HC Deb 21 February 1977 vol 926 cc1052-88
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37 after ' assets', insert. 'other than those whose disposal would prejudice the movement of goods to and from the market by rail or water'. There is a common view across the Floor of the House that the financial success of Covent Garden Market is desirable but difficult to achieve. Quite properly, the Bill says that the Authority shall make full use of its assets, including, of course, disposal of those which are not, in its view or in the view of the Minister, conducive to its sensible operation.

A factor which everyone agrees is helpful to the market in maintaining its position and becoming financially successful is its retention of bulk supplies both to the market and away from it, but particularly those coming to it by bulk and taken away by retail traders. That is particularly important to a complete market, and it is unfortunate that we are unable to discuss an amendment relating to the financing of markets in the whole of London, as it has not been selected. But I believe that this matter is the key to the financial success of Covent Garden, otherwise time and again we shall have to vote many more millions of pounds towards the sustenance of the new market at Nine Elms.

The retention of a rail-served depot, or at least facilities for it, at the new market and retention of a riverside wharf or riverside facilities for landing goods were discussed in Committee at some length and are reported in columns 68–79 of the Hansard report of the Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary there set out the main case and was good enough to say that if we withdrew the amendment before the Committee he would look at it again to see what could be done on Report. On that basis, we are discussing the matter again.

Since that debate, I have been able to make further inquiries with particular reference to the hearings before the Select Committee on the Private Bill promoted by the Authority in the Parliamentary Session 1965–66. There is the question of the yards at Nine Elms. There is the old Nine Elms freight yard which, up to a short while ago, had many railway lines. In 1966, when it was thought that the market would move to Nine Elms, it was considered that the depot was in situ for use. For reasons not entirely clear, the main lines have been removed since then. It is true that a proposed Section 8 application to British Rail is in the Department of the Environment, but it has not yet materialised.

But when the Bill of 1966 was promoted the promoters said that one-third of the produce coming into the market at the time was rail-borne, and one of the advantages of coming to Nine Elms was that most of the produce could come direct by rail instead of arriving at various termini and then being taken to the market by lorry, thus adding to congestion. At the moment goods arriving by rail, including goods from the Continent, are transferred to lorries at Hither Green, Stratford and Paddock Wood in the middle of Kent, whereas if the railway yard had been maintained or if it were restored at Nine Elms at least some of that would be unnecessary.

4.30 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who is at present in a Committee, is very interested in this matter, because a great deal of traffic used to come by rail to Nine Elms from Southampton. This will shortly cease because some of the facilities at Southampton will soon be phased out, despite the Government's stated wish to keep the maximum amount of traffic on the railways.

The Minister will probably say that my amendment is not of immediate practical relevance because the land on which a rail terminal would have been built is not owned by the Market Authority. I understand that the land is owned by British Rail, although at one time the Authority had an option to purchase it. Perhaps this is one reason why there has been disagreement between the two authorities. We all deplore such disagreements, which sometimes produces cynicism among people outside the House about the co-operation between these public authorities.

The Minister may therefore reject the amendment on the ground that the Authority does not have the land to dispose of. But that should not prevent discussion or prevent the Minister from explaining why this important development did not take place. Moreover, there may be other access to the railway land which might be important in maintaining future access to the yard. I submit therefore that there is no reason why the wording of my amendment should not be in the Bill, with specific reference to both rail and water.

The case on river access is more clearcut. There is an ex-railway riverside wharf which the Authority now owns and which was originally expected to be used for the import of fruit and vegetables from the Port of London to the new market. At that time this was of great importance because large quantities of vegetables and fruit were landed at riverside wharves by lighters and were then taken to Covent Garden by lorry. Many seagoing ships from the Netherlands, and some from the Mediterranean and Madeira, came to the Port of London, and the goods were unloaded and taken to Covent Garden by lorry. In 1966 it was very logical, proper and welcome to consider using the wharves at the new Covent Garden Market at Nine Elms. I understand from the former secretary of the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union that the union had contacted its colleagues in the Transport and General Workers' Union, which is responsible for market labour, even before the Bill was promoted, to ensure that the river traffic should continue despite any union and labour problems. They had sorted out that difficult problem. We know from our experience of the Dock Work Regulation Bill how difficult it is to iron out these problems, but I understand that that had been done. I shall show later that the Market Authority had clearly gone as far as finding out the cost of shipment by barge and coaster, and claimed that such shipment would reduce its costs.

The Minister may say that things have changed since 1966, when a considerable quantity of goods came to the Port of London, and there is less now. I do not deny that there is less river traffic now, but changed conditions have not necessarily changed the case for water access. It is true that there is less conventional traffic and more container traffic, but even if the Minister does not think that the present wharf is suitable—it has been virtually unused for 10 years—there is still a case for some form of water access to the new Covent Garden Market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) hopes to tell the House, there have been technical developments in respect of water-borne traffic which may make water access possible. It may be possible to use the ex-gasworks jetty a little way up the river.

If the amendment is accepted, some water-borne access other than the access of which I have spoken may be of advantage. In that case the wharf would be surplus to requirements and could be sold, since this would not, in the words of the amendment, prejudice the movement of goods to and from the market by rail or water because the alternative facilities would be there.

I turn now to the circumstances surrounding the Private Bill which came before the House in 1966. Although a Private Bill it was given some support by the Government. It is interesting to note what the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Fred Peart, now Lord Peart, said in commending the Private Bill to the House on Second Reading: I have considered all the sites and the evidence and I consider that in all the circumstances a market at Nine Elms, where there are road and rail communications and other facilities would be correct and sensible." —[Official Report, 24th March 1965; Vol. 709, c. 660.] It is clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee which heard petitions against the Bill that rail and river access were big selling points. They were clearly selling points for the traders, who were somewhat reluctant to move. Various traders have given me authority to say that this was one of the major points put to them—that the new site at Nine Elms not only had better parking and mechanical handling facilities but had a railhead and a riverhead. But the same case was put to the House—this is important—and the House, in giving assent to that Bill, gave assent to a specific scheme which, among other things, had two particular features, one the railhead. the other the riverhead.

