HC Deb 12 March 1963 vol 673 cc1245-51

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

feel that I should, first, apologise to the Home Secretary for interrupting the speech that he was in the course of making on prisons. It promises to be most interesting and likely to lead to a very interesting debate. I am sure that he will be happy to know that the intervention on this Private Bill is not likely to take very long.

The House will remember that in previous years we have had occasion in this House to raise various points when the City of London (Various Powers) Bill has come up for discussion. On the last occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and myself were particularly anxious that in any subsequent City of London (Various Powers) Bill the City Corporation should seek power to put an end to the Caledonian Market and the abattoir associated with it which for a long time past have prevented the development of a very large area in Islington for housing, open spaces and educational purposes.

We are happy to find that in this year's City of London (Various Powers) Bill the promise given last year has been implemented and that under the Bill as deposited the market will be dismarketed and the abattoir will be removed.

I was prompted to table a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee, in Clause 5, page 4, line 33, to leave out "three years" and insert "one year", because the Bill in its original form contemplated that the Minister might have power to postpone for a further period of three years the date on which this market would finally be closed and this valuable space in the centre of Islington would become available for housing purposes.

Since I tabled the Motion. I have had discussions, and so have my hon. Friends, with the authorities of the City Corporation and as a result of that I understand that an Amendment is to be moved in Committee which will at least have this effect: it will mean that before the Minister is able to exercise any power to make an order to postpone the vacation of the site for three years he will have to give public notice and there will have to be a public inquiry if there is any objection. Therefore, there is every reason to hope that the effective date for the disappearance of the market and the development of the site may be 1st January, 1964 and, if not, it may not be very much later than that.

I am sure that the House would be glad to know that, even if an order is made, large parts of the site will become available early. I understand that the London County Council will already be able to make progress with its plan for the development of this site, and I am hoping that in conjunction with the Islington Borough Council it will thereby be able to make at an early date provision for rehousing large numbers of Islington's residents who are badly in need of housing accommodation.

In view of the assurance that has been given and having made this explanation, which I understand will be confirmed, it is not my intention, after the Second Reading of the Bill, to move my Motion.

7.5 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead (Putney)

Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and his indication that he does not propose to proceed with the Instruction to the Commine, my remarks can be extremely brief. I think, however, that I should underline one point that did not emerge very clearly from the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the House.

The hon. Member was evidently expecting that by January, 1964, or very shortly afterwards, the abattoir would be closed and the market would be handed over to the London County Council for housing, schools and open spaces. That event will happen only if there is agreement among the users of the abattoir that they no longer wish to have an abattoir in that part of London, and they will be able to make alternative arrangements.

If representations are made and agreement is reached among the users of the abattoir and the traders ancillary to their work that they wish to continue the slaughtering of cattle in that part of London, an arrangemnt has been made between the London County Council and the Corporation for a new abattoir to be constructed on a railway site, partly above sidings, within a quarter of a mile of the present site.

That construction is bound to take considerably more than the six months which is referred to in the Bill, or the extra year which would have been permitted if the Instruction had been carried by the House. That is why I think that it is important that the power given to the Minister to extend the period from 1st January, 1964, to 1st January, 1967, should remain in the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East is not under a misapprehension, because, in fact, the Bill will provide for the continuation of the present state of affairs for at least three years if it is the desire of the traders that a new abattoir should be constructed.

Mr. Fletcher

Will the hon. Member clarify one point? I understand that, even if an order were to be made subsequently by the Minister, that would affect only the part of the site occupied by the abattoir. It would not prevent the London County Council from proceeding with its preliminary plan for the general development of that part of the site not occupied by the abattoir.

Sir H. Linstead

That is my understanding, too, because under the Bill the Minister has power to apply the order to parts of the site and, therefore, if he desired to do so he could immediately place parts of the site at the disposal of the London County Council, and the Council could then develop those or proceed with construction, even if the abattoir site were still used as an abattoir until a new one had been constructed. I think that probably the hon. Gentleman and myself are putting the same interpretation on the situation.

My only other comment is that I think this is an excellent example of the sort of improvement within London which can be effected by the Corporation and the County, and, I gather, the Borough of Islington, all getting together to find a far better use for one of the most valuable sites in London, which at present is under-used and which is very badly needed for the people of the neighbourhood. It will cost the London County Council at least £1½ million if it has to rebuild the abattoir, and cost the Corporation at least a £250,000 as its contribution. Sums of that size, I think, are very well spent if the result will be a far more worthwhile user of this old Caledonian Market site.

