Oral Answers to Questions
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan
I remind the hon. Lady that 99.75% of the electorate were able to vote successfully. I also remind her that it was the Electoral Commission that called for voter identification. It has existed in Northern Ireland for two decades and was introduced under a Labour Government, and it exists in most European countries.
On the hon. Lady’s point about ethnic minorities, everyone deserves fair and free elections, and it has been ethnic minorities in areas such as Tower Hamlets and Birmingham who have been the victims of electoral fraud.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
We are taking action to improve the quality of social housing. The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which received Royal Assent in July, will deliver transformative change across the sector, introducing proactive consumer regulation and rebalancing the relationships between landlords and tenants, ensuring that landlords are properly held to account for their performance.
Elliot Colburn
I welcome the steps the Government are taking to support people living in social housing, but many people in Carshalton and Wallington who live in social housing are still concerned about the level of service they receive from their providers. I have received complaints about a number of housing associations, including Liberal Democrat-run Sutton Council’s housing arm, Sutton Housing Partnership, and Metropolitan Thames Valley, which provides housing in Roundshaw. Will the Secretary of State assure those residents that they have somewhere to go when things go wrong?
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team on delivering a Budget that tackles cost of living pressures, takes steps to continue our economic recovery and, ultimately, places our constituents at the heart of the Government’s priorities.
We should be under no illusion that high inflation, spurred on by the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the economic fallout of the pandemic, is the greatest threat to the prosperity of the UK right now. My Carshalton and Wallington constituents come to me to share their stories. Parents—particularly women—are forgoing employment because childcare is unaffordable, elderly people are worried about energy prices, businesses are struggling because their customers are tightening their belts, and pretty much everyone in between is affected. High inflation spares no one. That is why I am so pleased that the OBR forecast states that we will more than meet the Government’s pledge to halve inflation this year. The Budget also builds on the work that the Government have already undertaken to cut inflation, and takes decisive action to support the people who are currently impacted by inflation.
I will touch on a few key measures, particularly the introduction of 30 hours’ free childcare per week for children aged nine months to four years old. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for her doughty campaign in that incredibly important space. I cannot begin to tell the House how many young parents—again, particularly women—have met me to discuss the cost of childcare. I am grateful that the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), came to my constituency last week to visit Bright Horizons nursery and pre-school, where we discussed some of those priorities. Not only are the measures good for the wider economy, good for enabling new parents to return to work and good for those parents’ personal budgets, but they will give back to many of the young mothers whom I have met an important part of their lives: the opportunity for independence and professional aspiration.
I am also glad about the other actions that the Government are taking to support all people facing cost of living pressures, particularly by extending the energy price cap and ending the premium paid by the more than 4 million households that use prepayment meters, ensuring that energy bills become fairer across the board. Of course, there is always more work to be done, and I would like the Government to spend more time looking into the impact on people whose homes are heated by district energy networks, such as those who live in New Mill Quarter in Hackbridge. It is not entirely clear what the energy bills discount scheme means for them. Indeed, that extends to local businesses as well. I thank the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), for coming to Carshalton last week to visit businesses, particularly Village Bakers, to discuss their energy bills.
Shortness of time prevents me mentioning many other measures, such as the frozen fuel duty, so I will wrap up by highlighting the major advance in healthcare. I welcome the move on pensions: as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I know that much of the cancer workforce was leaving because of that issue, so I am grateful for the change. I never forgo an opportunity to mention the upgrade to St Helier hospital in the London Borough of Sutton, so I thank the Government for reaffirming those pledges. I commend the measures in this Budget.
