Paul Waugh
MP for Rochdale · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Fireworks play a spectacular and important role in many of our public and private celebrations, but all too often the antisocial and year-round use of loud fireworks causes deep distress to pets, veterans and elderly people in Rochdale, as well as posing a severe wildfire risk on our moorlands.”
“First, I thank the Home Secretary for listening to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), and for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), as well as all our constituents; she acted super quickly and seized this issue, to make sure that we could change the law to allow for the deportati…”
“The Government are also trialling the use of chemical castration for convicts in jails, which I personally would welcome being made compulsory for sex offenders like Ahmed. Ever since my election, I have pressed Ministers to pursue the deportation of every grooming gang member who can legally be removed from the UK.”
“Shabir Ahmed’s release from prison this month was, for many, another painful reminder of the wicked crimes he committed. Ahmed, who lived in Oldham, was the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang.”
“This means that judges are asked to strike a balance between those rights and the public interest. That is precisely why the Rochdale grooming gang members lost their appeals under human rights law.”
“More than a thousand British Jews and British Israelis have written to the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to urge a ban on settlement goods and services by the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Paul Waugh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“I welcome today’s statement, which is a real plan for change and hope. It is clear that the Conservatives do not like us talking about their record, but it had a real-world impact in constituencies such as mine, particularly when it came to bobbies on the beat. For 14 years, the Conservatives stripped us of bobbies on the beat, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, neighbourhood policing was stripped out of many local communities. I particularly welcome the requirement in today’s plan for more neighbourhood policing, which will have a real-world impact on my constituents.”
“The right hon. Member refers to broken manifesto pledges. The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto said they would not raise national insurance, yet three years later he and all his colleagues voted to raise national insurance—not just on employees, but on employers. Can he help us with that process of logic?”
“The hon. Gentleman refers to the history of the Tory party on national insurance. Can he tell us why he and his party voted for the health and social care levy, which put up national insurance for employees not so long ago?”
“The chaos did not end with the Truss-Kwarteng double act, who drove themselves and the economy off a cliff like the Tory “Thelma & Louise”. Sadly, even the normally sensible right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) put his own last desperate tax cuts before public services. His spending plans were incredible in that they lacked credibility.”
“Well, her mini-Budget certainly fracked our economy. It was a high pressure injection of debt-fuelled tax cuts made in the hope of extracting hidden growth. Instead, it created an earthquake on the money markets and led to rocketing mortgage bills that many are still feeling the aftershocks of today. One thing that struck me most about that “Kami-Kwasi” Budget—yes, I do claim copyright on that phrase—was that the alleged tax cutters on that day were actually increasing the tax burden for millions through fiscal drag. Yes, buried away in that growth plan was the continuation of the previous Government’s plans to freeze tax thresholds, and they all backed that massive increase in the tax burden. I am pleased to say that this Government will end that fiscal drag act in 2028, uprating personal thresholds in line with inflation once again.”
“Worst of all, their sums simply do not add up, and, as a result, it has been left to Labour to clean up the mess they left behind. The economic situation that we inherited in the summer was much worse than anyone anticipated, so much so that Richard Hughes of the Office for Budget Responsibility said that Treasury Ministers “failed their statutory duties”. He told the Treasury Committee that there was about “£9.5 billion worth of net”— spending— “pressure…which they did not disclose to us…which under the law, and under the Act they should have done.” That is what he said to the Treasury Committee. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) wishes to dispute his words, will he please get up and say so? I remember that Liz Truss and her Cabinet, some of whom are now in the shadow Cabinet, were in favour of fracking.”
“My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary rightly said that this Bill was about tough decisions. The Conservative party used to be about taking tough decisions. We may not have liked them, but we respected them because we thought that they were doing things in a pragmatic and consistent way. Earlier this year—in my former life as a journalist—I interviewed the former Chancellor, Ken Clarke. He said this about tax: “I didn’t have a fixation on taxation. Taxes sometimes have to go up. Taxes sometimes have to go down. It depends on the needs of the macroeconomy and the public need…And, yes, I raised taxes quite frequently and I cut some taxes…I made my mind up on what was necessary.” Sadly, that Tory party is long gone, replaced by the libertarian ideological collaborators of chaos whom we see on the Opposition Benches.”