I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member for Islington, East proposes to withdraw his Motion for the Instruction, and I hope that the Bill will go through without any reservations attached to it.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, South-West)

I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that there will be a delay of up to three years in the release of the abattoir for redevelopment. He made the point that although the release date for the abattoir might have to be delayed up to 1st January, 1967, nevertheless other parts of the site will be released for redevelopment before 1st January, 1967. I think that we are all agreed about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) can now be assured that some part of the site, that part used for the purposes of the abattoir, is likely to be released before 1st January, 1967.

Neither I nor, I think, my hon. Friends have any desire to delay the Bill in the least. I did myself put down a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee in this matter, and I am happy to say that the promoters of the Bill were most co-operative. In the consultations I had with them, they considered the point I made in my Motion and they were anxious to meet it. In fact, they did meet it and, as we know, they intend to ask the Committee to reframe the Bill so that parts of the site can be released before 1967.

We wish the Bill to go through without delay because we in the Borough of Islington are very concerned that some, if not all, of the site should be readily available quite soon.

I conclude by thanking the promoters for their co-operative approach as a result of my Motion for an Instruction. They have done everything in their power to speed the transfer of the land from their ownership to the ownership of the local authorities which will do the developing. My hon. Friend has said that he does not intend to press his Motion for an Instruction tonight, and I hope that the Bill will speedily pass through the Select Committee.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)

These 30 acres of land have probably had more minutes per acre devoted to them in this Chamber during the past few years than any other piece of land in the country. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the people of Islington, that time has been well spent.

Like my hon. Friends who represent other parts of Islington, the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I thank the promoters of the Bill for agreeing to the alteration which they will put before the Committee to meet, so far as they can be met, the views which we hold about the use of this land in the very near future. It seems clear that the financial and other arrangements to be made between the City Corporation and the London County Council are reasonable to both sides.

The argument about the use of the site has gone on, to my knowledge, for four and a half years. Indeed, it was dragging on before I became a Member of the House. I hope that every effort will now be made by all the authorities concerned to get speedy development of the site. As the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has reminded us, there is to be an Amendment which will ensure that, if necessary, the abattoir itself will continue in use for up to three years. Like my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Putney, however, I believe that there are parts of the site which the Minister, when he draws up any necessary order, will be able to make available for development in the very near future. It is with the development of these particular parts that I am primarily concerned.

I hope that the London County Council, although it may not be with us much longer, will quickly draw up the outline plan for the development of the site as a whole, and that the Islington Borough Council will have land made available to it so that it can build property there for tenants from Islington. I want the benefit of these 30 acres to go to the people of Islington and that part of north-east London where housing is now so bad.

There has been published today the London County Council's report on information gained in the 1961 census. I have not yet had an opportunity to read it, but I am quite certain that it will show, as the 1951 census did, that that part of north-east London is one of the worst-housed parts of London. I hope that successful efforts will be made by the Islington Borough Council to ensure that it secures its fair share of the development undertaken on the site. The sooner work can be started, the better for all concerned.

I add my thanks to the City Corporation, the promoters of the Bill, for the Amendment to which they have agreed, and I repeat the hope that development will proceed very quickly indeed.

7.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

I assure the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and his hon. Friends, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), that my right hon. Friend is as anxious as anyone to see this land better used in the interests of housing and ancillary uses in this part of London. This is why the sponsors have cast the duty on him rather than on the Minister of Agriculture who, as the House knows, is usually responsible for legislation dealing with markets. I can confirm that any postponement which would be involved in the exercise by my right hon. Friend of this power would be confined to the abattoir and the land used in immediate connection therewith. I understand that this amounts to about seven acres out of a total of just over 31 acres.

The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) mentioned that the sponsors are prepared to amend the Bill by a provision which would require my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry if there were any objection. This has the additional advantage which I think he will appreciate, that the issue will have to be brought forward very quickly, because a postponement order has to be made before 1st January, 1964. This would mean that, leaving time for the inquiry procedure and the passage of the Bill through the House, the move would have to be made in the very near future. People are not likely to be left in doubt for any great time.

I hope that the House will agree that, so long as there is a real prospect—as I understand there is—of an agreed solution being found for the abattoir problem, it is sensible to allow the traders and the City time to negotiate so that the transition period can be as short and as easy as possible. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East will feel that this is a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Fletcher

I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that, since the order has to be made not later than 1st January next, and since there has to be time for a public inquiry, the machinery must be put in motion by the traders almost within the next two or three months if there is to be any chance of an order being made.

Mr. Corfield

Yes, almost as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman knows that Private Bills go through rather faster than some Public Bills. There will, no doubt, be time to do it, but there will be no hanging about. I trust that this will be regarded as a satisfactory arrangement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.