Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Twist Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As the shadow Minister will know from our exchanges in the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, the Government have absolutely no plans to introduce rent controls in any form.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Angela Rayner
The new deal for working people is contained in the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading last week. We will continue to push forward other measures that do not require legislation, but what we hope to see is a new culture between business, trade unions and local communities to ensure that work really does pay.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Twist Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
The Government have made it clear in that very consultation that we do not intend to change the general purpose or extent of the green belt. We are committed to making changes to ensure that we are releasing the right parts of the green belt to meet housing need. The hon. Lady is more than welcome to submit her own views as part of that consultation.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Among the many people who are concerned about the safety of buildings—understandably, given recent events—are those who work or live in residential social care homes. Does today’s announcement include higher safety standards, including sprinkler systems in such homes?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we should ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected. That is why the Government have today announced an amendment to the statutory fire safety guidance to make provision for sprinkler systems in all new care homes.
Building Homes
Liz Twist Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
I say to the hon. Gentleman that the number of houses in cities will increase. The new method that we will be using is based on the stock and its affordability, so I ask him to look at the consultation. We will be honest: if there is a particular shortage—many areas have a particular shortage—we have to build homes. We stood on an election manifesto to do that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has local plans, but we will engage with it. We do not have the homes that we desperately need. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should engage with his local authority, get the local plans in place, and work with us to build the houses that his constituents desperately need.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I particularly welcome the acknowledgment that where there are new developments on green-belt land, it is necessary to have the facilities that go with them. What steps will she take to ensure that local communities can hold developers to account for the protection of our habitat and open spaces when they come forward with plans?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Labour has a “brownfield first” policy, and there are very strict golden rules on the release of grey-belt land. We will support local authorities to make sure that they get the best from section 106 notices and that the golden rules apply. The proposals that we have put in the NPPF will strengthen the release of land, which has been done in a haphazard way in the past. We will also see the affordable homes that people desperately need in their areas, including homes for social rent.
Miners and Mining Communities
Liz Twist Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) for securing this debate.
I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Easington, for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). All of them spoke about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s “State of the Coalfields 2024” report and the miners’ pension scheme. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, not least because these issues are deeply personal for my constituents, as they are for Members from across coalfield communities.
It would be difficult to overstate the impact of the coal industry on my constituency, and on the north-east as a whole. Its history is woven into the fabric of our community. Many towns and villages owe their existence to the pit. Today, statues and colliery wheels commemorate our past, and community facilities set up to serve mining families remain in use. In my constituency, there were many collieries, from Chopwell to Kibblesworth and from Greenside to Bewicke Main. Each pit was surrounded by a community in which coal was not just a job, but a way of life. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I could not go without mentioning the annual big meeting, the Durham miners’ gala. Each year, brilliant flying banners and marching brass bands bring together thousands in our region to celebrate working-class life and solidarity.
So far, I have talked about my local area, but the mining history of the UK stretches far and wide, from the coalfields in Lanarkshire to mines in the midlands, on to the Welsh valleys and all the way down to Kent.
Liz Twist
Indeed. I noticed the similarities in what the hon. Member said between his community and our coalmining communities.
Let us be clear that the reality of working down the pit was far from romantic. Miners toiled in brutal working conditions, doing backbreaking work in the near darkness. As we have heard, many people lost their lives in disasters or developed industrial diseases, such as pneumoconiosis, as a result of their work. It is important that we remember and pay tribute to them.
Mining communities knew better than anyone that this work was tough and dangerous, but whole ways of life were built around the pits. Their rapid closures caused mass upheaval, the consequences of which are still felt to this day. As the reports from the Industrial Communities Alliance have highlighted, former coalfield areas still suffer from a lack of skilled, well-paid jobs, as well as from high levels of economic inactivity. While employment rates have improved since the days of mass unemployment, many people still feel there are few meaningful and secure alternatives to the work that was once available.
