More burial plots for Wakefield will be created, pledges council
More burial plots will be provided in Wakefield, after concerns about limited space in the city's main cemetery. Wakefield Cemetery, on Sugar Lane, dates back to 1859 and is set to become full within seven years, according to a council report. Opposition leader Nadeem Ahmed, from the Conservative and Independent Group, called for the allotments next to the site to be given priority when negotiating more space for burials.However, Wakefield Council has instead pledged to consider a range of suitable sites in the city, so options are not limited.
Labour deputy leader Jack Hemingway told the council debate that securing burial provision that met the needs of all communities was being taken seriously."There is currently sufficient burial space at Sugar Lane and the council is pro-actively using the time we have to seek expanded burial provision when that space runs out," he said.The councillor added the process to create burial land was not straightforward, with high environmental requirements now in place. A finance report, published last month, estimated the cost of the work at a potential new site to be around £100,000, said the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
Unequivocal commitment
The council has extended cemeteries or explored other potential sites across the district in recent years.In January 2023, work began to create 1,000 plots by extending Hemsworth Cemetery.In the same year, surveys and drilling were carried out at Barracks Field, in Pontefract, to test if it was suitable to be turned into a cemetery.Hemingway said surveys had also been carried out at a number of potential burial sites in Wakefield."We want to ensure that families can choose to bury their loved ones in the towns in which they lived," he added."We aim to meet the needs of all faiths, and those of no faith."We have already made a commitment to ensure sufficient burial space for Wakefield. I am happy to unequivocally repeat that today."The deputy leader said the council did not want to preclude other sites that might be more suitable at this stage.
Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves's winter fuel raid to raise £1.2bn less than expected
Rachel Reeves's winter fuel raid will raise just £250m, experts have claimed, after the Chancellor was forced into an embarrassing about-turn. The Treasury previously estimated the controversial decision to axe universal winter fuel payments would raise £1.5bn this year. However, experts on Monday said the real figure would be just £250m, leaving the Chancellor in a £1.25bn deficit. Ms Reeves announced she would reinstate the benefit for 75pc of pensioners amid mounting pressure from Labour MPs and following the party's abysmal local election performance. Under than changes, retirees whose annual income is below £35,000 will be entitled to a payment of up to £300. Revised figures from the Treasury state the policy would still raise £450m, but Sir Steve Webb, a partner at pension consultant LCP, said it had ignored the additional £200m it has spent following a surge in pension credit applications. It is estimated there were 57,000 additional claims for pension credit following Labour's decision to revoke winter fuel payments from 10 million pensioners last July. Sir Steve said: 'These changes wipe out most of the extra revenue which the Government was expecting to get from the winter fuel payment policy. 'Not only has the Government knocked more than £1bn off the expected revenue, but it has also had to find more than £200m per year extra because of the surge in pension credit claims. 'Overall, the amount raised looks tiny relative to the political damage which the whole episode has caused to the Government.' Rachel Vahey, of investment firm AJ Bell, said 'the net saving from the whole exercise is likely to be miniscule', citing the administrative costs of enforcing the new threshold and the rise in successful pension credit applicants. She said: 'The route it has chosen is the most convoluted and difficult. It will pay out the benefit to every pensioner, but then claim it back from 25pc of them – those with an income of more than £35,0000 – through a tax adjustment. 'This not only creates tax chaos for over a million people, but it creates a cottage industry for the Government to impose the clawback, creating additional admin which will cut into the estimated £450m saving to taxpayers.' Julian Jessop, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: 'It is unclear whether the new plan will deliver any significant savings, but the clawback is certainly more complicated. 'The only positive from all this is that more low-income households who are entitled to pension credit are now claiming this benefit. But this will further reduce any gain for the Treasury.' Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, described Ms Reeves as a 'tin foil Chancellor', accusing her reversal of being unfunded and 'policy made on the hoof'. He said: 'There was no justification for leaving pensioners in the cold last winter. Labour's U-turn on winter fuel shows it was completely unnecessary, and it raises more questions than it answers. 'They already spent the savings from this policy on inflation-busting pay deals for the unions. So where is the £1.25bn needed to pay for this U-turn going to come from? Our tin foil Chancellor says costs will be accounted for at the Budget – in other words, she doesn't yet know.' Ms Reeves's new threshold means nine million pensioners will now get the annual payment worth £200 per household, or £300 per household where an occupant is aged over 80. The payment is split between members of a household, however, under the new system pensioners will qualify based on their individual income, a decision Maxwell Marlow, of the Adam Smith Institute, said was 'nothing short of baffling'. He said: 'Regarding the specific makeup of households, it now appears they are relying on data that differs from that used by the Department for Work and Pensions – the department that is actually responsible for administering the benefit. This discrepancy urgently needs to be addressed to prevent further confusion. 'If I were a pensioner and earned £100,000, whilst my partner earned nothing, we would still receive £100 despite having money to heat the home. This raises serious questions about the fairness of the policy and demonstrates the need for a thorough review.'