That is clear from the proceedings of the Select Committee, which I have read since our debates in Standing Committee. The records of the Select Committee were extensive, running to 21 days of oral hearings. On Day 1 counsel for the promoters, Mr. Harold Willis, was interrupted by none other than the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), who asked: Before you leave this matter, are you going to tell us something about the rail and river facilities? Mr. Harold Willis replied: The railhead is shown on the next Appendix, Appendix VII. There you see the railhead and conveyor system which will bring the horticultural produce which has come by rail into the market without going on to the public roads at all. There is also, as you will see on both these plans, a riverhead marked, and it will also be the intention that a substantial part of the produce which comes from the London docks will be brought to the site by barge and brought into the market…". That was counsel for the promoters on Day 1, at page 17 of the report.

Again on Day 1—this is page 26—counsel for the promoters drew the attention of the Select Committee to the report of the Ministry of Transport. Plainly, the promoters had got the Ministry of Transport to agree to this scheme, because one of the great grounds of opposition to it had been the traffic congestion which might occur in what were then thought to be the inadequate roads around the market. Mr. Harold Willis quoted from the memorandum received from the Ministry of Transport, and I direct attention here to item (iii): The location of the market at a railhead will allow rail-hauled goods to be taken straight into the market area without road movements ". At that time in 1966, the Minister responsible for transport matters must have been a Labour Minister, and that was his view.

I quote next from the words of Mr. Willis, for the promoters, on Day 2—this is page 38 of the report— So far as Nine Elms itself is concerned, may I summarise our case in this way? Although it is not ideal, as one can see from its shape and from the presence of the railway lines which have to be crossed, it has many great advantages. First of all, it has proximity to a railhead. He went on to list three other points, and then said: Fourthly, the site is sufficiently close to the river to enable part at any rate of the market produce to be brought from the docks by barge without the necessity of using public highways. It is thus clear that, in the promoters' view, both the railhead and the riverhead were not just interesting features in the proposed movement from the old Covent Garden to the new Nine Elms site but were integral to the physical movement of goods.

On Day 5, counsel for the promoters was questioning Mr. C. M. G. Allen, then the planning officer for the Covent Garden Market Authority, and on page 20 of the report there is this exchange recorded: (Q) There is no direct rail access to Covent Garden is there? (A) No. (Q) How important a factor is that? What proportion of the produce coming into the market actually comes by rail? (A) Between a quarter and one-third of the total produce arrives in that way, and this all has to be carted by road vehicles from the railheads to the market. I do not say that a quarter or a third of the produce could necessarily have arrived at that railhead, or that a similar proportion could arrive today, but I am pointing out that that is what was said in evidence to the Select Committee, and had the railhead been open at the same time or had the railway lines which were there been used, perhaps a larger proportion could have come by rail than is coming now after a good many years of delay.

A little later on Day 5, during the course of his evidence, Mr. Allen was asked about the savings which the promoters had put in their case. A question had arisen as to the savings which would come about as a result of bringing traffic direct from the docks by barge. He replied: As far as the docks are concerned, we estimate that something under one-third of the total traffic now coming into the docks will come to our market by river. So that is a fairly small amount in total. Then Mr. Langdon-Davies, also counsel for the promoters, asked: Why in that case have you put in £75,000 immediately and £80,000 later?". I should explain that that was the saving which the promoters expected to acrue on transport costs, there being a very important saving by river. Mr. Allen's answer was as follows: The £75,000 is based on a saving of this amount of traffic which will come by lighter; there will be, we think, a small saving on this produce, and there is also a small saving because we think that, by co-operating the docks and the haulage contractors, we can integrate our vehicles and our handling methods. In other words, not only did the promoters think that the produce could come by water but they had done some costings, because, obviously, they would not know otherwise what savings would accrue.

4.45 p.m.

I apologise for giving that detail to the House, but I did not have these extracts from the proceedings of the Select Committee when we discussed this matter in Standing Committee. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will recognise that the House saw the railhead and riverhead facilities as an integral part of the scheme. I do not say that the House would not have given the Private Bill a Second Reading or that the Select Committee would not have passed it as it did if these features had not been there, but it is clear that it was an important factor in the view of the Select Committee and of the House in agreeing to give permission for the scheme that there was then a vision of operations which have not in the event come to pass.

If the restriction which I propose in the amendment is written into the Bill, the Minister will in no way be forced to go contrary to the Government's expressed view as to the use of various modes of transport. They have many times expressed the wish to keep as much traffic on rail as possible or to get back on to rail as much as possible. I suggest that an amendment along these lines could act as a goad, helping the authority to put pressure on British Rail and encouraging the exploration of possibilities of other river access, so that we could retain the original advantages which were put forward in favour of the Nine Elms site.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot speak directly for the Covent Garden Market Authority. One of the problems on this Bill is that it ought to have gone to a Select Committee so that we could get to the bottom of some of these matters of great public concern, which in many respects fall outside the House rather than within it. Unfortunately, despite Standing Order No. 40, we could not have a Select Committee, and we have had to work very much at second-hand.

I recognise the Minister's difficulty. I gave him notice of the points which I have just brought up from the earlier proceedings of the Select Committee, however, and I hope that he will be able to give a reply now, accepting that either the amendment or something like it should be inserted here or in some other appropriate place. The phraseology of the amendment may well not precisely suit his purpose. If that be so, it should be possible to deal with the matter elsewhere, and we look forward with interest to his reply.

Mr. Michael Spicer

There seems to be a good deal of mystery about the railway economics in this matter. On the one hand, we have the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others to the effect that there could be considerable savings or at least economies gained from having a railhead. The hon. Gentleman has presented to us the vision of those who originally sponsored the Private Bill in 1966 and gave rise to the large tome which he has beside him. Plainly, there was the idea that in the move from Covent Garden to the new site the railhead would play a substantial part.

However, we also have the view of British Rail—thanks, very largely, to the hon. Gentleman's efforts—to the effect that it would be totally uneconomic to maintain any substantial railhead connected with the new Covent Garden.

My purpose in intervening is to ask the Minister to throw some light on the matter. The Government must have an independent view, independent, that is, of British Rail and of those who have been pressing the other case, which on the face of it seems perfectly logical. There has been a railhead there, and I am told that it is still used fairly economically in a semi-private capacity by at least one small operator. There are strong arguments, therefore, for at least suggesting, as the hon. Member for Newham, South has done so eloquently, that the railhead should be used, and for writing into the Bill a restriction that assets connected with the railhead should not be sold off.

Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the view of British Rail. I want the Minister to give the Government's independent view on whether the railhead is economic, so that we may settle this matter now. The question whether the railhead is economic has been the subject of running argument over several years, and perhaps, with the Minister's advice, we shall be able to settle it this afternoon once and for all.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams (Hornchurch)

The paradoxical thing is that the old railway yard at Nine Elms was one of the more successful of the railheads to be found on the River Thames. It was only developments like the movement of cargo to the docks further down the river that led to its closure. In its heyday it was one of the most successful ones. It was used for barge transportation from St. Katherine's Dock to carry fresh produce to Covent Garden. In a historical sense, it is quite an interesting proposal that the old Covent Garden should be moved to the new site. At that time there was a great deal of discussion with all the parties concerned, including the boroughs and the unions—the Transport and General Workers' Union, the old Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union and the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners. A firm understanding was given that there would be some waterside facility. I said in Committee that I thought there was some element of deception in that. The evidence I have, both in correspondence and in the research undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), indicates that there has been a deception. I have been authorised to say, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union, that the union fears there has been a most serious breach of faith. The union would like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South to do the best he can in the trying circumstances to restore the Minister's promises that were made about the use of riverside facility.

Part of the argument against the provision of a waterside facility is that the present wharfage is too small and narrow and is inaccessible because of the presence of the Nine Elms Lane. If this is the case, it is hoped that suitable provision could be developed a bit further west by the waterside on a piece of land which is at present owned by the gas board.

The land is extensive, is easily accessible, and is near the new Covent Garden site. The only problem—it is not a major one—is that the ground is anesthetised because of the toxic waste and other material which the gas board uses. It is in no way dangerous for the transportation of goods. This old gas board frontage could be developed into a suitable wharfage so that the barges could be used in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and other hon. Members have suggested. This is an important point.

We must have a solid assurance from the Minister that he will make sure that there will be a possibility of waterside provision. If he is unable to give that assurance he will find that many of his hon. Friends will be unable to support him in the Lobby.

Mr. Jopling

The hon. Member talks about the desirability of encouraging water transport from one of the main docks to this series of wharves. Surely this means that there will be an extra set of handling processes between taking the produce out of a ship and getting it into the market. To put the produce on a barge and then to transfer it to some other conveyance to take it to the market will entail one extra lot of handling, compared with putting it straight on to a lorry in the first place.

Mr. Williams

That is a minor difficulty which can be overcome. I mentioned in Committee that there would be provision at the existing site to unload barges. The use of lighters in this respect is far more efficient than the use of lorries.

Mr. Spearing

One of the changes in the trade is the use of containers, particularly from Tilbury. It is possible to develop a system which would enable containers to come up en bloc to that jetty, and for the produce to be taken into the market as a complete load?

Mr. Williams

Yes, there is now a system in which the whole cargo can be floated up. There is no question at all of it being loaded alongside from a ship. The new technological developments such as SEEB and Lash could be utilised to make the operation more efficient and more cost-effective than it would be if heavy lorries were used.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Is my hon. Friend quite sure that that is true? These containers, when they unload at the wharf, would have to be taken into the market. Unless he is proposing some kind of conveyance system, I suspect that it would be put on the lorry after all, and would entail an extra journey, even if a short one.

Mr. Williams

I shall try to avoid that. There will have to be some provision for it and I think that it could be done in such a way that it would not entail the use of lorries from the riverside to the Covent Garden site.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give the solemn assurance which many of us on both sides have demanded from him.

Mr. Jay

Since my hon. Friends have raised the question of the Covent Garden market and since the site of the gasworks is in my constituency, I should like to tell the Minister that the local residents think that the Authority is failing to use much of the land on the site in the ownership of the Authority. One piece of land which is owned by British Rail has been reserved for the railhead.

During the past 10 years I have made many approaches to Ministers of various Governments in my hon. Friend's Department, both by letter and deputation, to try to get the promised decision on this railhead. Presumably, the relevant question now is not so much whether it was promised or predicted but whether it would not be reasonably economic to use it as a railway. The answer which I have been given is that British Railways would not be able to use it economically under its existing finances and arrangements and that the Government are not willing to subsidise it for British Rail use. It seems that British Rail has preserved the site for 10 years, yet no decision seems to have been reached. What are the present proposals.

I believe, and I think that Wandsworth Borough Council believes, that if it is economic to use it as a railhead, we should go ahead and do so, but that if it is not and will never be so used, it should be used for some other purpose.

From the local point of view, the most important concern is about some of the other land in the ownership of the Authority, particularly the western end of the site, which is still unused and which I think the Authority itself regards as surplus. The borough council would like to see it used for some purpose which would create employment in the neighbourhood. People living in Battersea believe that their most acute need, even more so than that for the railhead, is for more housing and for more employment, whether by industry or warehousing.

There is one particular site where a private firm would like to introduce a considerable warehouse which could give a good deal of employment. The firm is negotiating with the local authority and Covent Garden and the scheme would carry the approval of the borough council.

I hope that where land is really surplus and where some project appears, whether it is storage or industry, which would make economic use of the land and give employment locally, the Minister will encourage the Authority, both for the sake of its own finances and for the sake of employment, to be ready to reach an agreement which would allow that to go ahead. If he would give that assurance, he would comfort many people locally, whatever he might be able to say about the railhead. Whatever is done about the railhead and the river site, I hope that we can have a decision and that the land does not stand idle for another five or ten years.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

I did not quite understand the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). We have been through this matter at considerable length both on Second Reading and in Committee. One of the villains of the piece has been the Wandsworth Borough Council, as hon. Members on both sides have admitted. If the Council has had a change of heart and is now suddenly anxious for the surplus land to be developed, I am delighted, but it has taken the council a jolly long time and the ratepayers should know that the blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Wandsworth Borough Council.

Mr. Jay

I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind only one small part of the site, where the Authority proposed to build some luxury housing, to which there were certain objections. I do not take one side or the other on that. But the greater part of the land which is unused is in quite a different part of the site and is much more suitable for industry.

Mr. Finsberg

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has dug himself in even deeper. There are three pieces of land. On one there was to be a development of shops. Subsequently it was to be warehouses. Each time the Wandsworth Borough Council acted as a dog in a manger.

Mr. Jay indicated dissent.

Mr. Finsberg

The right hon. Gentleman is one of my constituents. I think that the Wandsworth Borough Council has briefed him badly on this one. I think that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) will confirm all that I have said, that the borough council has not acted very properly up to now. If it has had a change of heart, I am nappy.

Mr. Jay rose—

Mr. Finsberg

We shall not pursue it now: the right hon. Gentleman might look at the brief.