Labour is determined that we will not abandon our communities to the whims of industrial change. Through our green prosperity plan, we will seize the opportunities of energy transition to deliver economic justice and rebuild the strength of our industrial heartlands. We will create secure, clean jobs, backed by strong trade unions, with individual and collective rights guaranteed for all workers. Our former mining communities powered us through the industrial revolution, and it is not right that many people within them are forced to rely on insecure, zero-hours contracts, or left vulnerable to fire and rehire. That is why Labour’s new deal for working people will put an end to those practices and build our economy from the bottom up, and the middle out, to deliver a high-growth, high-wage economy for all.
This Government came to power talking about levelling up, but inequalities remain as stark as ever. A report from the APPG on coalfield communities, in partnership with the Industrial Communities Alliance, speaks of the failure of the current approach to deliver for former coalfield areas. Pots allocated by competitive bidding are too haphazard and too short term to allow for the developments that are needed to transform former industrial sites. Coalfield communities must be allowed to come together, and to learn from each other, not made to compete like contestants on “Dragons’ Den”.
Not only must we deliver a better future for our communities, but we must right the wrongs of the past. As we have heard, the party in Government have broken promises about the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Does the Minister think it is fair that the Government make vast amounts of money from the current arrangement, while former miners struggle to make ends meet? Let me be clear: this is a historic injustice that should never have taken place, and the Government should not be in the business of profiting off mineworkers’ pensions.
After so many years of silence from Parliament on this issue, the BEIS Committee inquiry was very welcome. The Labour party will work with mineworkers and their families to right this wrong, and we will set out our full plans on this by the time of the election. People should be in no doubt that we will deliver justice for mineworkers and their families with the urgency required.
We must never shrug off injustice. We all remember the violent images of the strike in 1984 and 1985, perhaps no more so than the sight of Lesley Boulton cowering in the face of a police truncheon at the Orgreave coking plant. Earlier this year, new footage from Orgreave was shown in a Channel 4 documentary, which clearly set out the police brutality and allegations of a cover-up. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), considered the case for an inquiry, but it seems that the Government no longer think that they have any lessons to learn. Their memories are clearly short. The Labour party has long supported a full investigation or inquiry into the events at Orgreave, and we are committed to putting a new Hillsborough law on to the statute book to prevent future injustices. I hope the Minister shares my conviction that the truth must be heard.
Our coalmining days may be behind us, but we must not forget the communities that formed around them. They were the engine that powered Britain’s industrial success, and we owe it to them that they should share in the rewards.
Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience: Khan Review
Liz Twist Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this important debate.
Dame Sara Khan’s report does not make for easy reading, but it is vital that we tackle extremism and radicalisation head on. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to reflect, and to consider how we can work constructively to build more cohesive, resilient communities. At its heart, this is about how we as a society live well together. It is not only a matter of security, but a matter of public health, and speaks to our fundamental wellbeing.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who talked about the importance of the review; from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who looked the experience of his own constituency, and talked about the importance of democratic resilience and social cohesion; and from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who also talked about the Khan report and the situation in his constituency. Finally, we heard a very spirited speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who talked about the importance of language and how people speak about things, as well as the need for a national strategy. She also discussed Islamophobia, and, in a very passionate speech, said that the Government needed to walk the walk.
To say that this has been a challenging period for our communities would be an understatement. We continue to see the impact of the ongoing conflict in Gaza on community relations. Meanwhile people are finding it tough to make ends meet, and our public services have been struggling. The Khan review’s position on this point is clear: these difficulties risk undermining our social contract, fuelling disillusionment with our democratic system, and allowing extremism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories to take root. The House can, and should, work together to tackle these serious issues, and the Minister can be assured that my party is ready and willing to engage in good faith with these discussions. We are here to represent our constituents, and we should come together to reject extremists who seek to undermine these efforts.
That involves recognising the shortcomings in the Government’s work on this to date. As the Khan review clearly outlines, those shortcomings have left local authorities to deal with the fallout following the most challenging incidents of community conflict. We must remember that it is councils that are dealing with these issues on the frontline, whether that is fulfilling their statutory duties by organising community safety partnerships and safeguarding boards, or developing more bespoke partnerships in response to local issues. The unprecedented levels of demand that councils currently work with have made it more difficult to carry out the broader upstream work that is desperately needed.
