§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be depositied with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)We are discussing what I think is called a revival motion. It is an effort to revive in this Session discussion of a Bill on which we have had a Second Reading debate in a previous Session. If the motion is passed, a badly designed Bill, which is damaging to the interests of the people of Spitalfields, will head towards the statute book. This is a good moment to halt its otherwise inevitable progress.
I hope that, at the end of the debate, my right hon. and hon. Friends will support me in the Division Lobby and oppose the Bill's revival. The Bill received a Second Reading on Thursday 12 May, after which it was sent to a Committee of the House, which had 10 substantial sittings. In Committee, the petitioners who had petitioned against the Bill were called and gave evidence. They put their case for not proceeding with the Bill.
I have read all of the Committee proceedings and have no complaint against the Committee. It conducted its hearings with admirable fairness and thoroughness. The Committee was sufficiently impressed by the evidence that it heard to require substantial amendments to be made to the section 52 agreement concluded by the City of London corporation and Tower Hamlets council as a condition of its approval of the Bill. I thank the Committee for that and congratulate the petitioners, especially those who spoke for the campaign to save Spitalfields from the developers, on putting the case of the bulk of residents of Spitalfields so persuasively and tenaciously.
Alas, the Committee could not respond to the petitioners' central point, which was that the Bill should not be proceeded with. The Committee could not respond to that request because the House had already given the Bill a Second Reading.
It falls to the House today to take up the issue again and, I hope, to decide not to proceed with the Bill. I am sure that the people of Spitalfields would be glad if the House decided not to proceed with the Bill, which is narrowly drawn. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), acting for the City of London, summed up the Bill on Second Reading. He said:
I shall briefly explain the purposes of the Bill. It is to relocate the present market in Tower Hamlets to a fresh site in the London borough of Waltham Forest … It is to adapt 930 and to amend many of the local enactments that are applicable to Spitalfields so that they apply to the market on its new site … to make no significant changes to market regulation law. It is also to require the corporation to offer accommodation in the relocated market to traders at Spitalfields market and at Stratford market, which is about one and a half miles from the relocation site."—[Official Report, 12 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 521.]On the face of it, the Bill is concerned only with the relocation of Spitalfields market. That raises such issues as market planning in London and the problems of traffic congestion. Almost any substantial market site has such problems.I do not dismiss the important arguments about market planning and traffic congestion, but by far the most important issue—and that with which the Bill does not obviously deal, but which it is in fact all about—is what will happen to the 11 acres of prime land covered by the present market which sits cheek by jowl with the City.
If the Bill were designed simply to transfer the market to a new site, I do not think that the motion would he before the House today. One quite remarkable feature of the report of the City of London corporation of 22 October 1987 on the future of Spitalfields market is the assertion that there is
no overriding reason to relocate the market … despite these factors"—that is, heavy traffic congestion—the market is relatively successful and it has to be said that not all the problems are insurmountable: e.g. with the co-operation of the local authority (Tower Hamlets) and the Metropolitan Police much could be done to alleviate rubbish dumping and traffic congestion respectively. More space could be found in the area for vehicle parking and the Corporation could consider taking control of the surrounding streets in order to regulate the whole trading area.There is no question of an over-riding case for transferring Spitalfields market. No such case was argued by the City of London, and none would stand up if anybody tried to sustain it. We have the Bill because of the 11 acres of land that are so near to the City of London.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to be rigid or to restrict the scope of debate unduly, but we are not discussing the content of the Bill, merely the motion on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman should get back to the motion.
§ Mr. ShoreI shall try to do that, but whether the Bill should be revived and whether it should be proceeded with is closely linked. I find it difficult to imagine a closer link.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt was the right hon. Gentleman who reminded the House that the Bill had been given a Second Reading.
§ Mr. ShoreIndeed. The Question now before the House is whether the Bill should be revived and allowed to proceed. I am simply arguing the case and shall not do so at great length. It seems to be an appropriate moment to arrest the course of the Bill.