Mr. Jay

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows more about his constituency than he does about mine.

Mr. Finsberg

I sometimes wonder whether Wandsworth Borough Counci! knows much about Wandsworth.

Is the Minister satisfied that British Rail has given him the information that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I sought when we were talking about the life-expired track? Up to now, it seems that British Rail has not supplied the information. I hope that the Minister can do this, as he said he would in Committee—col. 83 onwards in the Official Report.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop)

As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has said, the question of rail and river access to the market was fully discussed on Second Reading. I want to pay tribute to all concerned for the way in which this matter has been carefully examined.

In Committee, two amendments covering a similar provision were withdrawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on my offer to reconsider whether the proposed limitations should be adopted. We have gone into the matter carefully in the light of that debate to see how the situation should develop. Much though we recognise that our hon. Friends are seeking to secure positive and imaginative use of transport resources—aims which the Government share in general—nothing in the particular circumstances could justify accepting the amendment.

First, the amendment would not achieve the retention of land suitable for rail or river access if the Authority held land of that kind but were to conclude of its own accord that it should dispose of it. The amendment of course would only restrict the Minister's reserve power of direction over the Authority.

The Authority already owns a strip of land alongside the river that could be made into a wharf, although it is rather narrow and not entirely suitable. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South spoke of the original proposals when the move of the market was mooted ten or so years ago. He has referred to these matters again today.

My hon. Friend said that the proposals then were to have a river terminal. He thought that the potential for river-borne traffic to the market still existed and suggested that the onus was on the Authority or the Government to show why the site could not be developed as a river wharf. My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) supported him and there was a suggestion that past efforts in support of a riverhead by the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union had been frustrated.

I have looked into the background of the riverhead proposal carefully. I respect the opinions of my hon. Friends in the matter and their interest and that of other hon. Members in the possibilities for environmental improvement through greater use of London's river. The Authority indeed had hopes that a river terminal could be provided and it pursued the question, particularly in 1968, with the Freight Group of the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. This group included representatives of the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners, of the Watermen, Lighter-men, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union, and of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Their conclusions were not in favour of exploring further the possibility of a riverhead on land expected at that time to come into the Authority's ownership, as it subsequently did. A variety of reasons were set out, about which I can write to my hon. Friend if he wishes. They included a number of points regarding the unsuitability of the site—that the site was too long and narrow, that, because of the need to cross Nine Elms Lane, overhead conveyors would be needed or lorries would have to make a journey of over a mile to deliver the produce. That point was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Additional points related to handling at the docks and riverhead which it was said would cause damage to sensitive and perishable horticultural produce. There were a number of other conclusions. There is no indication that any of the union representatives differed from their colleagues on the conclusions of the group.

Since then there appear to have been no new developments sufficient to alter those conclusions. Horticultural produce imported into the Port of London is much less than before and the costs of a river-head would have to be spread over a smaller volume of traffic. Use has not been made since the new market opened of the adjacent wharf—Brunswick Wharf —owned by the London Cold Storage Company—to bring fruit and vegetables by river to Nine Elms. The opportunity for traffic to come into the market by water has been there, but has not been taken.

The use of the riverside strip owned by the Authority is the subject of a planning inquiry at present. The Authority, which is seeking planning permission for housing development on the site, has given evidence that it would not be practicable or viable to have a riverhead.

I believe that my right hon. Friend also queried the use of the land for the wharfage and for river facilities and asked whether some decision could not be taken one way or the other. The inquiry will resume shortly. I do not think that I should go further in my comments about the possibility of using the land for river commerce, at least not until the inspector has reported his findings. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to adjudicate on the planning issue.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

Would the Minister agree that the planning inquiry to which he and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) have referred merely refers to the riverside strip of two acres, whereas we have also been considering at length the entrance area of two acres and the eastern triangle of some four acres? Is he able to say that something will be brought forward on those areas as swiftly as possible? Is it correct also to say that the inquiry will resume in March but that a decision on this riverside strip seems unlikely before at any rate the middle of March?

Mr. Bishop

I should not like to give a detailed answer now. Perhaps I can let the hon. Gentleman have the information later. Otherwise, I shall do so in writing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, the railhead issue is of some importance. I must make it clear that the land suitable for a railhead terminal at the market is currently in the possession of British Rail and not of the Authority. The Authority of course owns the land and roads capable of linking a railhead to the market halls. A decision in favour of building a railhead rests on its economic viability and this is still being explored. The matter is by no means closed.

Mr. Jay

Can my hon. Friend give us any hope that there will be a final decision within a reasonable time?

Mr. Bishop

I should like to give some guidance on this point, but I may not be able to state an exact date.

Mr. Michael Spicer

By what body is this matter being explored? Is it being explored by British Rail again, because that is not exactly an independent body?

Mr. Bishop

I shall come to that.

I have been in touch with the Chairman of British Rail, Mr. Peter Parker, as some members of the Standing Committee were keen that I should. He has sent me a courteous and helpful reply of some clarity, as one would expect. He points out that British Rail's remit in respect of rail freight is quite specific—it must take action to ensure that the costs of its operations are fully covered by its earnings. This is what one might expect to he the case.

There is no disputing that a railhead featured in the original plans for a market, but this is not, in my view, a reason to build one regardless of cost and the purpose it would serve. British Rail has to have regard to its financial remit and, since the decision not to proceed with the Channel Tunnel, for which it had hoped to build a freight terminal at Nine Elms, it has continued to explore with the Authority and other interested parties the business opportunities offered by a market railhead. Mr. Parker tells me simply, however, that British Rail has not identified sufficient potential to justify any investment by British Rail in rail terminal facilities and, more significantly, it has yet to establish that within the existing and foreseeable competitive situation with private road hauliers there is sufficient regular volume of traffic to enable British Rail to cover its operational costs in the running of a private railhead if this were to be built. In the absence of any undertaking from others, the Authority or members of the trade, to meet the deficit on the operations, British Rail could not at this stage, therefore, guarantee to service any railhead, even if one was available.

One should bear in mind the operating cost which would have to fall on the traders and others. Clearly, if the costs were to be sufficient to ensure viability for the market and for the railhead, it might not be economic for those who had to trade in the market itself.

5.15 p.m.

Those are the facts of British Rail's position, but the Chairman adds that it is continuing to hold the site available whilst the Authority continues consideration of whether to develop it as a private railhead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North will be pleased to know that, provided that the necessary conditions can be fulfilled, there there is the possibility of a grant under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974.