Meanwhile many councillors face appalling levels of abuse and harassment simply for serving their communities. We heard about the impact on Members of Parliament, too, as they go about their work, and how sadly, in two cases, Members have lost their lives. It is imperative that central Government work as a supportive partner with local government on this, providing the space for local authorities and other agencies to come together to share best practice. The reality, as Khan says, is that
“there is no strategic approach within Whitehall’s machinery to deal with these threats to social cohesion and our country’s democratic resilience.”
We have had review after review, and still no sense of where tensions are, how to prevent them, or how to rebuild after conflict. The constant political turbulence certainly has not helped matters. The integrated communities action plan has had some success, but of 70 commitments listed in it, just 14 have been delivered. We were told that the cross-ministerial group responsible would meet every six months, but in the end, it met only once. This is part of a wider pattern: we are still waiting for an update on the hate crimes strategy, promised in 2020, and it seems that the anti-Muslim hatred working group and the antisemitism working group are no longer meeting. I hope that Sara Khan’s review gives the Government an opportunity to refocus and demonstrate the political will needed to make lasting preventive change. Actions speak louder than words. We need to see that this is made a priority.
The review also invokes the Government’s record on housing asylum seekers and the Home Office’s failure to communicate effectively with local authorities before placing asylum seekers in their areas. Shockingly, some local authorities told the reviewer that far-right groups knew about local asylum hotels before they did. We desperately need a new approach, which has to include new strategies on counter-extremism and community cohesion. The Secretary of State has said that the Government will be publishing a more detailed action plan, which will include funding commitments to support organisations on the ground working to build community resilience. I look forward to hearing about the progress made on that, but in the meantime, I want to ask the Minister the following questions.
First, the review is clear that we must take a more proactive approach to community cohesion. That includes learning more about what makes local areas particularly vulnerable or resilient to extremism. Will the Minister say what his Department is doing to address those knowledge gaps? The recruitment of a new Islamophobia adviser continues to be in doubt. Will the Minister shed some light on any progress made on that issue?
Technological innovations have created further challenges in maintaining cohesive communities. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to tackle new forms of radicalisation, including radicalisation that takes place online? The tensions that we are currently seeing are playing out at all levels of our society, including in our classrooms. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Education about providing the support that teachers need to manage difficult conversations? Finally, can he tell us whether the Government have given up on refreshing the hate crime action plan?
Social cohesion is not a “nice to have”. If we do not show leadership and support local authorities to address concerns within their communities, extremists will fill the void. We must start thinking about how we approach proper preventive work that engages communities, rather than waiting for flashpoints to occur. I hope we can work together on these most fundamental issues.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Lady, who makes some of my case for me. However, turning to her comments, I agree with some of what she says. It is important that we build a shared understanding and a shared set of values in this country. I agree that we should be temperate with language. Where she has called out inappropriate behaviour—I do not agree with all her points—I accept that no party is perfect. I accept that some of my colleagues will have made mistakes. I accept that some words have been looser than they should have been.
However, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that that is not limited to my party or to the Government—there have been multiple examples. However, if we just trade off on the basis of who said what where, or make some kind of case that one political party is worse than the other, when we know that they have all had significant issues with community relations over many years—only one party got into the place it did with regard to antisemitism a number of years ago—we will be much poorer in the debate about this issue.
The hon. Member for Bradford West referenced facts, and I am happy to talk about some of the challenges around the facts she provided a moment ago. She knows that the Inter Faith Network’s funding was withdrawn because of a decision to appoint somebody who had a background in a particular organisation—that was a choice that the organisation made, and it appointed that person. The policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has been in place since the Labour party was in power. Indeed, it was the former Labour Member for Salford—the Secretary of State in the predecessor to my Department—who started that policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which my party continues to this day. It is perfectly logical to extend a policy that was introduced and endorsed by the Labour party, on the basis of logic put forward by the Labour party, because of the challenges that we now have. The hon. Member for Bradford West shakes her head, but those are the facts on the assertion that she made.
