Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Debate between John Hayes and John Spellar

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I want to refocus the debate slightly—on to the public, and the fundamental fact that the public want to get out and have fun. They have been cooped up for the best part of a year, even though many have still been going to work. Now, as spring approaches, they want to get out and enjoy themselves, and good luck to them, I say. They want to get out, let their hair down a bit and enjoy themselves. I would say that they want to get back to merrie England, if I could get that past the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady); I hope he understands that I encompass the good folk of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in that. This applies across all age groups.

We have to reset the balance of the debate. Of course, health concerns are crucial, but so are jobs, businesses and the economy. Like many of their customers, a large part of the workforce are young, and the closure of the industry is one of the drivers of the huge spike in youth unemployment. Unemployment leads not only to deprivation, but to sickness and premature death. Jobs, jobs, jobs really matter. The balance has to shift from whether we open up the sector and the related sectors of hospitality, sport and exercise to how we open them up. I shall coin a phrase, if I may: be driven by the data and not by dates.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about jobs, but of course this is also important for socialisation and community—for people getting together. People are social animals, and he is right that socialisation is critical to individual wellbeing and communal health.

[John Spellar]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. If the vaccine certificate will assist, the Government should get a move on, rather than using the languid approach they are taking at the moment.

The danger has been that the debate can be posed in binary terms, pitching hospitals against hospitality, one a matter of life and death, with the other able to be painted as more discretionary and even frivolous. But that is a balance that has to be struck; that is what government is about—that is its function. Currently, millions of people are unemployed, furloughed or laid off. Many of them are freelance workers who are slipping through the gaps and desperate for support. Hundreds of thousands of family businesses, their hopes, dreams, and life’s work and savings sunk into them, are at risk every month of going under and are just hanging on, and that is quite apart from the vast ecosystem that supports them and depends on them.

The loss of this sector would also leave a huge gap in our national life. The cultural and entertainment sector is one in which our nation excels. It is part of what makes living worth while and Britain special. We do not live by bread alone, but give us roses too. Our quality of life would be seriously weakened if we had the withering away of the sector—not just the cultural sector with the international and national centres, but many local theatres, music centres, clubs and pubs. Apart from being good in themselves, they are the crucial supply chain for the sector; no one started in the music industry by playing the O2. This is about keeping our communities thriving. We talk about town centres and the high streets, which have taken a bit hit with the decline of physical retail, but take out culture, entertainment and hospitality and they will wither and die. This sector is a huge draw not just for tourists but for inward investors and the skilled mobile international workforce. Let’s get this industry back to work.

Diesel Vehicle Scrappage Scheme

Debate between John Hayes and John Spellar

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to speak in this debate. I have just 15 minutes to deal with this important subject —I hope it will be 15 minutes of pure joy.

Disraeli, the greatest Conservative Prime Minister, said:

“The fool wonders, the wise man asks.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has indeed asked a question about what he feels is an important contribution to the developing strategy on air quality, which, as he knows, I have been working on with colleagues at DEFRA and others across Government so as to put it in place in a way that is both practicable and demanding. I say practicable, because I am not in the business of penalising drivers—particularly those on modest incomes who bought their diesel vehicles in good faith. They were badly advised, largely by the previous Labour Government, as we heard from various contributors to the debate. There has been refreshing honesty in that respect today.

[Mr Spellar]

Will the Minister tell us whether he or the Conservative Opposition in any way opposed those measures at the time?

[Mr Hayes]

I can answer that question directly. The Conservatives took an entirely different approach in opposition. In our 2001 environment manifesto, the then Conservative Opposition called for a vehicle excise duty to be based on air pollution and vehicle emissions rather than just carbon dioxide. None the less, Gordon Brown went ahead with the scheme unaffected by that advice. That is the direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. Ministers do not give many direct answers, but that is a model example of one.

[Mr Spellar]

Will the Minister tell us how the Conservatives voted in Parliament on that?

[Mr Hayes]

In the short time available to me, I do not have access to Hansard, and it would absolutely wrong for me to give any information that is not pinpoint accurate. That is not my habit, Mr Chope, and it is certainly not something you would permit in this Chamber. I now need to rush on to deal adequately with the contributions that have been made to this debate.