Rough Sleeping
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise some of the other causes of homelessness and rough sleeping. That is why we increased the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile, and why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor uplifted universal credit during the height of the pandemic, and of course we brought forward the furlough scheme and others to support vulnerable people over the course of the year.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
Carshalton and Wallington is proud to be the home of the amazing local charity Sutton Night Watch, which brings together multiple local agencies, not just to put a roof over people’s heads but to provide them with support for addiction, benefits, job hunting, mental health and much more. I have seen it completely transform people’s lives. The Government have done amazing work to support charities and councils with help for rough sleeping, so can my right hon. Friend outline how we are going to build on that support to help charities such as Sutton Night Watch to bring this to an end?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend represents one of the parts of the country where the snapshot showed that only a single individual was sleeping rough on that night in November, so I pay huge tribute to everybody involved in that in Carshalton and Wallington. Like him, I praise the Sutton Night Watch charity. We will be supporting charities and local councils over the course of next year, not least with £750 million of Government funding.
Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
We all remember the horrific scenes at Grenfell, and we can never allow that to happen again. For me, this comes down to one simple fact: leaseholders across the country are currently trapped in homes—for many, their first home—that they cannot sell, rent or otherwise financially dispose of. Many are being asked to pay extortionate costs for remedial works or temporary solutions such as waking watches. Sadly, some have already been forced to take what they see as the only way out: financial ruin through bankruptcy.
It cannot be right that anybody is trapped in a home that they cannot financially dispose of, able to escape only through bankruptcy, especially when the reason behind it is not their fault. If this trend continues, many more—potentially thousands—could be forced into bankruptcy, with thousands of homes sat empty across the country that, accordingly to lenders, are financially worthless. I completely accept that the solution is going to be far from simple, and that the reason these blocks are facing these terrible circumstances are many and complex. Time prevents me from going into them in any great detail, but they are part of the reason why I support the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith).
I want to raise a particular example of leaseholders in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington. I do not want to name the block specifically, because my constituents are currently going through legal proceedings and I do not want to prejudice the case. Like thousands of others, these leaseholders live in a block that is under 18 metres in height and has some cladding on it. We have had difficulty communicating with the builders and the owners, and the lenders are refusing to budge, leaving the residents trapped in homes with what has now been revealed to be a fraudulent EWS1 form. Many sales have fallen through, the mental health of residents is deteriorating, and some are already facing the terrible prospect of bankruptcy.
There are stories like this from all over the country and especially here in London. This is not about apportioning blame, and I welcome the support that the Government have put in place so far. Blocks such as the one in my constituency sadly have not been eligible for any specific support so far, and it is clear that developers, lenders, freeholders and so on are not stepping up to their responsibilities so far; they are hoping that the Government—[Inaudible.] They certainly did not cause this problem, and neither did leaseholders. Sadly, it falls on us to find a solution. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken and I urge them to move at pace to ensure that constituents such as mine are not left behind. In all this, charging remedial costs back to the leaseholders or using a system of loans is not the answer. My leaseholders in Carshalton and Wallington did not cause this problem, and they must not bear the cost of fixing it.
Holocaust Memorial Day 2021
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
It is humbling to join colleagues on both sides of the House and my constituents to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. For Jews around the world, including here in the UK, the holocaust is not just a terrible memory; it is something they live with on a permanent basis—the photographs of family members they never got to meet, and the knowledge that the thriving Jewish communities across Europe were all but annihilated. Today, 76 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the world’s Jewish population still has not returned to what it was prior to the second world war.
One memory was brought into sharp focus this year, in a time of pandemic: the numbers tattooed on the arms of parent and grandparents. I am sure we have all seen the powerful images of holocaust survivors receiving the coronavirus vaccine with those tattoos still on their arms today. This year’s theme is “Be the light in the darkness”, encouraging us all to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to and the ways that we can resist darkness and be the light for others. We are fortunate still to have holocaust survivors with us today, and I urge everybody to interact with the Holocaust Educational Trust and Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to hear from these inspiring individuals.