Lee Rowley
I am afraid I will make progress. I have given way a number of times.
The hon. Member for Bradford West made a number of comments about populism and raised a number of concerns about extremism and its definition. When she next speaks in debates like this, she needs to define the specific issues she has with the definition of extremism, because that was not part of her speech when we strip back all the criticisms about individuals. We can always have a robust debate, but if we want to have a mature one, which the hon. Lady claims she does, it would be better to focus on concerns about the specific definitions the Government are trying to bring forward, and what they do and do not achieve, as opposed to spending much more time talking about individuals.
I will probably leave it there. I have many more things I could say about the hon. Lady’s speech, but maybe it is better to deal with those in another forum at another time. I will just say that I do not agree with much of her speech, and I hope that, in time, she will reflect on many of the points that were made.
Putting aside some of the challenges mentioned in Members’ speeches, and what was contained in at least one of them, I think today has shown that all of us feel extremely passionately about ensuring that we build a society that is cohesive and resilient for the long run, and about seeking to utilise what the Government can do to move forward the things we see in our individual communities, whether that be Stoke-on-Trent, Blaydon, North East Derbyshire, Bradford, Strangford—the hon. Member for Strangford is no longer in his place— or elsewhere. We also want to identify the issues that we need to deal with in the years ahead, which is exactly what the commissioning of the Khan review sought to do.
Despite the robustness of the debate, and despite my fundamental disagreements with some of the points that were made, I think it has been a useful debate and a good debate. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for giving us the opportunity and space to have the debate, and I am glad that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South have had the opportunity to raise specific they are concerned about within their great city. I hope that such robust debates—next time, the language will hopefully be slightly more cautious and temperate—highlight the interest and need of everybody, wherever we sit on the political spectrum, in terms of getting this matter right and making progress for the long run, which is something we all want to achieve.
Easter and Christian Culture
Liz Twist Excerpts(9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this debate on Easter, Christian culture and heritage.
I will say a little about the contributions from other Members, which have been very interesting. The hon. Member talked about his faith and about the influence of Christianity on the country. It is good to see him reflecting that view, and that he is proud to speak of his faith. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talked about Christianity being at the heart of our culture and about his own religious background, as well as the strength of the Church of England. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) talked about the heritage and culture derived from our Christian faith—those other elements of the debate—and told the story of hot cross buns. I am certainly very glad that we are still able to have hot cross buns in this place, and indeed in many other places. He also talked about Westminster Abbey, just across the road from us, and its significance in our history and culture.
This weekend, my constituents will be getting together, attending services and taking part in Easter egg hunts. Easter eggs may be one of the things we have adopted, rather than coming from a Christian background. People will be taking part in hunts like the one in Crawcrook Park in my constituency, which is always a highlight with the children; let us hope that this year we have enough Easter eggs for all the children who come out, because it is very popular. For churchgoers and non-churchgoers alike, such events are a reminder that Christianity has shaped many of our traditions.
I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of my local vicars, Father Barry at the church of St Mary the Virgin in Whickham, which was built between the 12th and 14th centuries and has a long tradition and a great history. Father Barry has been a real part of the community, working with different people for many years. I pay tribute to him for all his work, and look forward to celebrating with him his years in Whickham.
I will also talk about some of the other heritage assets in my constituency. The Church of the Holy Cross, on which building started in 1220, is a real asset to our community and very much valued. I should also mention the one of the earliest Catholic churches in my constituency, the Church of St Mary and St Thomas Aquinas, in Stella. I was very proud and pleased to be a governor at the church associated with the parish. I pay particular tribute to Churches Together in Blaydon, which works tirelessly across denominations to serve our local community. With its community larder and the other support that it provides, it has supported many families in desperate need.
As we speak, of course, we remain in Lent, which is marked by various customs, including prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Each year, pupils at St Thomas More Catholic School in my constituency take part in Lenten alms, with six weeks of fundraising for local charities. Proceeds this year will be going to local charity Daft as a Brush, which provides transport for people being treated for cancer. I thank all the staff and students for their work during this period.