There is no overwhelming reason why, in relation to the operation of the market, the site should be moved. The strong reason given for moving it is related entirely to the value of the 12-acre site and what is to be done with it. The City of London and the Spitalfields development group presented Tower Hamlets council with a major plan for office redevelopment in the area. There were some other facilities but is was basically for offices. They had chosen to do that in an area which is, on all the indices of poverty, 931 deprivation and overcrowding, whether governmental or local governmental, the most deprived ward, not only in Tower Hamlets but in London. That ward has more problems—especially those related to homelessness, miserable and wretched overcrowding in housing and unemployment—than any other ward in London.
Is it justifiable to go ahead with a Bill which blocks off the land from the residents of Spitalfields in order to bring about yet another substantial office development in the area? It is not that the borough of Tower Hamlets is rich in land—it is not. At one time it looked as though we had found a solution to most of our problems when the London dockland area became vacant as ships moved down the Thames. However, as the House knows when the London Docklands Development Corporation was set up, the land was transferred to it and, therefore, was not available to the borough of Tower Hamlets for its pressing and urgent housing problem. The issue has raised the question of how we should go about inner city development. Nobody is arguing—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That is not relevant to the motion before the House.
§ Mr. ShoreAll right. However, it relates to it and, even if I did not raise the matter, it would be on the minds of those concerned about it.
I wish to put to the House a matter that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think is more closely related to the motion. The original plans—which were part of the deal behind the Bill and which the Spitalfields development group submitted to and negotiated with the City of London corporation and Tower Hamlets council— contained some proposals, including the development of some major offices.
In the Estates Times, on 28 October, we read:
A complete re-design of the redevelopment proposals for Spitalfields Market in Tower Hamlets could include the City's first major shopping centre.Apparently the group is now considering a revamp of the plan to enable the group to develop a 250,000 to 300,000 sq ft shopping centre in the proposed development. This will be a major challenge to other shopping developments in the Whitechapel area and it puts an entirely new complexion on what is being proposed.That change of plan has not been discussed in Committee, nor has it been reported to the House. Nobody is to blame for that because it became public only in the last few weeks. However, it is an important consideration.
The House has good reasons for not proceeding with the Bill and for sympathising with the plight and needs of the people of Spitalfields. It has good reasons for deciding that the Bill should be dropped and allowing the promoters—in the ample time that they will have—to sort out the proposals and, if they wish, to return with new proposals that are far better designed to serve the needs of the area.
§ Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar)A number of concessions were made in Committee and people in the local community welcome the extra money for community gain and the covenant ensuring that two pieces of land, Elder gardens and Horner square, will remain open spaces. 932 However, they are dismayed that no concession was made about Allyn gardens which is the largest park in Spitalfields, which is a heavily populated area with insufficient open space. The local people believe Allyn gardens will be developed by Tower Hamlets council.
The Committee Chairman said that he recognised the impact that the development will have on the community. If the Bill is allowed to proceed, it will indeed have a massive impact. The monetary concessions that have been made will not compensate for the devastation that will take place.
In addition, Holland estate, which is nearby, is to be taken over by a housing action trust unless the tenants are allowed to vote against it. That means that the whole area will be heavily developed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the article in the Estates Times from which it seems that important changes will be made. There will have to be substantial amendments to the plans because the demand for office space is falling and the amount of office space will be surplus to requirements. The article says that about a quarter of the space will be used for a shopping mall and that the new plan is that the shopping centre will have 300,000 sq ft and that the design will be based on the
Galeria in the centre of Milan.The local authority already has a plan for a big shopping centre in Whitechapel, which is not far away. That plan would be destroyed and that shopping centre would no longer be viable if the Bill is allowed to proceed.The plans are confused and the Bill should be returned and rethought. There are also plans for Whitechapel library, which is near the site. It is to be closed down and a compulsory purchase order will be imposed on the land behind it. That will be used for even more office space.