We have heard a lot about the words “Never again”, which first appeared on handmade signs hung up by prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation in 1945. Those words have become a symbol of the world’s resolve to prevent such crimes against humanity from ever reoccurring. Tragically, however, genocides and mass killings were not relegated to history in 1945 but have claimed the lives of an estimated 80 million people since, in places such as Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur and Rwanda, to name but a few, and today we hear of the persecution of Christians, Yazidis, Rohingyas and Uyghurs. That is why we must continue to be a voice for the persecuted around the world today and to learn from the horrors of the past so that we can be the light.
I would like to finish with these words of Elie Wiesel, the holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate:
“Let us remember those who suffered and perished then, those who fell with weapons in their hands and those who died with prayers on their lips, all those who have no tombs: our heart remains their cemetery.”
Council Tax: Government’s Proposed Increase
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I know I am not the only Member of this House to be slightly bemused by Labour’s apparent sudden concern over tax rises, given its own record. We have already heard about how Labour’s tax plans would hit the pockets of working families with its so-called progressive property tax, which would cost the average household an additional £374 a year, as well as its plans to abolish single person discounts and referendums on high tax rises. But this is not just about future policies; we can also see it from Labour’s own record, especially in London, where my neighbouring borough of Croydon has been led into bankruptcy and my Carshalton and Wallington residents have been punished by a 20.3% rise in the Mayor of London’s share of the council tax since 2016, despite his manifesto promise to keep his share of council tax as low as possible. Now the Mayor wants to raise his share of council tax in London by a further 10%, punishing Londoners for his poor financial management at City Hall.
It is not just Labour that would hit working families with tax rises. We have already heard that Conservative councils charge, on average, £84 a year less in council tax, but the Lib Dems charge more than £132 a year more than Conservative councils. Such an example can be found in my own council, the London Borough of Sutton, where the Lib Dems have joined with the Mayor’s council tax rise for local residents, having raised council tax in the borough by nearly 14% since 2017-18, according to London Councils. The London Borough of Sutton is one of only 23 councils across all the 393 local authorities that is classified as having very high rates of council tax, according to the website Property Data.
The reason often spouted by Labour and Lib Dem councils for their increases is that they do not get enough support, but these tax rises were happening long before the pandemic, and it is clear that this Government have given an unprecedented level of support to local authorities during the pandemic. Over £95 million has been given to Sutton in 2020-21, and so supportive has this finance been that the borough’s finance director said at a council meeting last week that the council was in as good a financial position as it was before the pandemic, thanks to a good level of support from central Government. I suspect that the Lib Dems will never forgive him for saying something so positive.
Residents do not have to settle for councils that waste money and impose higher taxes. We have heard that Conservative-run councils and Conservative Mayors offer better services while charging less council tax. Recovering from the covid pandemic is going to be hard, so more than ever we need Conservative councils and Mayors who are up for the challenge and who are innovative and careful with taxpayers’ money, rather than the high tax and wasteful spending mantra of the Opposition.
Local Government Finance: Croydon
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The financial situation in Croydon is worrying to residents in Carshalton and Wallington, as the London Borough of Sutton sits directly next to the London Borough of Croydon. My hon. Friend mentioned the council’s housing development arm. Does he share my concern that the huge amount of money that has been wasted does not seem to be accepted by the council administration itself, and that the first step to recovery for Croydon will have to be the administration acknowledging the mistakes that were made in getting it to this point?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. Part of the reason for this debate is the frustration expressed by many that everyone—from the auditors, to local residents, to councillors in the opposition group, to Members of Parliament—was raising these concerns, but they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. There is an absolutely critical need for the assurance in other local authorities—not just Hillingdon and Harrow but Sutton and elsewhere—that a closer degree of attention is being paid to the finances.
The point that my hon. Friend draws attention to was compounded in the case of Croydon, where—as Grant Thornton, the auditor, has highlighted—there was a growing and unaddressed funding gap in the delivery of day-to-day services. These are the basics for a local authority, as opposed to extraordinary speculative business activity that is out of the norm. That prompted Grant Thornton to issue—an extraordinary step—a report in the public interest, given the scale of its concerns, highlighting a shortfall of about £60 million between the resources available and the budgeted expenditure. That is a cash-flow problem on a massive scale, distinctly out of proportion with anything that we have seen in any other London borough.