Like many other faiths, Christianity has a proud tradition of charity, which is an important aspect of our Christian heritage. To give a few examples, I think of Joseph Rowntree, the Quaker businessman and social reformer, who sought to tackle the root causes of poverty endemic in early 20th-century Britain. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s social research continues to inform policy work to this day. Meanwhile, organisations such as Christians Against Poverty and Christian Aid are a lifeline for those facing acute hardship, both here in the UK and around the world.
I pay tribute also to the Trussell Trust, which supports more than 1,200 food bank centres across the UK. The food bank model spread rapidly through church networks, and, as the organisation says, they were inspired by Matthew 25:35-36:
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was in prison and you visited me.”
That is a reminder of the obligations we have to the most vulnerable people in our society. The Trussell Trust does great work, but its vision is for a UK without food banks because they are unnecessary. I cannot but agree with it in that mission.
Charities in the UK have carried many families through the cost of living crisis, when this Government have not provided the help they need. Many charities are being hit hard by the increase in demand, with some even having to turn people away. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has called this a “cost of giving crisis”. This Easter, I hope the Government will take steps to recognise and support charities’ essential contribution.
As a Labour MP, I cannot go without recognising the role of Christianity in the history of our party and our trade union movement. Our founder, Keir Hardie, was a methodist preacher and many other early figures in the movement cited their faith as having inspired their passion for the principles of co-operation and solidarity. Of course, Christianity has inspired many diverse political movements and, in turn, the values of the Labour movement are by no means exclusively Christian. Our movement, and our society, are all the better for the contributions made by countless faiths, cultures and denominations, often working across faith boundaries. The compassion of these communities was vital for getting many of us through the covid-19 pandemic. To this day, as the cost of living crisis continues, many churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, mandirs and temples have been right at the frontline, opening their doors beyond their own immediate communities to those in desperate need.
As we have seen threats to community cohesion in recent months, it has been inspiring to see faith communities bringing people together. Such inter-faith dialogue is vital, not only for resolving differences, but for building strong and collaborative communities that can support people in times of need. The Government have a role to play in facilitating such co-operation, and I know Members across the House are concerned about the impact of the closure of the Inter Faith Network on that community cohesion work. I hope the Minister is working to ensure that multi-faith dialogue is facilitated through other means too.
We must remember those who will be observing this Easter in the most desperate of circumstances—those facing destitution, fleeing persecution or sheltering from the violence of war. Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, the Holy Family Catholic church has been a source of refuge for hundreds of displaced Palestinians. In December, an innocent mother and daughter were killed within its grounds and many others continue to suffer without water or food. I hope that this Easter the Minister will join me in recognising our shared humanity and in a call for peace.
As we look toward Holy Week, I pay tribute to people of all faiths and to those of no faith at all who strive daily to serve their communities, both here in the UK and overseas. I celebrate the Christian churches and charities in my own community and the rich contribution that they have made, and continue to make, to our society. The Government should rightly recognise those contributions, but they must also reflect on the hardship that has made some of them necessary. Finally, I hope that Members present today and across the House have a very happy and peaceful Easter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Twist Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
For almost two years this Tory Government have failed to appoint an independent adviser on Islamophobia. The former adviser has criticised the Government for their failure to engage, and revealed that he could not even get them to provide terms of reference for his role. Does the Minister agree that this Government lack the political will to tackle this pernicious hatred, or even to call it out?
Felicity Buchan
I strongly disagree. We plan to appoint a new independent adviser on anti-Muslim hatred, and we will update the House shortly.
Inter Faith Network Closure
Liz Twist Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing the urgent question.
Inter-faith and multi-faith dialogue are absolutely essential components of society, not only to resolve differences but to build strong and collaborative communities that are able to come together in times of need. Given recent events—the war and violence in Gaza—that is more important than ever. As I am sure the whole House recognises, the Government have a special responsibility to facilitate positive relationships between different faith communities, and although I appreciate that the Minister has now given some explanation of why they have chosen to withdraw funding for the IFN, outstanding questions remain.