“My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary revealed that when he took office, he was told that the NHS was facing such large deficits it would have to cut 20,000 appointments and operations a week. Thanks in part to the national insurance rises in the Bill, he can now deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide 40,000 extra appointments every week, with our investment in mental health services treating an extra 380,000 patients.”
“I am, indeed, coming to exactly that point, because this is set in the context of what the Tories left behind. The clear trajectory of their last Budget was to squeeze day-to-day public spending to just 1% above inflation every year until 2029. That carried dire implications for every unprotected Department—up to £20 billion of cuts a year. The Resolution Foundation calculated that that would be the equivalent of three quarters of the cuts of the austerity years—austerity 2.0. Sadly, there is no evidence that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), left her own note for her successor. If she had, it surely would have read, “I’m afraid to tell you there is no money for public services.” If the Conservatives had won the last election, what would that have meant in practice?”
“The Heath Secretary said that he will address that in due course, and I am sure that he will before April, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) may want to answer the question I put to the Conservative Front Bench. If they are so opposed in principle to national insurance rises, why did they support the health and social care levy in 2021? The hon. Member voted for it, as did the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—why? They cannot tell me why because they know they are being inconsistent.”
“Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour is the party taking tough decisions today and refusing to duck the issues that the Conservatives were so timid to grasp, from planning reform to energy security, from welfare reform to removing tax breaks for the richest. In the past four weeks, the Conservatives have made £6.7 billion of commitments to cut taxes, but they have not said which public services they would cut to fund them. But the most damning indictment of their low-pay, low-growth, low-investment, low-productivity economics was the model that totally failed. In 1964, the outgoing Tory Chancellor Reggie Maudling bumped into James Callaghan and said, “Good luck, old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.” It is a shame that the current Tory party cannot earn up to their own failures with a similar sense of regret or humility.”
“When the truly shocking net migration figures were published last week, the shadow Justice Secretary and former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said on Twitter—now known as X—that it was a “day of shame for the Conservative Party” because it had “let the country down badly” and caused immense, lasting harm with immigration policies that have left Britain poorer. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is better to train our own people in this country than to repeat the failed Tory policies that left us all poorer?”
“Friend agree that if the Israeli Government are allowed to get away with what they are doing in Gaza under international law, other regimes around the world will see it as a green light for thinking that civilians and medical staff are a legitimate target in war zones?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this fantastic debate. The whole House will benefit from his medical expertise and political commitment to this issue. I had the great honour last week of hosting a meeting in Parliament to hear the heartbreaking testimony of Professor Nizam Mamode, a good friend and former colleague of my hon. Friend—he is a great transplant surgeon. Professor Mamode explained how during his work in Gaza this year for Medical Aid for Palestinians he treated child victims of drone strikes and snipers’ bullets. He said he had worked in war zones around the war, but nothing had been as horrific as what he had seen in the repeated, regular attacks on children in Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces. Does my hon.”
“My constituent Amir Khan’s beloved daughter Sanna was in her first year at university when she died in her sleep from sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, also known as SUDEP. Ten people every week die of SUDEP, many of them young people, yet with the right research and more public awareness, this number could be reduced. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on this under-reported issue, to give some comfort to families such as Mr Khan’s?”
“I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on all her hard work to deliver this White Paper, which proves not only that hers is a Department for work but that Labour is the party of work. Whereas, judging from the sea of green opposite, the Tories are a party of slackers. I warmly welcome the fact that Greater Manchester is one of the trailblazer areas. What is the Secretary of State most excited about in Andy Burnham’s plan to help tackle this massive problem in Greater Manchester?”
