Paul Waugh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the £2 billion in extra money for social homes being announced today and the 150 new nationally significant infrastructure projects for which the Bill will pave the way. We are the party of the builders, not the blockers, so more importantly we need more builders. That is why the £600 million announced for a new army of 60,000 more brickies, electricians and engineers is very welcome. Can I suggest that Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college, which has a brilliant record in training construction workers, is included in this project?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Like much of the rest of the country we have a housing emergency in Rochdale, with 22,000 people on the waiting list and many, many children living in temporary accommodation that is unfit for family life and costs the taxpayer a fortune. Does the Leader of the House agree that, while the £500 million of new funding in the Budget for affordable and social housing was very welcome and long overdue, we need a debate in Government time on the need for the coming spending review to ensure more stable, secure homes like the council house that I grew up in?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I asked Andy Burnham this morning what protections there would be for smaller, live music venues, and to seek some reassurance about what happened in Manchester. He said that in Manchester, voluntary measures have worked very well. His solution is to hug people close, in terms of small venues—listen to them, ask them what they want and how they can make it viable, for both the public and the venues. He said that there would be low to zero costs for smaller venues of between 200 and 400 capacity. What is your assessment of that? Jon Collins: Our member, the Music Venue Trust, reckons that about 17% of their 800 members—so 140 or 150-odd—sit between 200 and 300. Fifty per cent. sit below 200 and the remainder above 300. There are a lot of small music venues out there. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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”.