I assure the House that the Authority is active in this consideration and that we shall be ready to consider carefully any proposals which it may bring forward. I stress that the door is not shut on the possibility of a railhead and anyone and anybody who can come forward to enhance the prospects for a viable project will be welcomed.

I have dealt at length with the background to the river and railhead questions. I hope that this serves to illustrate that we would not exercise any power over the disposal of assets owned by the Authority without the most careful and detailed consideration.

Mr. Michael Spicer

The Minister did not answer my question about who is exploring the economics of the railhead. Is it his Department or another Depart- ment? In connection with that I asked him to state the Government's view on the matter. The two questions are related. Are we just getting British Rail's point of view, or are we getting the Govern. ment's point of view?

Mr. Bishop

The responsibility for pursuing the matter of the railhead is joint. First, British Rail owns the land and it is now actively concerned in considering the economics of the matter and whether it would be viable in relation to the need of the users of the market. I have mentioned that there is a possibility of a grant under the 1974 Act. I am sure that the Authority and the Government, in partnership, as we must be increasingly in the future, will bear in mind the possibility of a railhead and will weigh its economic prospects against the need it could fulfil. This is a triangular responsibility in which we have actively engaged in the past and in which we shall be continuing.

Clause 2 is a necessary reserve power for the Minister in pursuance of the need to explore every possibility of improving the Authority's finances. Given that it provides both for consultation with the Authority and for the Minister to be satisfied that any disposal of assets would facilitate the discharge of the Authority's proper functions, there are adequate safeguards already to provide that the Authority will not be directed to dispose of assets useful or potentially useful to the Market. Therefore, we do not feel able to accept the restrictive nature of the amendment. It would impose a restriction on the Minister without imposing one on the Authority. That will be taken care of by the very close liaison between all the authorities concerned.

I have been in touch with British Rail and pursued this matter with it in the light of the representations made by hon. Members. The Chairman of British Rail is well aware of the views expressed on Second Reading and in Committee. The Authority itself will be sensitive to these points.

The House would be wise not to pursue the amendment. I have given assurances that we are very much in sympathy with the desire to have these transport facilities in view of the financial situation facing the market.

Mr. Spearing

The debates on this subject throughout the various stages of the Bill are a measure of the anxiety and disquiet that exist about the way in which this matter has been handled from 1966 onwards. British Rail says that it is not profitable to operate into Covent Garden Nine Elms despite the fact that there are rails there. If it is not profitable now, was it profitable in 1966? The promoters of the Private Bill then said that it was. Either they were wrong or British Rail is wrong.

Quite clearly, something went wrong either then or between then and now. The House does not know what it was and I was not told at the time. As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has said, we still do not know why British Rail took the rails up in the yard which was its own land and which could have been used, as Stewarts Lane was around the corner until recently.

Mention has been made of the TCCL for London. If the Authority claimed that it would cost £80,000 less in 1966, why did it not go ahead and do it? There still seems to be some mystery about the matter.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that the amendment will not prevent the Authority from selling off the lands prejudicial to the movement of goods by rail and water. That may well be true. He then says that the constraints introduced by the amendment would be on the Minister. Surely that is a proper thing for the House to place constraints do. Surely it is proper for the House to place constraints on the Minister. It may be that the form of the amendment and the form of the Bill do not enable us to place constraints on the Authority, but we should do so in respect of the Minister.

Is my hon. Friend saying that the Authority should be able to sell off land that is useful for that purpose but that he will not direct it to do so and that the provision contained in the amendment should not be written into the Bill? It seems that that is what he is saying.

As a symbol of our dissatisfaction not only with the Minister but with the way in which the matter has been handled right from the start and the disinclination of my hon. Friend to have a fairly reasonable limitation of his power placed upon him, my hon. Friends in London and I wish to have a symbolic demonstration of our feelings on this matter. We make this demonstration in respect of the way in which the matter has been handled in the past and the sort of replies that we have not had from all the statutory authorities and, I am sorry to say, from my hon. Friend.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

But no Member being willing to act as a Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Bishop

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The examination of this Bill in Committee was completed in three sittings. It is a short Bill and the speed with which the Committee carried out its work in no way indicates that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I were given an easy time. Rather it demonstrates the industry and constructive attitude that all members of the Committee have shown, and I am grateful to them. They discussed the Bill in great detail and as a result the Government's intentions must now be clearer.

The Bill was amended in Committee and has been further amended on Report. I am sure that these changes, for which we are grateful, represent improvements both in clarity and substance. They provide, first, for the way in which the suspended debt under Clause 1 will be shown in the Authority's statement of accounts in a clear and unambiguous manner. Secondly, a desirable degree of extra flexibility has been introduced into the operation of the Minister's power under Clause 2 to direct the Authority to dispose of its assets.

Although the Authority is deeply in debt to the Minister, the country and the taxpayer, both sides of the House have acknowledged their considerable achievement helped by the traders in successfully moving the country's premier wholesale horticultural market from the centre of London across the river to Nine Elms. The move has provided great planning opportunities for central London, which I am sure will be turned to good account.

In the Bill we seek to resolve, by writing off part of the accumulated debts, the financial problems attributable uniquely to that move. To give the further assistance that is essential for the time being, the greater part of the remaining debts will be suspended. But in recognition of contributions on such a scale from the taxpayer the Government expect the users of the market to begin contributing towards the capital costs of the market as well as ensuring that the market revenues will cover its running costs. That completes the package of which I and my hon. Friend spoke on Second Reading and I believe the whole House will accept it is a reasonable expectation in all the attendant circumstances.

With these contributions, from the Government and the users of the market, and with the co-operation of all concerned, I am sure that the Authority will have the opportunity to give the market a successful future. I can assure the House that the Ministry, the Government, the Authority and those who are concerned with transport, especially British Rail, will be bearing in mind many of the points that have been made in the House and in Committee.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Jopling

We are grateful to the Minister of State for stating the Government's attitude at this stage. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has not felt that there has been any time wasting during our proceedings. As I think he knows, we have not had that in our minds in any shape or form.

We hope that the provisions of the Bill will set off the new Covent Garden Market on a thoroughly sound basis. As we said on Second Reading, the history of the new market so far has been one of frequent interventions of fate, misfortune, delay and events beyond the control of those who operate the market. Now that the active working capital of the market is limited to £7 million, I hope that the future of the market is set fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) told us at one stage that if we thought we had reached the end of the road, we bad another think coming. I hope that he is wrong, and that we shall not have to have other Bills of this sort.