I should declare that I enjoyed a positive working relationship with the former Croydon leader, Councillor Tony Newman, in my local government days, and always found him a very passionate advocate for Croydon—somewhere that was clearly his place that he felt determined to improve. There is no suggestion that he or his colleagues have acted in anything other than good faith. However, with such a perilous financial position facing residents, and others across London asking what it means for them, it is important that the Department, the Government, the wider local government family and Croydon itself are clear about what has gone wrong and about the fact that this combination of failed commercial property speculation and, more importantly, the failure to address the fundamental management issues is out of step with what we see in other London boroughs. I want all residents in the capital to enjoy the stability, the residents-first attitude and sound financial management that is consistently highlighted by my constituents, because it is critical to the delivery of services on which our community depends.
It is clear that Hillingdon and Harrow, Barking and Bexley and Havering and Redbridge have all faced the financial challenges of austerity and of covid, and they have emerged with budgets that are robust. It is what some have described as disastrous failed commercial property speculation and a fundamental lack of grip on the finances that have unusually brought Croydon to this position. The local government sector is stepping in to help. I know that Ministers will be aware of the particular value of the Local Government Association-led and sector-led improvement teams, who are already beginning to help out. After all, why pay expensive consultancy firms when peers who have been through it are able to rally round and use their experience to help sort the situation out?
Although Labour representatives have sadly remained silent on these concerns—and, in the case of Mayor Khan, heaped praise on the administration for “perfect examples” of projects that even then were millions of pounds over budget—I am determined, and we should be determined, to provide other residents across London with an assurance that such failings are not common across London’s councils. I know that Ministers are equally determined that the success of our councils is not undermined by the reputational damage and what has happened in Croydon.
Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Scully
It is certainly something that I will ask the Treasury to look at and discuss with me.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend will be aware that many Carshalton and Wallington residents work in Debenhams and Arcadia stores, particularly the flagship store at the St Nicholas Centre in Sutton. Will he join me in meeting the affected workers should the worst happen at that flagship store in Sutton, and reassure them that the Government are doing all they can to support them?
Paul Scully
Indeed. As well as being a Minister, I am clearly a constituency MP, and Debenhams is also at the heart of my high street. I will certainly continue to meet constituents affected by this and other issues around the high street.
Leaseholders and Cladding: Greenwich and Woolwich
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
As I was saying, the Minister must surely recognise that the Government cannot argue that height should not be the sole, or even the main, determinant of investigations but then make height the main criterion for access to public funding. Nor is it equitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) touched on, that leaseholders continue to bear the exorbitant costs, the median of which in London stands at £256 a month per household, of interim fire safety measures either through service charge increases or the draining of sinking funds.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important Adjournment debate. I have a building under 18 metres in Carshalton and Wallington that is similarly affected. Does he agree that it is not the leaseholder’s fault that they are living in a building that has this cladding on it, and therefore any remediation that we offer has to accept that, and we need to support them through the process?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will pick up on towards the end of my remarks. To my mind, either the Government are responsible, in terms of defective regulation over many years, or builders are responsible, in terms of defective buildings. I cannot accept that the leaseholder, who of all the parties involved bears the least responsibility, is potentially being landed with the costs. The leaseholders I represent cannot understand how that potential still hangs over their heads.
I believe that eligibility for the building safety fund should be overhauled to cover buildings between 11 and 18 metres in height. The Government should re-open the private sector remediation fund for ACM-clad buildings in the same height category, and secondary costs as they relate to any affected building should be covered. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether the Government are at least willing to consider those changes.
Buildings insurance is a growing problem, and the Government must step in to help to find a solution. With the insurance industry moving to limit its exposure on buildings covered in combustible materials of any kind, leaseholders in my constituency are finding it increasingly difficult to keep their buildings insured or, if they are able to do so, they are having to absorb soaring premium costs.