It is absolutely clear that the prosperity of our nation and, more than that, the common good depend on our wellbeing. Closely associated with wellbeing is the health of our people—urban and rural, young and old. If we are going to promote a better Britain to fuel—if I can put it in these terms—the common good, we need to look at air quality and pollution, as that is critical to health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

In recent years emissions have been a problem in particular areas—I acknowledge that clearly—and the Government are particularly keen to deal with the effects on those areas. The air quality plan will of course have a national footprint, as it is a national plan. The particularity I described was about Government setting out an appropriate and deliverable framework, and then working with localities to ensure that in the implementation of that framework all those local circumstances are put in place. That is the point that I was making about urban and rural areas and the different circumstances that apply there.

Clean air zones cover a designated area and involve a range of immediate local actions to support cities to grow while delivering sustained improvements in air quality and transition to a low-emission economy. Measures that could be implemented include the promotion of ultra-low emission vehicles; upgrading buses and taxis; promoting cycling schemes; and, in the worst cases, charging for the most polluting vehicles. In 2015 we named five cities, Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton, that are required to introduce a clean air zone. The Government are engaging with the relevant local authorities on the schemes’ detailed design.

Clean air zones will support the transition to a low-emission economy, but the Government are considering how to mitigate the zones’ impacts on those worst affected. I am not in the business of disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged and in exaggerating the circumstances of those who already face tough choices and have a struggle to make their way in the world. That is not we are about and would not be the kind of fair politics that I believe in and to which this Government are committed. A fairer Britain is one that takes account of such disadvantages and we will do so in the construction and delivery of this policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton suggested that a means-tested scrappage scheme could address some of those issues. He emphasised the fact that his scheme would be means-tested, and he did so with a fair amount of passion. Hegel said:

“Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion”,

and my hon. Friend has displayed that very passion today. Let me be clear: I note his points and I will ensure that they are considered as part of our consultation and as part of our work. I do not think you get much better than that typically in Westminster Hall.

It is absolutely right that the Government’s clean air zone policy recognises all the challenges that have been set out by various contributors to the debate and it tackles the problems of the most polluted places by acknowledging that low-cost transport is vital to people’s opportunities and wellbeing.

[Mr Spellar]

I have a one-sentence question. How much money have the Department and the Treasury designated to deal with the problem?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Hayes and John Spellar

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Buses are good, walking is good, cycling is good—that was how I got to school.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Minister promised new eyes, so will he use them to recognise that there are some 10 million diesel car drivers in the UK. Rather than joining in their demonisation by a hysterical media, will he hold a full and proper inquiry into the pros and cons of diesel, including for buses, trucks and trains, and thereby adopt a proportionate approach to what remedies might be necessary?

[Mr Hayes]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise from my immensely measured remarks earlier that I am not prepared to demonise anyone. I am certainly not prepared to put at risk the wellbeing of people who need to travel to work and school, and to access other opportunities—public services and so forth. Of course we need to be balanced in our approach to this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Hayes and John Spellar

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

“Proactive” is my second name. My hon. Friend always brings originality to this Chamber and this is an interesting and original idea, which I would be more than happy to discuss with him. As I say, I have not received formal representations, but his representations are enough for me and I am more than happy to meet him.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In the changes the Minister was just extolling, he only touched on the recent ones at the Dartford river crossing. How does he justify raising the charge by 25% and the whacking £105 fine if someone forgets? How much are those fines estimated to raise during the next year? How much will the scheme cost to administer and, by the way, how will he ensure that foreign drivers pay the charge?

[Mr Hayes]

Unusually, the right hon. Gentleman is being rather critical and negative, and it is not in his character to be so. The changes we are making at Dartford are important and forward-looking and they are succeeding. He is right about ensuring that all who need to pay do pay, and the progress report I can give the House today is that the changes introduced just a few days ago are on schedule, on time and in tune with the wishes of local people, who will get discounts, as he will know. By paying in advance, people will also pay less.