§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Earl De La Warr, who is unable to be present, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I think your Lordships are entitled to a very brief explanation of this somewhat pathetic and historical little Bill. About 100 years ago there was a market for hay not very far from this House. This market was moved by an Act of Parliament in those days owing to the growth of housing in the neighbourhood of the present Haymarket, to a place about a mile away, now called Cumberland Market. In those days it was more or less among fields, which were called Lamb's Conduit Fields. These have been preserved in Regent's Park, and the Cumberland Market to-day is an open square about 200 yards from the east of 1265 Regent's Park. It is extremely interesting to any of your Lordships who are attracted by old places to see what that market looks like to-day. I went there this morning. There are still two practically closed-down forage merchants, one of them, I think, in premises that have become a garage, and there is also a closed harness shop. The whole thing indicates the way in which hay is no longer used in London, and oil and petrol have taken its place. The open square is at present used partly as a garage for great chars-a-banes and partly as an open playground for children.
The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Act of 1830 which created the new market. It is to enable the Commissioners of Crown Lands, on behalf of His Majesty in whom the land is vested, to build on the site of the Cumberland Market that I have been describing to your Lordships. The condition for that grant of powers is that any land so built upon shall be replaced by other land, which shall be adequate and approved. The lease of the tolls on the selling of hay in the Cumberland Hay Market expired in 1902, and since then, I am credibly informed, no hay has been sold in the market. The Commissioners of Crown Lands have, as I say, permitted the use of the market, or at any rate part of it, as a playground, and part: as a garage.
At present there is a great building scheme afoot in that area for the erection of tenements and flats for workmen's dwellings, and it is calculated new tenement dwellings for something like 7,000 people will be put up there in the course of the next ten years, at a cost of nearly £750,000. This Bill is needed in order that the scheme may proceed, because it is intended to erect upon one end of the existing Cumberland Market certain of the buildings that are required, and the land will be replaced by other open land, which will be approved. Clause 1, therefore, repeals the 100 years old Act of 1830 and provides that it shall not be necessary to retain the market in the square. Clause 2 prohibits the use of that site for building until the Commissioners of Crown Land shall have prepared equivalent open ground, not less in area and in all respects as suitable as the land which is going to be built upon. I may add that the King has 1266 signified his approval of these proposals, and the building scheme of the Commissioners is being warmly supported by the local authority as regards its planning and lay-out. The Bill was unopposed and unamended in the House of Commons, and has received the Certificate of the Examiners in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, I am sure we are all very much obliged for the explanation that has been given us; but I should like to ask a question about this matter. I have known this site for a considerable time, and I know the desire of the local authorities that something should be done in the way of re-housing there. As far as I can understand—I have not been there recently—a good deal of the adjacent land belongs to the Commissioners and is now used for buildings of a rather inferior kind. I mean, they are worn out. As I understand the object of the Bill, the idea is to build on the vacant spaces now and to give equivalent land when old tenements are pulled down.
§ LORD MARLEYThat is not quite the idea. There is a great basin coming from the canal and part of the land surrounding the basin has been acquired. Only old warehouses are being pulled down and buildings are being erected there, and into these buildings when completed will be removed tenants whose existing houses are not suitable or convenient for habitation, and new blocks of houses will be built in the place of those being pulled down. If anyone will go there it is very easy to see the buildings actually being built now, and other old buildings being pulled down. The property continuing to be inhabited has been enormously improved, because it is under the control of a properly appointed woman property manager, who is collecting the rents and seeing that the repairs are being carried out. The whole place is enormously improved compared with what it was a few years ago.
§ LORD JESSELI understand that the idea is to make it a sensible decanting scheme, by putting up new buildings and removing the tenants of old houses into them.
§ LORD MARLEYYes, but we are not building on what was an open space before in the accepted sense of the word. Building is taking place on land which was previously enclosed and not an open space, and the decanting is going on gradually.
§ LORD JESSELMight I ask who is actually doing the building? Is it being done by the Commissioners themselves, or let out on contract? I took considerable interest in the scheme some years ago, because I knew the land was vacant., and in view of the necessity for more land in London we endeavoured to urge on the scheme. I would like to know the rate of progress, and who is actually doing the building.
§ LORD MARLEYThe Commissioners of Crown Land are actually responsible, but I am not certain whether they are building by direct labour or by contract. If the noble Lord cares to see me afterwards, I have here the plans of the whole site, showing exactly what is being done and what has been done up to date.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYI do not wish to delay the proceedings on this Bill, but this is a question which touches a subject in which I have been interested for some considerable time. As your Lordships may be aware I was Chairman of the Royal Commission to consider open spaces in London, and I was also mover of the London County Council Bill for the purpose of putting into operation the findings of the Royal Commission. The noble Lord has spoken of the Cumberland market, and this is a Bill which removes the original provision which established it as a market. I think he will agree with me that Cumberland market does come within the category of open spaces, inasmuch as it can be looked upon as one of those lungs which are of the greatest importance to a city like London, and I do not quite gather from the noble Lord's speech whether it is proposed to build over the market or still retain it as an open space, although not perhaps as a market.
The noble Lord went on to say that some other open space would be substituted for the Cumberland market, to take its place as an open space, but he did not specify where that substituted 1268 open space was to be, for the purpose of making up to the community that which I understand is to be taken from them by this measure. He need not think that I am putting difficulties in his way, but on an occasion like this, when what appears to be a very important Bill containing important provisions is passing through the House, I would not like it to be thought that no mention was made of those who, rightly or wrongly, constitute themselves guardians of the open spaces in London. If it is the idea to close up one open space or to remove it from the enjoyment and benefit of the community, I think perhaps the noble Lord will be in a position to tell us where the substituted open space will be.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEIs it not the fact that in the House of Commons this Bill was referred to a Select Committee? If so, is there going to be a Select Committee of this House also?
§ LORD MARLEYI am extremely obliged to the noble Marquess, and am sorry I did not make my point quite clear. Cumberland market is not going to be built over, but a small building is to be erected at one end. That amounts to an encroachment upon an open space which is at the most not more than 10 per cent. of the total land, and an equivalent piece of land—equivalent both in area and suitability—will be retained from the building operations immediately contiguous to the existing Cumberland market. It ought really to be an improvement, and I am informed that the buildings to be erected will include among other interesting features a welfare clinic for the good of the children, who will then be able to run about on the grass which we hope will replace the existing asphalte covering of the market place. There will be no building until an equivalent piece of land has been provided. In any case it is believed that the building to be erected will be of help to the people there, and help to keep off tile winds which tend to sweep over the market as it exists at the present moment. The Royal Commission on London Squares, 1928, recommended that if this site were used an alternative site should be provided, and that is expressly provided for in this Bill. With respect to the question about a Select Committee, I am 1269 sorry that I do not know the answer. I can only say that the Bill was introduced and was passed unamended in the House of Commons, and had no difficulty in getting through that House.
§ LORD JESSELWith the leave of the House, may I ask whether any reply can be given to my question as to who is actually doing the building? I see the Commissioner of Works is present on the steps of the Throne, and perhaps the noble Lord can ascertain from him and tell us who is really doing this work.
§ LORD MARLEYPerhaps the noble Lord will consult me afterwards, and by that time I may be able to give him the information he requires.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.