But if we have the financial side of the market right, I am sure that no hon. Member will disagree when I say that that is only half of getting the whole operation right. The other half is to make sure that human relations between those who organise the market and those who work in it are correct.

This brings us back to where we left off after our debate on the new clause this afternoon. I said then that I was grieved to have evidence of relationships that were not as good as they should be between the Authority and tenants and traders. We have already discussed one of the tenants' grievances, the allegation of excessive staffing. I hope that as a result of what we have heard during these debates the tenants will feel that there is not the extravagance over staff that they had thought. I hope that we have been able to assist the Authority and the working of the market in general by laying some of the ghosts that have been in the minds of some on both sides.

I particularly welcome the Government's latest proposal to set up a small high-level working party composed of tenants, market workers and other market users to try to increase the involvement of the trade with the operations of the market. I have purposely used those phrases, which are taken from a letter recently written by the Parliamentary Secretary to the tenants' association and sent to me by the association. It was a letter about future human relations within the market.

That idea is good, but I am sad to see the way in which the association has reacted to it. It has written to the Minister during the past week saying, among other things, that it does not feel inclined to sit under the chairmanship of the chairman or general manager of the Authority, and stating a number of conditions under which it wishes the working party to operate. I dare say that with several of those conditions the tenants are on a fair point, but I hope that over the weeks ahead good will will be shown by both the tenants and the Authority in trying to thrash out a way of operating the market now that we in Parliament have reorganised its capital so that it will go on to be an outstanding success.

The tenants say that they particularly want the working party's terms of reference to include the power to the wholesalers of which the Authority should be aware. I do not know to what extent it is already aware of the profitability of those who have businesses in the market. I remember the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) vigorously nodding his head in agreement at one stage in our debates when I said that the important thing was to keep the market full and to keep it buzzing. We have said that repeatedly. If there are arrangements that make it impossible for the businessses within the market to be profitable, the market cannot thrive.

The tenants also say that they want consideration to be given to the leasing of the market to the association. If that can be done at a saving of costs and more efficiently, I hope that the Government will not rule it out. Let us see whether it is possible, though I am not convinced that it is.

The tenants also want to discuss the possibility of a joint operating committee of the Authority and their Association. I was surprised to read in the next sentence: The view is held that the Covent Garden Market Authority was established to build and start off a new market. This task is now complete, and they should now stand down. It seems to me slightly illogical to say that after proposing a joint operating committee of the Authority and the association, but I leave that for future negotiations to sort out.

There is an unfortunate degree of ill-will between the Authority and the association. I have had letters from the association and dealings with it which show that to be true. Indeed, the association asked us to table an amendment to delete Sections 28 and 29 of the 1961 Act and Sections 26, 28, 31 and 37 of the 1966 Act. That would effectively take away nearly all the powers of the Authority to raise money and operate the market. It would cause the total collapse of the Authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone tabled that amendment, but I suspect that he would not have pushed it to a vote. He perhaps put it down to raise some of the points I am trying to raise now.

Mr. Wells indicated assent.

Mr. Jopling

I am glad to see that my hon. Friend agrees. As his amendment was ruled out of order, I hope that he will use this debate to raise other points in similar vein.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers was outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore it must be outside the scope of a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Jopling

I of course accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the general matter of capital for the market's future operations and its general arrangements are within the scope of this debate.

I do not believe that it is right to scrap the Authority at this stage, and I do not feel that it is the mood of the House that it should be scrapped. The general view on both sides of the House on Second Reading was that the Authority had done a good job in difficult circumstances. I believe that the House would feel it unwise at this stage even to consider scrapping the Authority in view of the large amounts of public money that we are putting into it through the provisions of the Bill.

I realise that the tenants' attitudes may well have something to do with the fact that there is a discussion going on about the proposal, which we have talked about throughout our debates, that their association should raise £500,000 a year to pay for the operations of the market. It is generally agreed in the House that the current attitude of the tenants may be largely promoted by the Authority's the current attitude of the tenants may be extra income.

It may be recalled that I made my position on that extra £500,000 a year quite clear on Second Reading and it is worth repeating the statement that the Authority sent to us about the raising of this money. I quote what the Authority said, which is what I read out at Second Reading: The provision of some extra £0.5 million per annum is necessary to enable the Authority to break even with an active capital of approximately £7 million immediately after reconstruction. The whole of this active capital will be serviced by the income from Market Towers and the extra revenue will in effect be needed to enable the market to cover its running costs. Even with this extra revenue the market (as distinct from Market Towers) will be making no real contribution towards the capital invested in its facilities. I said on Second Reading that I felt that it was hard to argue against the raising of the extra £500,000 and I still think that. I hope that the tenants will agree to raise such a figure but perhaps the exact amount could be negotiated. But the general principle is right, and I hope that the whole issue will soon be settled.

We have in the new Covent Garden Market the possibility of an outstanding success. The change has now become bedded in, and we have now reconstructed the capital structure. Provided that those who administer the market and who work in it can agree among themselves and organise a good working arrangement for the future, I hope that this will be the last that we shall hear of the need for Parliament to intervene in the affairs of the market for a long time.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South)

I rise to support the Bill—although I am not happy about it—because that is something that we must all do this evening. I was involved with the inception of the Covent Garden Market Authority in about 1961 when the local planning authority—the old Battersea Borough Council—had to decide whether to welcome the proposal for the market to be transferred to Battersea.

I do not want at this stage to usurp the duties of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who has a sound knowledge of and good intentions for his constituency, but I have lived in the borough all my life and I was a member of the local authority for many years. I have watched with great interest the progress of the Authority.

Now that we have reached this watershed in its progress I want to reiterate what has been said tonight by other hon. Members—that the Authority should use its assets to their full advantage. The assets are of considerable value. I do not want the Authority to embark on building gantries across Nine Elms Lane to the river at a cost of millions of pounds.

I am quite happy with the way in which the market is now being run, and I do not want to see slow-moving traffic coming up the river and produce going bad before it can be unloaded. I do not want to envisage expenditure of that nature. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) does not agree with me, but that is how I view it. Our road transport system adequately serves the transport of goods from the Channel ports on the South-East Coast. Produce can reach the market in just a few hours and be sold fresh.