“I applaud the work of the Border Security Command and the NCA in those operations. Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking Greater Manchester police for their work in tackling organised crime groups, particularly the notorious Adam OCG in Rochdale, whose drug dealing, modern slavery and child exploitation make life such a misery for my residents? Will she particularly applaud Chief Superintendent Danny Inglis and his team, not just for their superb detective work but for their engagement with schools?”
“It was a testimony to his compassion, his practical politics, and his unwavering commitment to housing policy. Many millions of council tenants saw home improvements—new windows, new doors and home insulation—and none of them will ever forget that. Those are the basics that many of us take for granted, but which far too many people lacked at the time. In a superb biography by my late former colleague on The Independent , Colin Brown, naturally entitled “Fighting Talk”, there was a lovely and telling quote from John: “There are those priests of the Left who want to keep their consciences and there are those who will get their hands dirty. I belong to the dirty hands brigade.” John was regularly patronised and frequently under-estimated, but he had the last laugh by delivering for real working people. For that, we are all grateful.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The first time I met John Prescott in his role as Deputy Prime Minister was in 1997, when he opened up Admiralty Arch to 60 young homeless people as part of the winter shelter programme. It was a bitterly cold winter, and at the time, the Conservative Back Bencher Crispin Blunt said that this project would be treating a historic building as if it were a “flagship for undesirables”. Given that John was frequently described as an undesirable by many of his opponents throughout his life, he took that as a badge of honour, and he was really proud of that homelessness project. I will never forget the way he shared breakfast with those rough sleepers and took a real interest in every one of their lives.”
“I echo your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the Prime Minister about Lord Prescott. He was a true embodiment of working-class values and aspiration. As he always used to say, nothing is too good for the workers. This weekend, I will join Rochdale’s Ukrainian community to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Holodomor, Stalin’s man-made famine against the Ukrainian people, which resulted in the loss of up to 4 million lives. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Russians will never crush the spirit of the Ukrainian people, and that we will do everything possible to aid them in their defence against Russian aggression?”
“The Rochdale diversity awards, now in their 12th year and run by the brilliant Kashmir Youth Project, are taking place this weekend. Will the Leader of the House congratulate all the nominees, who promote not just the rich diversity of our town, but its community cohesion?”
“On 8 November, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report on verifiable deaths in Gaza—deaths with three independent sources to corroborate them. The UN found that close to 70% of the fatalities were children and women.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this vital and urgent debate. I will start by telling the story of Mohammed, a new-born baby in northern Gaza. Just a few hours after Mohammed was born, he and his mother, Raghad, had to be transferred to a new hospital amid fears for their safety. On the way, their ambulance was hit by an Israeli missile. The paramedics survived and tried to save the mother and baby, but they were hit by a second missile. Twenty hours later, Mohammed was found as the only survivor. Sky News reported that he was cradled in his dead mother’s arms. Sadly, Mohammed’s story is not a one-off.”
“Can I ask the Minister if she believes the UK is fulfilling its own obligations under international law as affects our trade and arms links with Israel, not just in Gaza but in the illegal settlements in the west bank? Given that ultimately the only route to peace for Israelis and Palestinians is a negotiated settlement, can I ask what progress the UK has made in working with other countries to recognise the state of Palestine as soon as possible?”
“The repeated restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza are further breaches of basic fundamental international legal obligations on an occupying power and, let us not forget, this is an occupying power. Despite the US’s ultimatum prompting some opening of crossings recently, there is still a trickle of aid going into Gaza and winter is coming. The UN and the UK rightly condemned Hamas’s rampage of killing, barbarism and hostage-taking on 7 October 2023. The very act of taking and keeping hostages is itself a war crime and the anguish their families face must be unbearable. Nothing can ever justify or excuse the horror of 7 October, but nothing can ever justify or excuse the massive loss of civilian life that has followed day in, day out ever since.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To back up her point, in residential housing, where the vast majority of people die in Gaza, 44% of deaths have been children and 26% have been women. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said on 8 November that “this unprecedented level of killing, and injury of civilians is a direct consequence of the failure to comply with fundamental principles of international humanitarian law—namely, the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack.” These deaths of children are not one-offs. They are not exceptions that prove the rule of Israeli safeguards in the theatre of conflict. The frequent, relentless loss of civilian life proves that rule of law—international law—is being wilfully ignored.”