New Statesman
34 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Nigel Farage chases the Welsh dragon
Photo byReform is coming for Wales. That was Nigel Farage's key message in Port Talbot today (9 September), as he fired the starting gun for the Senedd election in May 2026. It's been a mixed few days for the insurgent party. Its third-place finish in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election might seem disappointing, were it not for the fact that Reform has come out of nowhere to achieve 26 per cent of the vote – just five points below Labour's victorious performance. 'Reform blew up Scottish politics last week,' Farage told the assembled journalists. Wales is, he argued, due for a similarly seismic shock. And Reform had two new recently defected councillors to prove it. The Hamilton news, however, was overshadowed by the drama unfolding within Reform regarding Zia Yusuf, who resigned as chairman on Thursday afternoon with zero notice. A mere 48 hours later, Yusuf had un-quit and was back in Reform (albeit in a slightly different role), fuelling attacks that the party is riven with infighting and not nearly grown-up enough to be taken seriously. Farage tackled that head-on today, joking that 'We did hit a speed bump last week – it could be we were driving more than the recommended 20 miles an hour' (a reference to Wales's oft-derided speed-limit policy). Mostly, though, he wanted to talk about the other big political news of the hour: the Labour government's announcement that more than 75 per cent of pensioners would have their winter fuel payments restored. Farage wasted no time taking credit for the U-turn, repeatedly hailing the change in policy as a win for Reform and arguing at one point 'Pensioners saw us as being the best people to fight their cause on winter fuel payments'. What does any of this have to do with Wales? The answer is about narrative. Building on his Westminster press conference last month, Farage is gradually trying to establish his party as a serious option for government. First, that meant eclipsing the Conservatives as the de facto opposition party. The next step is challenging Labour. And where better to do that than in Wales, where Labour has held power for 26 years – and where there is likely to be an audience for Reform's message of 'reindustrialisation'? Because once Farage was done crowing about pressuring the Labour government into a winter fuel U-turn, reindustrialisation was the theme. Reform's ambition, he insisted, is to re-open the Port Talbot steelworks, whose blast furnaces were closed last year. (Still in credit-taking mode, he argued that Scunthorpe's blast furnaces would have faced a similar fate had he and Richard Tice not gone there at the crucial moment, pressuring the government into stepping in.) For an added bit of nostalgia, Reform also wants to bring back coal-mining. There are a couple of issues with this. As intrepid journalists tried to point out multiple times, the way the blast furnaces were shut down means it is not possible to simply restart them. 'You can't restart a blast furnace with a press conference,' as a Welsh Labour spokesperson put it. While Farage insisted 'nothing's impossible', he did concede 'it might be easier to build a new one'. Which begs the question of why restarting the blast furnaces was such a core pillar of this speech in the first place. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe On re-opening the coal mines, another journalist pointed out that Welsh youngsters might not relish the opportunity of going down mines, not least as their fathers and grandfathers made every effort to spare them that fate. 'We're not forcing people down pits for goodness sake,' Farage quipped back, deflecting to the number of Brits working in the Australian mining industry. As for the small issue of how Reform in Wales would achieve their coal plans when the Labour government in Westminster is never going to allow a return to coal-mining, Farage said simply 'we could always have a fight', suggesting his party could 'just do things'. The clash between fantasy and reality continued. Since Reform laid out the beginnings of its economic programme in May, both the mainstream parties and independent economists have been falling over themselves to point out fiscal black holes in the region of tens of billions. Farage's defence was to deflect to the 'two or three trillions' of liabilities regarding public sector pensions. In other words, Reform's economic plans may be fantasy, but so (he suggested) were everyone else's. While this might have economist tearing their hair out, shock polling from More In Common over the weekend revealed that Labour and Reform are currently tied on who the public trust most to manage the economy. Beyond the specific issue of de-industrialisation in Wales, two core themes emerged. First is that Farage is putting everything he has into presenting his party as ready for government – first councils, then Wales, then perhaps the United Kingdom. 'Our aim is to win. Our aim is to win a majority. Our aim as a party is to govern in Wales,' he said at one point. Later, he argued that Reform was the 'only party with a real chance of beating Labour next year'. This is no longer about being protest party. In fact, if the rapid exoneration of Zia Yusuf by Farage (not a man known for re-welcoming those who appear to have crossed him) tells us anything, it's how determined the Reform leader is to professionalise the party, even if it means letting go of grudges. Second is that the media has cottoned on. Farage didn't get an easy ride today. Whereas the delusions of Reform's 2024 manifesto largely went unremarked upon, the flaws (financial, legal, practical) in Farage's proposals were picked apart. He was grilled on how he would define a Welsh person, on disability benefits, tax policy – and yes, on his party's personnel troubles and why it hadn't yet announced its Welsh leader. This isn't entertainment – and with the party just a few points behind Plaid Cymru in the polls, Reform's efforts to win Wales are not a publicity stunt. [See also: Non-voters are Nigel Farage's secret weapon] Related
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Digital ID cards would be good for Britain – and a secret weapon for Labour against Reform