The flower market has a five-acre expanse of territory, but it is used for perhaps only six to eight hours a day. As I have said so many times during the course of the Bill, both in the Chamber and in Committee, the whole of this area of Battersea is becoming derelict and during the hours that the market is not operating, nothing goes on there. I should like to see the Authority use its assets, that is, the empty space near the river, the site under West Bank and the flower market. The area is big enough for use during evenings and weekends as an indoor running track and it could also be used for a boxing arena.

I make this suggestion because the Convent Garden Market needs revenue-producing schemes. The whole of the market organisation should be devoted to producing revenue so that it can pay its way. This part of Battersea needs rejuvenation, and I look to the Covent Garden Market Authority to do something about it.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Wells

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) so that I can tell him that when I go to the flower market tomorrow morning—if Hansard has reached the traders before me—I shall have my pants taken off and it will all be because of him. There can be no doubt that his words of enthusiam and zeal will be taken woefully amiss in the market. These people pay what they consider to be high rents for exclusive rights over their premises for 24 hours a day. The hon. Member is not quite right in saying that the premises are used for only five or six hours a day. They are used for rather longer and many traders leave goods there all day. They do not want to have to start moving goods in and out of the shops around the perimeter. The traders cannot possibly be expected to clear out of the market for an indoor running track or some other seven-day wonder that would, in any case, have to be financed by the ratepayers in the hon. Member's constituency. No doubt the hon. Member would go to the Minister for Sport to ask for some Government money. Such a scheme would not be a profit-making concern.

One of the most important themes that has run through all our debates on the Bill has been the argument about whether pilfering has been reduced since the market moved to Nine Elms from the old Covent Garden. I think that it has, but if one started to allow the public into the compound, pilfering would soar again. and that is quite unthinkable.

I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, South in pooh-poohing the idea of rotting vegetables coming into the market by water. The thoughts expressed in the last debate were—

Mr. Spearing

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wells

No. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke for 20 minutes at the beginning of the debate and he has had a second bite at the apple, so he must now leave it alone. He knows that I agree with him about inland waterways, but I have seldom heard a knowledgeable hon. Member propound so much junk in 20 minutes.

The hon. Member for Battersea, South made the point that goods come into the market from the South of England adequately by lorry, but he must know that the population of Kent is up in arms about heavy lorries going through lanes—to take not English produce to market, but produce that has been spending a little weathering time in cold storage. The whole population of Kent is very worried about this problem.

I paid careful attention to what the Minister said in the previous debate about consultations with Mr. Peter Parker of British Rail. I remind the House that the Channel Tunnel project may come to life again. If it does, the railhead could also come to life and the hon. Member for Newham, South would be all right with his rail project, but not with his proposals for transport by water.

It is up to the hon. Member for Battersea, South to talk to his local authority about its being more willing to meet the wishes of the Authority in granting planning permissions. If the Authority could get planning permissions more easily and sensibly, many of its financial difficulties would disappear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) dealt with the letter sent by the tenants to the Minister. He said that they wanted the Authority to have the power to investigate their profitability. This is an important point. Their businesses are not excessively profitable. Every day we see journalists of the tear-jerking sort pointing out that the poor old housewife is paying astronomic sums for vegetables and that the grower receives little for them, so therefore someone in the middle must be making huge profits. Vegetables that are sold the whole way carry an element of profit, at each stage, but profit and profitability are different things and we must bear in mind the steep overheads and high costs in the trade.

I declared an interest on Second Reading and I take it that that declaration still holds good. I am actively engaged in the horticulture business and, generally speaking, one expects the grower to get one-third of the ultimate price of vegetables, with the wholesaler and the retailer also each getting a third. The wholesalers collectively get a third and the people operating in the market work on commission. Sometimes two or three people have to share one-third of the final price of fruit and vegetables. The claims of emotional journalists that vast profits are being made in vegetables is not true. The lack of profitability of these businesses is an indication of the real situation. I hope that the Minister will go along with the request of the tenants.

The Minister and the Authority have told us that all three sections of the market are virtually full—a figure of between 90 per cent. and 94 per cent. has been mentioned. But some of the smaller traders have told me that one by one they are going out of business. The fact that their places are being taken over by someone else and that therefore it can still be said that the market is full should not hide the fact that the number of independent traders is reducing considerably. I am convinced that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland has set the right note for this debate and that we shall need to build on a better relationship between the Authority and its tenants of all sorts.

The grower—wholesalers were particularly aggrieved about a union matter last year. I hope that all sectors of the market can come to their hon. Members, to people such as myself, who happen to be their friends, or officially to the Ministry, with their grievances and grouses and that they will be listened to with greater sympathy than in the past. To them the £500,000 that we have bandied about is a matter of great "aggro", yet it hardly appears in the Bill at all. Its existence is masked in Clause 3—hence the rather way-out amendments that I put down at the behest of the tenants. They are anxious to have their grievances aired in the House. It is difficult to do so and to remain in order, but I know that the Minister and his Department are sympathetic and I hope that they will go along with the thoughts of "Chairman Jopling" and do what they can to ensure a better consideration of grievances in future.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)

My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) has ably set out a number of the points arising from the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has underlined the intensity of feeling in various sectors of the market's operation. I wish to emphasise the point that I raised in Committee. There has been a dramatic extension of ministerial power by this Bill. Insensitive handling of this power by the Minister could exacerbate the difficulties that may be faced by traders in the day-to-day operations of the market.

The traders have to feel that they can continue with confidence to base their operations upon Covent Garden. The Bill has been used to make sure that they can do so, but I have no doubt that if they find themselves unable to carry on, they will not hesitate to move their operations to more hospitable climes, such as Spitalfields or Western International. They might find that they have to abandon the South-East and move to Birmingham or Manchester.

Such a move would not be a great help to the consumer or the producer and the tenant might suffer, but we must remember that his first duty to himself is to survive in business. If the powers of the Minister are insensitively exercised, that will make life that much more difficult for the trader and everyone else involved in horticulture.

I am sorry that we had to have this Bill at all. I hope that the work that we have put into it will enable the Authority to operate profitably and confidently in future, and I earnestly hope that we shall have no such measure brought to the House again.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Michael Spicer

I am sure that most hon. Members will share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and that we are sorry that the Bill had to come before the House at all. I view with great concern the prospect of yet another public body requiring another £13 million to suspend its debt provisions. Coming from a horticultural constituency, I would have preferred that £13 million, if it is to be given to the industry, to be given direct.