Let me ask the Minister some straightforward questions. When was the decision to withdraw funding from the network made? What impact assessment was made, and what discussions were had about the vital need to continue to promote understanding about and between different faith groups, and to encourage co-operation? When was the Inter Faith Network notified of the decision? Does the Minister have plans to increase support for other groups to make up for any loss of provision arising from this decision?
Every Department will inevitably monitor and review the grants that they award, but the House should expect that to be done in the spirit of due process. As politicians, we have a responsibility to bring communities together. At a time when divisions are being exposed, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government remain committed to inter-faith and multi-faith dialogue.
Felicity Buchan
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Again, I stress the importance of inter-faith work. I see it in my own constituency; it is very important. The Government are already supporting other institutions that do such work.
The hon. Member asked specifically for timelines. The Secretary of State wrote to the IFN on 19 January saying that he was “minded to withdraw” the offer of funding in light of what we have discussed. He invited the Inter Faith Network to make representations to him on this matter, and he received its response on 22 January. After careful consideration of those representations, he confirmed that he wishes to withdraw the offer of funding to the Inter Faith Network for the reasons that we have discussed. He wrote to the co-chairs on 21 February to inform them of his decision. I stress again that the Department has been very clear that the Inter Faith Network should have been developing other sustainable sources of funding.
Local Government Finance
Liz Twist Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
For 14 years Ministers in this Government have come to the House to lay out their plans for local government finance, and for 14 years there has been a constant theme: sticking plaster policies. Instead of providing the certainty and stability that local government is crying out for, the Government have again set out proposals that have been chopped and changed in admission of their own failure. Councils of all political stripes are left shelling out millions and communities and service users are paying the price, but I do not believe for a moment that Ministers have taken the steps necessary to end this crisis—a crisis compounded by spiralling inflation and a failure to grow our economy, where councils are spending eye-watering amounts on temporary accommodation, and where at any moment the next domino could fall and another council could be on the brink of collapse. This is not sustainable. Local authorities need a Government who will support them with a long-term plan, because we are under no illusions about the scale of the problem.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given the need for a long-term plan, were Labour to win the election, how much extra would local government get in the first year of a Labour Government?
Liz Twist
As I will come on to say shortly, we will have a review to look at the long-term plans. We understand the problems that local government is facing.
We have heard from hon. Members on this side of the House, including the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who set out a comprehensive summary of the issues facing local authorities and councils generally and thanked councils and councillors for carrying on and doing the work they need to do to run the councils. He also reminded us of the impact of the public health cuts that local authorities have seen. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to issues in her local authority and to the gap between rising need and available funding. As many other Members also mentioned, SEND funding is an issue, as is the impact of public health cuts.
We all understand that there is no magic wand and no quick fix, but if the Government are prepared to work with councils to build from the ground up and to deliver the services that taxpayers need and deserve, I truly believe that we can bring an end to this crisis. However, over this last decade the Government have abandoned any interest in this kind of co-operation and instead torn down the protections that were meant to prevent a crisis like this. As we have heard, they have ripped away any financial oversight of local council spending, scrapped the Audit Commission and pushed councils to borrow more and more. They have also left councils without a functioning early warning system, meaning that they cannot even sound the alarm when they are struggling.
We cannot go on like this, and that is why a Labour Government would instead prioritise stability and greater certainty, unlocking multi-year funding settlements to give local taxpayers better value for money, fixing our broken audit system to restore genuine oversight and partnership with local government, and prioritising certainty and stability over this Government’s narrow and short-term fixes to problems of their own making.
High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill
Liz Twist ExcerptsFriday 26th January 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 View all High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and I am pleased to be responding on Second Reading of his Bill today. I start by thanking all Members who have taken part in the debate—the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Bury North (James Daly) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who have all talked about their local areas. A couple of themes have emerged: partnership, people working together and the importance of heritage.
The purpose of the Bill is to place new requirements on local authorities in relation to high streets, as part of which—as we have heard—it allows councils to designate streets in their areas. The legislation has similarities to part 10 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which allows local authorities to designate high streets and town centres for other purposes. This Bill, however, allows designation for the purposes of establishing improvement plans. We can all agree that supporting the future of our high streets needs backing from all levels of government, and local authorities certainly have an important part to play.
