightly, Barnet council wishes to preserve its recreational spaces and would be very reluctant for such land to be sold and used for cemetery purposes.

To return to the key point I made in my intervention, unless we reuse cemetery space and use the cemeteries we have more effectively, pressure will rise for the creation of new cemeteries. I have a particular concern about the pressure for new cemeteries in the green belt. There is already a proposal to create a natural burial ground in Arkley in my constituency, which is strongly opposed by the residents. The Bill would be helpful in creating sustainable burial space in pre-existing cemeteries. It will be important in helping to protect the green belt and our local natural environment. I urge the House to support the Bill this evening. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his great work on this legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

As I have already said, this crime is deplorable. I suspect that it has always happened and that social media has facilitated it, and that we are now detecting more crime of this kind. I am determined to maintain services that support women and, indeed, men who are subjected to the crime, and I will continue to keep a close eye on that.

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

What action are the Government taking to combat online anti-Semitic hate crime emanating from extremist groups on campus?

[Dr Lee]

Online anti-Semitic crime, like revenge porn, is an appalling crime that is more easily committed through use of the internet and anonymity. With specific regard to anti-Semitism, the Government, thanks mainly to the fantastic work done by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and his all-party group, have made significant advances. I will consider my right hon. Friend’s comments on anti-Semitic crime, particularly on campus.