'Papers please!' Those words strike terror in a thousand war movies. Stasi or Gestapo officers are a breed apart from the unarmed plod who demands no ID cards from free British people. So when the government contemplates a universal ID, it sends instinctive twitches down some spines. Though not many. Times and public attitudes have changed. And so have the political imperatives, for it seems that, for a Labour government struggling to seize the narrative after a difficult year in power, digital ID cards – and the sense of national belonging they could strengthen – may just be the weapon needed to fight off the ever-rising threat of Nigel Farage's Reform. Look to Labour Together, the thinktank closest to government, which has just published a paper calling for a digital ID system – a 'verifiable digital credential downloaded onto a user's smartphone, which could be instantly checked by employers or landlords using a free verifier app'. One of its main virtues is simplification. There are currently 191 ways to set up accounts and access services on with 44 sign-in methods. A universal ID is popular: More in Common finds 53% in favour, with 25% strongly in favour and only 19% against, backed by a majority of supporters of Labour, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK, and across all ages. The co-author of the foreword to the report, the Rother Valley MP Jake Richards, talks in terms of 'the citizen taking back control of their own data and public services'. One portal, no more forgotten passwords, simple, safe, everything in one place for everyone. What's not to like? Some will protest at the apparent loss of a romantic freedom, the right to vanish and start life anew, the call of the open road. But that's a fairytale, a fantasy of a bygone era. Everyone knows everything already. As Richards puts it to me: 'Last night I drank a Guinness. This morning I'm getting ads for Guinness.' The algorithms catch us already everywhere. Buy a lampshade and lampshades chase you all over the internet (which suggests algorithmic cluelessness: I've already bought that lampshade). You may restrict what you let out, but AI will find you, assessing your age and address from a host of databases. Better to control everything from one government-run base. It seems clear to me that the report is fundamentally about immigration – Labour wants to make it easier to identify people with no right to live here or claim public services. The policies behind the 'stop the boats' and 'smash the gangs' slogans can never hope to guard every beach from every rubber dinghy, whatever politicians pretend, any more than they can 'end crime'. But ID would be a second line of defence against undocumented migrants who would find getting a job, renting a flat or using public services near impossible without one. Curbing benefit fraud is also cited as another argument in favour by poll respondents in the report; with ID cards for all claimants, those ever-suspicious of benefit cheats, despite the very low fraud levels at just 2.2%, might be reassured. ID cards, designed to guard borders, could calm some alarm at migration among those who wildly overestimate the numbers arriving undocumented. The report forcefully labels it the 'BritCard', the first of its kind since the second world war. With a groundswell of support among the new cohort of Labour MPs, Richards says it's not just red wallers in favour, but everyone who's alarmed by Reform's frightening advance. Former home secretaries back it – Alan Johnson, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Amber Rudd, plus William Hague. Tony Blair has always advocated it, with a tortured history of trying to introduce a plastic 'entitlement' card. First tried in 2003, the idea was backed by the Met police commissioner, who called it an 'absolutely essential' tool in the war against terrorism. By 2010 it was briefly available to some, but abolished by the incoming coalition government. The cost was a killer: £85 for a combined card and passport. This time a universal digital ID would be free, say its promoters. The authors would make it mandatory – Jake Richards wouldn't. But that may make little difference once it became near-impossible to access anything without it. Real risks need to be resolved first, as a computer rejecting you unjustly would cut off access to everything. The Home Office would have to improve radically, given its track record. We cannot forget that some Windrush victims are still waiting for compensation while others dare not approach the untrusted Home Office, source of their trauma. Any system would need cast-iron guarantees that being denied services on the basis of not having a valid BritCard would be dealt with instantly by senior enough officials to make robust decisions with rapid appeal to courts not blocked by backlogs. But the political advantages are crystal clear. The almost 37,000 migrants arriving by boat last year signify a state's loss of control. It has been reported that some would-be arrivals in Calais choose the UK because it doesn't have ID cards, unlike most of the EU. Adjudicating who is entitled to be here is the state's first duty, controlling who shares in a democracy and the public services that voters pay into. ID cards are a social democratic cause, because they help define security not only as border controls for who comes in, but as the right for everyone here to share in our mutual social security. In truth this is a political rebranding of what's happening already. E-visas are rolling out to all foreign residents, with the existing One Login and Wallet doing the same digital identity work. Make it one ID system and the government can claim the political credit. Its promoters relish a public fight with civil liberties and privacy groups to prove Labour's seriousness about national identity. Watch the dash to leave the European convention on human rights (ECHR), promoted by the now near-identical Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage. Labour will rightly have none of it. No 10 is not yet committed on digital ID cards – but lest anyone think Labour lacks a pride and purpose when it comes to British identity, this is the time to bring in ID cards to endow everyone with proof of their national rights. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