That is especially true given that it feels that in recent years people have been tolling the funeral bell for our high streets. In that time we have had the Government’s plan for the high street, the Build Back Better high streets strategy, and now the long-term plan for towns, but somebody walking through many of our town centres today would not know that. Unfortunately, it is all too common to see boarded-up shopfronts and closed shutters as fashion retailers, bank branches and countless small businesses on our high streets have been forced to shut up shop for good. Among those losses there have been success stories of individual shops and thriving high streets despite the odds, but it is hard not to look at the figures and think of decline.
Research carried out by the British Retail Consortium in 2023 found that 6,000 shops had closed for good in the previous five years. The sad truth is that the pain of losses is not felt equally. The BRC’s figures for April revealed that nearly a fifth of shops in the north-east are standing empty, compared with one in 10 in the south. Then there are the disparities between city centres and rural areas. Once again, the Government’s claim to levelling up rings hollow.
With these closures come workers losing their livelihoods and communities unable to access essentials. Bustling high streets are more than the sum of their parts; they are places where communities come together. That is why we cannot have any more business as usual; we need to be imaginative about how we make our high streets work for communities today. That requires careful planning. Labour has been clear that we want to see local authorities in the driving seat, giving local leaders the powers and flexibility needed to turbocharge growth in their areas.
In difficult circumstances, the differences that Labour councils have made in transforming local high streets is testament to that potential. The Bradford city centre growth scheme has brought 70 vacant high street units back into commercial use. In Wolverhampton, the council has plans to transform a derelict site into a food and entertainment venue in the heart of the city.
For local communities to succeed, they need the right tools. It is no secret that 13 years of Tory economic mismanagement have left local authorities struggling. This Government’s efforts to support high streets have involved a begging bowl approach that has pitted communities against each other, with old pots of money discontinued, packaged up and resold as new. Labour would put a stop to that micromanagement and empower communities to grow their local economies as they know best.
Dr Mullan
I recognise that there are challenges when there is a more public process for the allocation of funds, but I hope the hon. Member would accept that if her party was lucky enough to be in government, there would be a set pot of money. Even if behind the scenes her Government were making some tough decisions about who does and does not get it, they will not be giving everybody every bit of money that they want—unless, of course, Labour has further plans beyond the current £28 billion to ensure that every high street that wants money gets it.
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, but this matter is about planning and giving local authorities powers to decide what is best for their own areas. There is a challenge.
We will scrap business rates and bring in a fairer system, which would reduce the burden on high street premises. We will tackle antisocial behaviour by introducing new town centre police patrols and putting an end to the £200 rule that stops shoplifting being investigated.
I am pleased that the Bill recognises the importance of local authority plans, and we will not be opposing it today, but a number of questions remain to be answered, and I hope that the Minister or the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South can answer them. For example, clause 3 makes the improvement plan a material planning consideration, but it is not clear by what mechanism those improvement plans would have to be taken into account when producing the local plan, as councils are required to do. Can the Minister or the hon. Member tell us how the provisions in the Bill align with neighbourhood plans? We have already heard an intervention about that.
James Daly
I am genuinely interested, because the hon. Lady has criticised the Government, and a number of Members have pointed to examples where money, whether in Belfast or wherever, has been going specifically to projects linked to regeneration. She appears to be saying, “We do not believe in any of that. Our policy is simply to hope that the local authority will make the right decisions.” I can tell her that the Labour local authority in Huddersfield has been making the wrong decisions for the past 30 years. That is why the council and the town are in the state they are in.
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As I said, I was interested to hear his earlier intervention on neighbourhood plans; that is one of the key things. We recognise the need to invest in order to make our high streets viable and lively, as many hon. Members have said, and I have already set out some of the steps that Labour would take to do that.
If we are to create welcoming, inclusive town centres that function as vital community spaces, those communities must have a say in their design. But to achieve that we need the return of a collaborative approach that empowers local authorities to thrive and play an active part. Labour has that vision, and I hope that the Government will adopt it.