“Rochdale’s “Giving Back” Christmas toy appeal has begun accepting donations. It ensures that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have a present to open on Christmas Day. It is run by Rochdale council staff, and last year it supported 2,000 children. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the appeal’s founder, Helen Walton? More importantly, given that nearly 50% of children in Rochdale now live in relative poverty, thanks to the actions of the Conservative party over the last 14 years, does she agree that the Government’s child poverty strategy will be the best way to tackle the national shame of children going without, not just at Christmas but all year round?”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman on the Tory Benches, which are singularly understaffed right now. But it is the almost criminal levels of understaffing in our NHS that affects most of our constituents. He is an honourable gentleman, so does he not feel a sense of shame that, every single day in our NHS, midwives, doctors and nurses cannot fill their staff rotas? They cannot do the job that they want to do and that we need them to do.”
“10 having to clean up the vomit, the broken bottles and the wine stains left behind by an entitled few. This Government now have to clean up the financial mess that the Tories have left behind and fix the public services that they broke.”
“Think of the number of people forced to spend thousands of pounds going private for a hip or knee op, an operation they should have had for free on the NHS. Think of the thousands of pounds-worth of damage to cars caused by potholes on roads left to rot. Think of those forced to fork out for a taxi to get to work, to the shops or to hospital because their local bus has not turned up or the train has been cancelled. Think of all the experienced talent leaving the NHS, our schools and our police forces because their pay was cut in real terms and they face crippling staff shortages on a daily basis. Those are the people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude and investment. The new Leader of the Opposition claimed yesterday that partygate had been “overblown”, yet the defining image of partygate was low-paid cleaners and security staff in No.”
“The Tories let down parents who have been held back by a lack of affordable, costed childcare. They let down young people on the minimum wage—I am delighted that the minimum wage is now rising to £10 an hour for 18 to 20-year-olds. They let down people in work on universal credit, people struggling to feed their families. In Rochdale, the number of children in relative poverty rose from 45% in 2022 to a staggering 49% in 2023. Most damning of all, however, is the spiralling economic inactivity that the Conservatives presided over: a record 2.8 million people locked out of work due to long-term sickness. That is just one reason why the £22 billion this Budget directs to the NHS is desperately needed. By grinding down our public services, the last Government piled cost upon cost for ordinary people.”
“It is clear that a lot of Tories do not like this Budget, but that is not because it raises taxes—because after all, they themselves raised taxes to a post-war high. Why do they not like it? They do not like it because this Budget exposes their model of a low-pay, low-investment economy—a model that has totally failed. It failed to produce anything other than anaemic growth, dire productivity and broken public services. Among the few mea culpas uttered by those on the Opposition Benches in the last few days was the admission that the last Government had indeed “wasted huge amounts of money”, but just as damning are the huge amounts of talent and potential that they wasted. Under this Budget, people who want to work will get the work, the pay and the dignity they deserve.”
“This version of the Bill recognises the need to balance safety with proportionality, while retaining flexibility to amend that proportionality at a later stage if that is needed. Manchester’s experience of a voluntary version of this Bill has shown that if smaller venues are engaged with and supported in the right way, these changes can help our thriving night-time economy and do not hinder it. But it is simply unacceptable that, for bigger venues in particular, there has been inconsistency on whether they have strong enough security checks. The terrorists will win if they restrict our freedoms to do simple things such as going out to enjoy a concert or show. We can reduce that fear—the fear that all those terrorists feed off—if we make our public venues safer in the way the Bill intends.”
