So unfair to shops left in dire straits
I AM a director of Maya Maya, a fashion boutique. Deemed a non-essential small retail business, it has been required to close under the terms of the lockdown. In no way am I questioning the need for the virus to be brought under control by all means available, but I do not understand the guidance for mixed retail. The Cabinet Office issued this statement: ‘A business selling a significant amount of essential retail may also continue to sell goods typically sold at non-essential retail. For example, a supermarket that sells food is not required to close off or cordon off aisles selling homeware.’ This is patently unfair. Many businesses like mine sell items that can be included in this guidance, such as clothing, homeware, gifts and books. We are pinning our hopes on pent-up demand for our goods which, hopefully, will be released when we are permitted to reopen. This will be crucial in recovering lost profits that quite possibly will make the difference between small, independent shops surviving or closing down. Allowing some businesses to be able to sell the very items smaller retailers can’t will dissipate the demand. The problem is far wider than just supermarkets. I am baffled by the decision to allow garden centres, which also sell gifts, fashion, furniture, books and cards, to stay open. There is no doubting the extent of the measures the Government has put in place to protect the businesses that will be the drivers of the economy and generators of tax revenue required to recover the enormous cost of this support. But the future of small businesses is being put at risk.
STEPHEN SLATTERY, Kendal, Cumbria. WHY are major High Street retailers such as Marks & Spencer allowed to trade non-essential goods just because they are on the same floor as the food hall? Clothes should be cordoned off during the lockdown to stop shoppers browsing for non-essential purchases, which puts themselves and staff at unnecessary risk.