Tiers, anger and an annoyed mayor
TWO West Midlands MPs defied orders from party leaders and voted against continuing the 10pm curfew which forces pubs and restaurants to close early.
They came from both main parties. The rebels were Gary Sambrook, the Conservative MP for Birmingham Northfield, and John Spellar, the Labour MP for Warley in the Black Country.
It’s one sign of the unhappiness among local politicians about the way lockdown restrictions are affecting the West Midlands.
The vote took place on Tuesday night. A package of measures including the curfew was approved by the House of Commons by 299 votes to 82, a majority of 217.
The vote was symbolic, as separate legislation meant the curfew could continue anyway, but it provided a chance for MPs to make their views clear.
Critics say the curfew is threatening jobs by robbing businesses of customers and argue there is no evidence that it is stopping the spread of coronavirus.
Conservative MPs were told to vote for the measure, but 42 from across the country voted against it.
And Labour MPs were told by their leadership to abstain, but 23 voted against. Other local leaders have made their opposition to the Government’s approach clear in different ways.
Perhaps the most telling intervention came from Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield. He suggested that the West Midlands had suffered from the Government’s determination to simplify the local lockdown rules.
His comments are particularly significant because Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, appeared to agree with him.
The Government this week introduced a new three-tier system of local lockdowns. Birmingham, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Solihull and Walsall were placed in the second tier, called the ‘high’ alert level.
It meant the continuation of existing rules which bar people from socialising in private homes with anyone from a different household (this restriction was already in place in much of the region, and was introduced in Walsall for the first time).
But it also meant that new rules were imposed, banning households from mixing in hospitality venues, such as bars or restaurants.
You can only go to the pub, or out for dinner, with someone you already live with. It means no more meeting friends for a drink, or taking your mum out for dinner. And that’s expected to lead to a dramatic fall in custom for many venues.
Local leaders, such as Mr Mitchell and West Midlands Mayor Andy Street (both Tories), as well as Birmingham’s Labour-led city council, had been lobbying the Government to avoid this outcome. They feared it would cause huge damage to the economy.
And they actually thought they’d won, until the Department for Health informed them on Monday that new hospitality restrictions would be imposed after all.
Why did this happen?
Well, the pub rules are part of the second tier restrictions, which are being imposed in places like the North East of England – where the coronavirus infection rate is higher. The West Midlands wanted to be placed in what might be called ‘tier 1.5’ – half way between the first tier (where they are no special rules at all) and the second tier.
But the Government didn’t want to have a tier 1.5. It wanted a simple three-tier system. And so, the West Midlands has rules that are actually designed for other parts of the country, such as the North East, and arguably aren’t needed here – purely to keep things simple.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Mitchell described this as a desire for “neatness”. And Mr Hancock appeared to confirm that this is indeed what happened. Mr Mitchell asked the Health Secretary: “Will he bear in mind that in the West Midlands we are concerned that yesterday’s change was made on the basis of neatness, not of medical need? Will he reassure me that he will always listen carefully to the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, as these matters all develop?” Mr Hancock told him: “Yes. The introduction of the three-level system means that, in some areas where the local area has been working so effectively to get the curve flattened, as in the West Midlands, under the leadership of Andy Street – there has been a rise in the past few days of data, but essentially a huge amount of progress has been made – changes have had to be made.
“However, I will absolutely recommit to working with Andy Street, who is an incredibly effective voice for the West Midlands.”
Perhaps it’s no surprise that Mr Street has ditched his previous approach of quietly working closely with the Government and is now vocally criticising them, following the example of Labour mayors in the North, such as Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.
Mr Street described the ban on mixing in hospitality venues as “something the latest local epidemiology does not support”, adding: “I am disappointed that the Government is pressing ahead with this despite the united view of local leaders.”
Somehow, Boris Johnson and his government have managed to alienate one of the few regional mayors who was previously on their side.
The West Midlands has rules that are actually designed for other parts of the country... purely to keep things simple.