But the more one looked at the Bill in Committee and elsewhere, the more one came to the conclusion that the Government did about the best they could. The view that the public had in effect landed the Authority with this vast debt—and therefore the public should in measure bail it out—was broadly accepted.

The way that the Government have done it has also been accepted. Instead of bailing the Authority out completely, they have at least written a large amount of that debt into the Bill in the form of suspended debt. I am glad that in Committee we played a part in ensuring that that will be clearly marked in the accounts. I am glad that the Government in their wisdom have written this provision into the Bill. I agree with the Government that a large measure of the current debt will from now onwards be met by those who are operating in the Market. That brings us right to the nub of the problem raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Maidstone (Mr. Wells). The Government must face the fact that by seeking to raise this extra money direct they caused the problem. I suspect the problem arises out of the general morale issues that we have been discussing. I am therefore glad that the Government are now giving attention to the whole subject of greater involvement by the tenants in the management of the market.

However, the problem also seems to centre around profitability. I said in Committee that sometimes traders were working on profit margins of about 1 per cent. That figure was not challenged. That was the average sort of figure given to me on the basis of turnover. It begs the question "Why do they not put up their prices?"

The immediate problem one faces is that there are competitive markets such as Spitalfields and Western International. The problem faced particularly in the commission business is that if the traders put up their prices to any kind of commensurate level required to meet the extra costs that they will have to pay to keep the market going, they may well be put out of business. That would destroy the whole purpose of the exercise.

Having made that observation on behalf of the traders, I would endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland that the traders cannot have it completely their own way. As is usual with Oppositions, in Committee to some extent we battled on their behalf. We have certainly made the point, which the Government seem to have accepted, about the greater involvement which the traders will have to have in the management of the market.

But the traders have to recognise that the public cannot go on carrying this burden. If the original warnings given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone in Committee are true, we shall simply be back with another Bill in a few years' time.

We shall have to think about whether the public can for ever bail out the market. It is one thing for us to have written off a debt that was largely not of the Authority's own making, but it will be quite another if any Minister has to introduce this kind of Bill again.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

The Bill is now very much clearer than when we started. The Minister has ensured that the Authority will specify in its annual report and accounts the different types of loans so that we shall see which are annuity loans and which are maturity loans. We have an assurance that a Civil Service Department or some other staff review will be carried out when necessary and that the House will be told the conclusions.

These debates have enabled the House to focus attention upon the lack of use of the surplus assets. If those assets were brought into use, perhaps some of the suspended loan could be written back into the accounts and repaid more swiftly than might otherwise happen. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will look at this matter on a continuing basis to make sure that no one holds up the sensible disposal of assets.

I hope that pressure will be put upon the Department of the Environment to come to speedy decisions when planning appeals come to the Minister for his decision. Otherwise we agree that the Bill is now a good Bill and we hope that it will mean that the Market can get on with its primary job, which is serving the customer.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Strang

I hope the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) will not take offence when I say that obviously one cannot agree to put pressure on any Department. But certainly we recognise the need for decisions on these matters to be taken as early as possible.

A point raised by a number of hon. Members concerned the negotiations between the Authority and the traders. I very much regret that difficulties have arisen in the negotiations between the Authority and the tenants of New Covent Garden to settle arrangements for the additional revenues which form an important part of the package of measures for the viability of the market.

As I told hon. Members during the third Sitting of the Standing Committee, I had that very morning met the market tenants. They made some cogent points on the possibilities of economies in running the market, and the lack, as they saw it, of a forum in which they could pursue these matters. As a result of that meeting I met Sir Samuel Goldman to discuss what could be done to meet some of those points. We agreed that the Authority should set up urgently a small high-level working party with tenants, workers and users to examine the day-to-day operating of the market. This suggestion would provide much of what the tenants had sought in respect of greater involvement in the operation of the market and the opportunity to put forward suggestions for savings in operating costs.

I therefore put this to the tenants, and also said that I would consider it not unreasonable that the trade should share in any savings of running costs that might flow from a reduction of services. I asked the tenants to resume discussions with the Authority on this basis. Unfortunately, the tenants' representatives have not accepted this offer, and have suggested a working party that would go very much wider.

While I think that there may be something to be said for a wide-ranging examination of marketing arrangements generally in the longer term, that inevitably will take time and the need to get the market on its financial feet is urgent and critical. I would therefore once more urge upon the tenants' representatives the need to look again at our earlier suggestion and get together with the Authority to seek immediate economies in the operation of the market and to devise arrangements for its sound financing.

I have already recognised that the traders are working on narrow margins, and I would not expect them to be able to absorb the whole extra cost themselves. But, even with the write-off and suspension of debts proposed in this Bill, the market's expenditure will continue to exceed its revenue, and a contribution from the trade is an essential element in the market's viability.

After all, the public purse will be contributing by far the greatest part, and it would not be right to the taxpayers to ask them to pay a continuing subsidy to the market over and above the continuing cost to the Exchequer of the interest forgone on the suspended debt. Moreover, our package of proposals was designed to be equitable between traders at Covent Garden and those at other markets. A further continuing subsidy to Covent Garden would unbalance that equity. I trust, therefore, that the tenants will work with us and the Authority to help secure the future for this market which is of particular importance to the tenants themselves. It is fair to say that all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have implicitly endorsed the Government's proposal in this regard and have taken the view that we must reach a situation where there is agreement between the traders and the Authority on these points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry), who has taken a deep interest in these matters because of his close knowledge of the area, said, and the vast majority of hon. Members agreed, that he regretted the need for the Bill. We regret the need for a Bill which writes off £13 million and provides for the suspension of a maximum of £25 million, but there was no other way of dealing with the matter, as the arguments in Committee made clear, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) expressed that view today.

If anything, Opposition Members have been a little pessimistic about the future. The short-term difficulty of the negotiations between the Authority and the traders must be settled. If it is not settled, there can be no continuing Authority. These difficulties will, I think, be overcome, but, more important, we are establishing a framework for a successful operation at Covent Garden. Let us remember that we are talking about increasing the throughput and efficiency so that value added may be created to enable the Authority to prosper and to pay off the suspended debt and to enable the traders to secure a fair return on their investment.

I believe that this restructuring provides that opportunity, and I am sure that with determination and co-operation on all sides it will be achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Back to
Forward to