“As the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing found, both the state and the private sector have more to do to make our public venues safer. This Bill at least makes a real start on delivering that change. Andy Burnham was right when he said that Manchester and Greater Manchester have shown resilience since the 2017 bombing. I would add that the city showed similar resilience after the 1996 IRA bombing, turning that awful event into a catalyst for the regeneration that we have all seen since. With Martyn’s law, we can make our public spaces across the country more resilient. We expect public premises to have a fire safety plan, so it seems obvious to expect them to have plans in place to mitigate the threat of a terror attack.”
“We as a Government are also bringing in Awaab’s law, named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died when he was exposed to mould at his family’s home in Rochdale. We are creating new duties on private landlords to make sure that no other child dies in the same way. And, of course, there is the Hillsborough law: a duty of candour on all public bodies to ensure that the state can never again fail to comply with public inquiries or deny bereaved families the right to fair legal funding. What links each of those pieces of legislation is that they have been driven by the sheer determination of individuals—of those who have suffered a loss but are determined to turn that into something positive for others.”
“I think I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how moving it was to hear Figen read out the names of all the individuals who lost their lives in the Manchester Arena bombing. Like many Greater Manchester MPs, I know that many of my constituents in Rochdale will welcome the Bill, not least because many of them regularly go to the Manchester Arena—indeed, many were present on that awful night in 2017. Brendan Cox put it perfectly when he said that “nobody wants to have a law named after their child.” –– [ Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 8, Q1.] It is a tribute to both him and Figen that they have turned their own losses into campaigning to make sure that no other families suffer at the hands of terrorists.”
“I would like to start with something that Figen Murray said this week in her evidence to us, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, was incredibly powerful: “Martyn’s law will save lives.” ––[ Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 7, Q1.] That is what she said, and that is what will happen. As the Minister has pointed out and as Ken McCallum of MI5 has put so powerfully, the number of foiled plots shows that, sadly, the terror threat is not going away but getting more intense. That puts even more of an onus on all of us to keep the public as safe as possible, especially when they are at their most vulnerable —simply going on a night out to enjoy themselves.”
“It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that. The Bill is designed to prevent people going through that and part of what I would say is that the way we and Edinburgh do it is a good model for others to look at.”
“The music infrastructure in the city, and the broader entertainment infrastructure, is highly valued. There was an era when a certain nightclub was just left to close and there are flats there now. We do not think like that these days; we protect the infrastructure and that means supporting the venues. It is tough for them, so get close to them and support them. I appreciate that times are hard, but there are blue-light services everywhere that can help them raise their game from a security point of view. I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened.”
“My point is: do not just impose things on venues. You have to sit down and talk with them and ask what we can do to help. This is my point about Greater Manchester Fire Rescue Service—if you have a capable fire service, they can go in and help. The blue-light services can help provide the training and help people comply with the measures in the Bill. This is not just about leaving venues on their own, saying, “Here is Martyn’s law, so get on with it even if it puts you out of business.” That is not how it is done. We are doing it a different way: get down there and listen to them all. They will all have different issues, so support what they do because they are important in bringing visitors to the city. I am just giving you the Manchester perspective. That is the way we go about things.”
“You will know that there has been a threat to one of our venues night and day in recent times; at different points, we have had similar issues with other venues. We cherish the infrastructure, and we work hard to keep it. We work hard to understand the issues that venues have, and how we can work in a practical way to help them. That is what I mean by getting close to the night-time economy—that is critical, and it is one of the things we do really well in this country. It is a big reason why people come and visit Britain: not just for the big arenas, but for the grassroots music scene as well. We had WOMEX, the Worldwide Music Expo, in the city last week; Councillor Besford has been very much at the heart of that, and he runs the English folk festival. We, like Edinburgh, often have events that involve the smallest and the biggest.”
“Could you explain what is happening in Manchester locally to reassure some of those small-scale live music people, who are saying that this could put them out of business—“We’re not the big boys, we’re not the arena, how can we cope with this and make everyone feel safe without changing our way of life?” As Brendan said, not changing our way of life is ultimately the purpose of this legislation. Andy Burnham: It is a good question, Paul, and it goes back to the guidance for local authorities. The way we work—when I say “we”, I am thinking of the leader of Manchester city council, Bev Craig, and deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester, Paul Dennett; people you will know—is that we get close to the venues because we all love music and we are a music city region.”