If the Bill is allowed to proceed there will be office space development gone mad. There will be two types of enterprise culture opposing each other. The Government purport to support small-scale firms in Spitalfields but they will be opposed by international high finance, with computer screens linking the City of London to the money markets of the world. That will change the nature of the area. The lives and livelihood of thousands of people, as well as the nature of the community and character of the area, are under threat. The Bill should not be allowed to proceed when there is such confusion and it seems that there will have to be a major change of plan.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 23.
928| Division No. 5] | [7 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Gorst, John |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Gow, Ian |
| Amess, David | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Amos, Alan | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Gregory, Conal |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Ground, Patrick |
| Atkins, Robert | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Atkinson, David | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Batiste, Spencer | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Harris, David |
| Benyon, W. | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hayward, Robert |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Boswell, Tim | Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Hind, Kenneth |
| Brazier, Julian | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Cash, William | Irvine, Michael |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Irving, Charles |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Jack, Michael |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Janman, Tim |
| Couchman, James | Jessel, Toby |
| Cran, James | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Dover, Den | Knapman, Roger |
| Dunn, Bob | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Durant, Tony | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Knowles, Michael |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Favell, Tony | Lightbown, David |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Lilley, Peter |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | McCrindle, Robert |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| French, Douglas | Maclean, David |
| Fry, Peter | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Gill, Christopher | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Malins, Humfrey | Sims, Roger |
| Mans, Keith | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Speller, Tony |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mates, Michael | Stern, Michael |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stevens, Lewis |
| Mitchell, Sir David | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Moate, Roger | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Morrison, Sir Charles | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Needham, Richard | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Neubert, Michael | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Thorne, Neil |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Page, Richard | Viggers, Peter |
| Paice, James | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Patnick, Irvine | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Portillo, Michael | Wheeler, John |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Raffan, Keith | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Redwood, John | Wilkinson, John |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Wood, Timothy |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Yeo, Tim |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Mr. Michael Fallon. |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | Howells, Geraint |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Macdonald, Calum A. |
| Bermingham, Gerald | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Cryer, Bob | Salmond, Alex |
| Darling, Alistair | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Dewar, Donald | Sillars, Jim |
| Dixon, Don | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Galloway, George | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| George, Bruce | Vaz, Keith |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | |
| Gordon, Mildred | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Mr. James Wallace and |
| Haynes, Frank | Mr. Andrew Welsh. |
| Home Robertson, John |
| Division No. 6] | [7.29 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Burt, Alistair |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Amess, David | Cash, William |
| Amos, Alan | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Cohen, Harry |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Cope, Rt Hon John |
| Atkins, Robert | Cormack, Patrick |
| Atkinson, David | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Batiste, Spencer | Durant, Tony |
| Bendall, Vivian | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Benyon, W. | Fallon, Michael |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey |
| Boswell, Tim | Fishburn, John Dudley |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | French, Douglas |
| Fry, Peter | Mates, Michael |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Moate, Roger |
| Gorst, John | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Needham, Richard |
| Gregory, Conal | Neubert, Michael |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Page, Richard |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Harris, David | Raffan, Keith |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Redwood, John |
| Hayes, Jerry | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Hayward, Robert | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Shersby, Michael |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Sims, Roger |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Irvine, Michael | Stern, Michael |
| Irving, Charles | Stevens, Lewis |
| Jack, Michael | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Janman, Tim | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Wheeler, John |
| Lightbown, David | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Lilley, Peter | Wilkinson, John |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Wood, Timothy |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Yeo, Tim |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael | |
| Malins, Humfrey | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Mans, Keith | Mr. Neil Thorne and |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Mr. James Couchman. |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | |
| NOES | |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Corbett, Robin | Salmond, Alex |
| Darling, Alistair | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Dobson, Frank | Sillars, Jim |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) | Snape, Peter |
| George, Bruce | Soley, Clive |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Spearing, Nigel |
| Gordon, Mildred | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Haynes, Frank | |
| Home Robertson, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Macdonald, Calum A. | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | Mr. Graham Allen. |
| Pike, Peter L. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
§
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
§
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
§
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
§
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.