The case of Blenheim Court, a 24-unit development in east Greenwich, is worth citing as it is a good example of what is happening on the ground. Having secured several extensions to its policy as the right to manage sought to progress plans for remedial works, the insurer in question made it clear that the risk involved no longer fell within its underwriting appetite and the leaseholders faced the prospect of seeing their building uninsured, with the heightened risk of repossession that that entailed. Thankfully, at the eleventh hour they secured a policy with a consortium, but at an eye-watering cost of £163,000 for just 12 months’ cover. With the cost of renewals on affected buildings increasing across the board, does the Minister accept that to protect leaseholders adequately the Government will ultimately have to support the insurance industry, in all likelihood by acting as an insurer of last resort, in bringing forward a temporary solution?
I could have had a whole Adjournment debate on the mortgage crisis alone, such is the scale of the problem it is causing across the country and for the housing market. For all the hopes originally invested in it—and let us be clear it was an initiative that the Government were involved in developing even if they decided to distance themselves prior to its announcement—it has been clear for some time that the external wall fire review process has not resolved the difficulties caused within the mortgage lending market through changes in Government building safety guidance.
The guidance is not sufficiently clear. Too many buildings have been brought within the scope of the process. The issues around professional indemnity insurance are too thorny to resolve, and the scale of the remediation challenge is far bigger than originally assumed. The problem cannot be resolved by industry alone—something that I hope the Government have also now accepted. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I would be grateful if the Minister could at least provide leaseholders with some reassurance that his Department is trying to devise a system that facilitates the valuation and sale of properties that have some fire risk or an unconfirmed external wall façade, and to ensure that all buildings can be surveyed within a reasonable timeframe.
There are many other issues I could cover—not least what more can be done to speed up the pace of remediation more generally—but decisive Government action in the three areas I have covered would go a long way to improving the situation for affected leaseholders in my constituency and around the country. However, even if each were to be resolved in short order, that would not entirely alleviate the concerns, because there remains an ambiguity on the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability.
Strip away all the complexity in this crisis and the fundamental questions have always been: how can we make buildings safe more quickly, and who is going to pay to clean up this mess? It has always been my firm view that it would be indefensible—I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn)—to pass on to leaseholders even a fraction of the £15 billion that the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates will be required to fully remediate all buildings over 18 metres and the unknown costs of remediating buildings between 11 and 18 metres. As I said earlier, of all the parties caught up in this scandal, leaseholders bear no responsibility whatsoever for it.
Leaving aside the fact that over the past three years countless leaseholders across the country have been hit with huge bills for interim fire safety costs and remediation, and that the Government have entirely failed to protect them, until a few months ago the Government’s stated position, repeated by successive Secretaries and Ministers of State from the Dispatch Box, had always been that leaseholders should be fully protected. The then Housing Minister, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), set out the position succinctly on 22 January last year, when he made it clear that the Government would
“ensure that leaseholders do not bear the cost of this situation in any circumstance.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 135.]
Fast-forward to 16 October this year, and, in response to a written question, the current Housing Minister stated only that the Government were looking to protect leaseholders from “unaffordable costs”, subsequently defined by one of his colleagues as anything short of bankruptcy. Likewise, in evidence to the Select Committee on 19 October, the Minister for Building Safety and Communities stated plainly that
“some costs would fall on leaseholders—they would not be protected from all costs”.
Hon. and right hon. Members, as well as leaseholders across the country, concluded that the Government’s position had changed, and they worried accordingly.
Today at departmental questions, in a response to a question from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Housing Minister argued that there had been no change of position and that the Government are “quite clear” that they “do not expect” and “do not want” leaseholders to bear the cost of remediation. If that is the case, why has Michael Wade been charged with
“rapidly identifying financing solutions that protect leaseholders”
not from costs entirely but from “unaffordable costs”, and why does the draft Building Safety Bill, a legislative vehicle that should have been used to properly protect leaseholders in the way Ministers promised repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, seek instead to render leaseholders liable for defects, irrespective of the terms of their individual leases?