“Q Thank you, Andy, and thanks also to Figen and Brendan. You all make a really powerful case for why strengthening security actually helps business—it is not just helping the public, but helping businesses to thrive because then they can attract people in a secure, safe environment. However, at the same time, some smaller, independent, live concert promoters, very small-scale people, are worried about the impact on them. The reason Martyn went to this gig was the reason a lot of people go to gigs—they love music. You love music. Greater Manchester, and Manchester itself, is fantastic for music.”
“Q What is your view on the enforcement powers of the regulator contained in the Bill? Jeremy Leggett: I have to say that we have not looked in great detail at that. We have been so concerned about the way the entire Bill will be perceived by volunteers, because of the risk of us losing a lot of village hall trustees—simply because they do not want to see this responsibility falling on them personally—that we have not looked very hard at the exact sanctions that might be placed on them if they do not do it properly.”
“Q So is it fair to say that, because you are satisfied with the increase from 100 to 200, a lot of those concerns have fallen away? Jeremy Leggett: Indeed. It was troubling this morning to hear quite so much pressure being placed on the Committee to bring the threshold back down, because that would bring a lot of those organisations we are most concerned about back into scope.”
“It is a joint arm around each other, because with these events, local communities value the music spaces that they have, which are great for the local economy and so on. There is an element of partnership work with the smaller and larger venues. It is our business and it is what we do, but of course it must be partnership work. In our experience, the more partnership work there is in legislation, the more coherent and better it will be. At this point in time, it feels like the way in which it is written and planned is a little dictatorial and not in partnership. It is a little bit “you must do”, rather than “you must consider and take Government advice and so on”.”
“But there is that point that Jon makes, that you then go from 800 to 200,000 or greater. Should there be a different onus on a different event? The Reading festival, for example, is 105,000 people. Clearly, the intensity of planning and thought and so on, around a large event like that—the 105,000 people are all camping as well—is probably under greater scrutiny than, say, a 5,000 independent festival by the Association of Independent Festivals. That is somewhat under the radar to the world, in a way. There is that discussion. We all accept, of course, that safety is paramount. As I mentioned, that is how we keep in business, in that sense. You just mentioned Andy’s example, and we work closely with all local authorities in Manchester and everywhere we go.”
“Jon and I have talked about this a little, particularly in respect of the previous witness, whom I only caught the end of, but if you are putting on an event in an unlicensed premise—a church hall, a community hall or something of that sort—and if it is for up to 499 people, you do not need a premises licence, but can apply for a temporary event notice. That is a licensing cut-off, in that sense. From 500 onwards, you need to have a premises licence. It would seem sensible for the Bill to mirror that to a certain extent, because once you get into the premises licensing, you get into safety advisory group meetings and sitting in front of local authority committees to get the premises licence to do everything properly. There is that element of crossover that I think should be thought about a little.”
“Part of the challenge in trying to understand the cost and implications of this legislation is that the tiers and the scope of the Bill are so broad, particularly—wandering off your question a bit—as the enhanced tier goes from 800-capacity venues up to 175,000-capacity festivals. Melvin Benn: Some are even bigger than that, yes. As drafted, it literally ranges from 800 to an unlimited number. The largest festivals in the UK are for over 200,000 people, for example. Again, this is a complicated one, because safety applies to everyone, regardless of the size of space.”
“We heard talk about whether the threshold should be for the standard tier; there is an argument to move the threshold to 300, particularly for licensed premises, because all those venues already have the requirements of the Licensing Act, as Melvin put it. The trust’s view is that, if this is introduced in a way that is integrated into operating practices under the licensing legislation, it does not need to be overly burdensome. It would actually align quite nicely with the standard operating practices, particularly if an organisation such as the MVT was able to develop sector-specific training, which it could then cascade out to its members.”