As I stand here this evening, not only are leaseholders more confused than ever about the Government’s position on their liability, but even if it remains the case that—again, I quote the Minister’s words earlier—the Government “do not expect” and “do not want” leaseholders to bear the cost of remediation, the Government actually have to take steps to ensure that that is the case.
Perhaps I am being unduly cynical, but I and leaseholders in my constituency fear that, confronted with a situation where, in all likelihood, more than half the country’s stock of buildings over 18 metres have had or still have some kind of building safety defect that requires fixing, and unprepared on the one hand to openly admit that this crisis is the result of profound regulatory failure under successive Governments but on the other hand not willing to go after developers more assertively on the grounds of mass non-compliance with the regulations in place over many years, the Government have decided that the only way through this morass is for them to cover a small proportion of the costs, to encourage but not compel developers and building owners to bear some of the costs, and to allow the latter to pass on the remaining costs to leaseholders using the mechanisms that the Government will have afforded them to do so.
I truly hope that I am wrong, and if that is the case the Minister has a perfect opportunity this evening to make clear precisely why, but if leaseholders did ultimately end up picking up the lion’s share of the bill, not only would it be an outrage but it would force untold numbers of leaseholders—even if the blow was limited by some form of cap or a long-term payment system—into financial hardship and, in many cases, ruin. For many leaseholders, all but the most superficial costs are likely to be unaffordable.
I will finish by saying this: any Member who has spent any time listening to the testimonies of leaseholders affected by this scandal will know that it is hard to overstate the abject misery it has caused. There is, of course, plenty of anger, but the overriding feeling on the part of leaseholders I have spoken to over the years is one of utter desperation—a feeling driven by the belief not only that they are trapped in their homes physically, mentally and financially, but that they have been all but abandoned by their Government. I hope that in his response the Minister disproves that belief and makes it clear that the people at the centre of this crisis can expect not just comforting words in this Chamber, but action to remediate their buildings, and action that will afford them more protection financially than they look likely to receive at present.
Live Events and Weddings: Covid-19 Support
Elliot Colburn Excerpts(3 years, 8 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 329339 and 332789, relating to support for live events and weddings during covid-19.
E-petition 329339 relates to the number of guests permitted at weddings during the coronavirus pandemic, and e-petition 332789 relates to support for nightclubs, festivals and the live events industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who are in Westminster Hall for this Petitions Committee debate this afternoon.
I will turn first to the petition on weddings. This is particularly important to me, because I myself have had to postpone my wedding that I was supposed to have in July, but before I go on to lament that, it is important to know exactly what we are debating this afternoon. Just over 110,000 people have signed this petition so far, including 150 of my own constituents in Carshalton and Wallington, and the prayer of the petition states the following:
“Weddings take months and even years of intricate planning. Myself and many others believe the maximum number of guests authorised at wedding ceremonies should be increased. The number of guests permitted at weddings should be calculated according to venue capacity.
For instance, if a venue has a capacity of 600 people social distancing could still be practised with 1/5 of this number. People should not have to alter their plans if social distancing is observed. Surely, if beaches are allowed to remain open, weddings should be permitted to go ahead considering appropriate measures are put in place. It is more than apparent social distancing is not practised at such public places of leisure, thus guidelines for weddings should be reconsidered.”
As the Government outlined in their response, before we entered into a second national lockdown, weddings could take place, but numbers were restricted to 15 or 30 people. Sadly, once again, weddings are now restricted to deathbed weddings. I have heard worrying testimony from Professor Sandberg from Cardiff University, who pointed Some areas insist that deathbed weddings can take place only in a hospital setting, which has denied some couples in really tragic circumstances the ability to tie the knot. I would be glad if the Minister takes that point away.
I understand some of the arguments that have been made—some were directed at me when my wedding got cancelled. There is the argument that two people who are in love should not need a big event to get married; they can have a smaller ceremony now and leave a big party to later. There is also the argument that people will always need to get married, so the wedding events industry will survive. Those arguments fail to acknowledge a few key difficulties, including the planning involved in putting a wedding on, and the wider effect on the industry and some of the traditions associated with weddings.
That last point is demonstrated by the story of the petitioner, Zaynah Ali:
“My brother was due to get married in August and coming from an Asian-Pakistani background we had planned this big wedding and had been doing so for well over a year.
I felt sadness, anger and every other relating emotions, I guess what made it even more emotional was the fact my brother’s wife to be had lost her dad to cancer when she was a baby.
The fact her father couldn’t be there for her big day was heart-breaking enough but the fact my grandparents couldn’t give her away in true Pakistani style made it that much harder.
They almost felt like they had failed her father.
There were also a few personal reasons as to why we did not want to postpone the wedding and I’m sure many people were in the same situation.”
I can indeed confirm that many are in that situation. My wedding had to be postponed due to the number of guests we had hoped to have. Like many others, we had planned for over two years. Postponing had an effect not only on us, but on the caterers, florists, decorators, entertainment, marquee companies and everyone else involved in putting on a wedding. I have spoken to local businesses, such as the Function Junction in Wallington, which supplies decorations for weddings and live events. It told me that while some people, like me, have decided to postpone and use the same supplier later, many, due to the uncertainty of coronavirus, have decided to cancel all together and not set a new date. That leaves the couple devastated and the business out of pocket.
According to research, the industry has already lost most of its planned weddings for the first quarter for 2021, and is facing pressures on those in the second quarter. If it has no commitment before July, the sector tells me that it will lose most of its revenue up to June 2021 or beyond, and even runs the risk of collapsing fully. I ask, therefore, that the Government look carefully at liberalising the restrictions around weddings once we come out of the second national lockdown and set out a road map for reopening the wedding industry in the longer term.
We hope and pray that a vaccine will allow weddings to take place normally some time soon—we have had some good news today—but we must also have a plan B for living longer-term with the virus. I argue, like the petitioners, that this could begin after the lockdown, with amending the guidance on weddings to allow for greater guest capacity based on the venue.
Many countries in Europe have permitted weddings with socially distanced numbers; in some places, the number is capped at, say, 100 in the equivalent of our tier 1 or lower-risk environments. Even in the UK, Northern Ireland operated socially distanced weddings since June, until the more recent restrictions were brought in. Weddings were granted parity with the hospitality sector, and there are no known outbreaks associated with weddings in Northern Ireland. That proves that it can work. In the longer term, weddings seem to me the perfect place to trial rapid testing. Given the planning involved, it is relatively easy to share details prior to the event, conduct testing on arrival, if necessary, and test and trace after the event. I hope that will be considered as a potential place to pilot rapid testing.
I have spoken about the impact of the pandemic on the industry. Further restrictions and uncertainty will only cause further damage. A commitment to socially distanced weddings, rapid testing trials and equitable support for the wedding industry, along with other hospitality businesses, will help to deliver a bounce back for this industry.
To date, over 145,000 people have signed the e-petition on live events, including 236 from my constituency. The petition states:
“The government has failed to provide specific support to UK festivals, dance venues and nightclubs. Covid-19 has hit hard on the nightlife sector having a major impact due to the suspension of mass gatherings. Followed by unclear guidelines and a lack of commitment…this has contributed to growing uncertainty within the arts sector, putting at risk millions of jobs. The government must make clear its commitment to ensuring the dance community survives the pandemic. #LetUSDance”.
I have been extremely grateful in preparing for the debate to the lead petitioners, Jasper and Anthony, as well as the Night Time Industries Association, for taking the time to share their concerns with me and explain the issues that the sector faces in a bit more detail. The figures are quite stark. The night-time economy is the UK’s fifth largest sector. It contributes £66 billion a year to the economy—6% of the UK total—and provides in the region of 1.3 million jobs, alongside an entire supply line of creative freelancers, sole traders and skilled technicians. Significant parts of the sector, unlike other hospitality businesses, have not been able to open at all since lockdown in March—particularly night clubs. Some venues have indeed invested heavily in becoming covid-secure, or have even repurposed. However, even those venues have been able to trade only at a fraction of their previous capacity. Many have also raised concerns about the implementation of the arbitrary 10 pm curfew. Now we are facing another national lockdown, and the uncertainty is growing. There are calls from the sector for an urgent set of sector-specific support packages.
Prior to the new national lockdown a survey was commissioned by the Night Time Industries Association and its members, and some pretty devastating statistics came out of it: 72% of businesses said they were unable to open or trade; 58% feared that they would not survive longer than two months after a job retention scheme came to an end; and 71% said they were set to make more than half their workforce redundant. Just a third said that they were able to repurpose. The average cost of repurposing was anywhere between £10,000 and £30,000, and 84% of businesses were achieving only 10% to 50% of their normal trade. That was on top of growing concerns about the implementation of a 10 pm curfew. The night-time economy was seen by many as being the target of restrictions despite evidence from Public Health England indicating that infection transmission in hospitality was only about 4%. The danger was that the curfew could drive people to congregate in the streets, in mass gatherings outside, or even to continue their night in unsafe, unregulated and illegal gatherings behind closed doors.
I have spoken to people from hospitality businesses in Carshalton and Wallington, who have expressed similar concerns. Thankfully, loyal customers came back to popular local businesses such as the Ginger Italian and the Duke’s Head, once hospitality was allowed to reopen partially. However, the 10 pm curfew was felt to be stunting their ability to recover. There have been further concerns about the allocation of support grants and packages, as there were fears that the contemporary dance music scene was not taken into account properly in Arts Council England funding allocations.
Night-time businesses and their supply chains have recognised that they need to put public health first, and they have worked incredibly hard to make themselves covid-safe for when the time comes, but they need clarity, in the form of a road map to reopening, so that they can prepare financially. The NTIA has a number of asks about finances, which include the continuation of employment support guaranteeing 80% of wages, an extension of the self-employed income support scheme, a sector-specific grant system proportionate to the operating costs of frontline businesses and the supply chain, a workable commercial rent solution, a reduced rate of VAT for hospitality throughout 2021, a business rates holiday for 2021-22 and, ultimately, the all-important strategy for exit from lockdown.
There are fears in the industry that without those measures we risk losing our nightlife and, indeed, our cultural heritage, for good. So again, while I say that today’s news is good and we hope that a vaccine might be coming fast, to allow some semblance of normality to come back, we have to have a plan for both sectors to live with the virus. Repeated lockdowns, as the Government have said, are not the answer. Further restrictions could well mean that the industry is not there to recover in the end.
In both the cases that I have spoken about, I urge the Government to look carefully at the concerns raised by the industry and at what support could be made available in the short term. Most importantly, for weddings and for live events, I urge them to set out a clear road map for reopening, so that businesses can begin to bounce back.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I am asked to advise the Chamber that if Members want to avail themselves of a clean cup there are cups at the back of the Chamber.
A glance around the Chamber demonstrates that there are a large number of people seeking to speak. Rather than my imposing a formal time limit, which I think substitutes quantity for quality, it might be courteous to others if hon. Members restrict themselves to roughly three minutes per head from now onwards.
Elliot Colburn
Sadly, time restrictions prevent me from mentioning everyone, but I thank all Members for their contributions. This has been an incredible debate and I think we have really raised the petitioners’ concerns. On that note, I thank the petitioners for taking the time to bring this matter to the attention of the House and giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I emphasise to the Minister that we want to ensure that, post the pandemic, there is actually an industry to recover.