HL Deb 05 April 1990 vol 517 cc1603-14

4.55 p.m.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill seeks authority for the London borough of Redbridge to establish a market in Ilford. I have been asked to speak at Second Reading because my former constituency lay in the other part of the London borough of Redbridge.

The Bill comes to us after extensive scrutiny and debate in another place, much of which I have read. I doubt if everyone will disagree with me if I were to venture an opinion that some parts of those debates appeared to owe more to factors other than the specific issue of whether Redbridge should be allowed to have its market. Be that as it may, there were long debates. Perhaps, because of the controversy that apparently surrounded the Bill, I owe it to the House to explain a little of its background.

Ten years ago, in April 1980, after a long public inquiry, the borough council adopted what was called the Ilford Town Centre Action Area Plan. In doing so, the council accepted all the recommendations made to it by an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. The plan now constitutes the current development plan for the area.

The plan has been the catalyst for some very remarkable improvements which have taken place in the physical environment of Ilford town centre. There is a new relief road, the A118, which takes through traffic away from the main shopping area. There is the pedestrianisation of the high road itself and in addition there is a splendid new award-winning central library and many other features. All of this has made Ilford today a really attractive place to live, work and in particular to shop. I believe that the local authority deserves considerable credit for that.

Such is the confidence of business in its new town centre that two major insurance companies are currently investing around £100 million in a new development to be known as the Exchange at Ilford. When finished this will provide 51,000 square metres of new shopping floor space together with a car park with 1,200 spaces.

The Ilford Town Centre Action Area Plan referred to the potential of an attractive covered retail market which, together with other developments, could be a vital feature of the improved shopping centre since it was recognised that a successful shopping centre depends, among other factors, on the diversity and breadth of choice available to consumers who themselves are becoming more and more discriminating.

Since the adoption of the plan, the council has had a number of approaches on behalf of about 250 traders who wish to see established an open market in Ilford. Planning permission was granted to an applicant to use one small town centre site for such a purpose. Moreover, the council has power under Section 50 of the Food Act 1984 to establish such a market within its district.

The question immediately poses itself: why then does it need this Bill? In this respect one has to go back not just 10 years, but about seven centuries, for the legal protection of markets is nearly as old as the common law itself. We must assume that our ancestors believed that, in order to avoid what they saw as undesirable competition between rival markets, where a market was established by royal writ, no new market was allowed to be established within a distance of six and two-thirds miles.

Further, even where there is now no extant evidence of such a royal writ, the law established the fiction of a, lost modern grant which is deemed to have the same effect. Section 50 of the 1984 Act does not override that ancient common law. Therefore, if a council wishes to establish a new market within six and two-thirds miles of an existing market, whether established by royal writ or by lost modern grant, the only way for that council to avoid being sued for infringement of the law is to obtain express statutory authority; hence we have the Bill.

Your Lordships may ask why six and two-thirds miles. The source of that rule appears to be in the writings of the great English jurist, Bracton, in the 13th Century. He treated six and two third miles as being one third of the Roman dieta— that is, a day's journey. The effect is that a man going to market should have one-third of a day to get there, one-third to attend to his business in the market and one-third to return home. If one does one's sums it probably meant that he was driving a flock of sheep as well, otherwise he would get to market rather quicker than in one-third of a day.

Therefore, we have the position that if the rival market was within six and two-thirds miles, it would attract customers who might otherwise go to the authorised market; that is, if the distance is less than six and two-thirds miles. Correspondingly, if the authorised market was given a wider protection than six and two-thirds miles people would have to spend much longer in getting to what would be their nearest market; hence the limit of six and two-thirds miles.

I draw attention to a recent remark made by the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Division, Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson, who in a High Court case last year said: The whole basis of the rule [the six and two-thirds miles rule] unbelievably archaic as it is, is therefore linked to the distance from an actual market, the customers of that market and their ability to get to it". One might be tempted to think that such an archaic law has no place in a modern society which has motor cars, trains and buses, where consumers increasingly want choice and diversity and, moreover, in a world which has come to recognise that consumer choice is best served by competition.

However, it remains the law and those seeking a new market must take account of it. Human nature being what it is, the existing market owners and market traders who ultimately benefit from the restriction—for such it is—will fight like tigers to protect their vested interest.

In this case there are rival markets which enjoy protection at common law within a distance of six and two-thirds miles of Ilford town centre. They are located at Romford in the neighbouring London Borough of Havering. The distances are about four and three quarters and five miles away. It is claimed—I have to say that it is not disputed by Redbridge—that Havering has market rights by virtue of a writ issued in 1247, in the reign of Henry III, establising a market at Romford which enables Havering to hold markets anywhere in Romford on every Wednesday throughout the year.

Havering council also asserts that it has a right, established in common law, under the concept of a "lost modern grant", to hold a market in Romford on Saturdays throughout the year. In addition, Havering has exercised power under Section 50 of the Food Act to establish a further market held on Fridays in Romford throughout the year. Therefore, Havering has three markets, all of a similar nature. There are approximately 600 stall places of which most market traders have two and some, three. The market therefore supports about 300 traders at any one time. The goods sold in the markets are of a general nature, including food, and there is also an antique and speciality section in the market.

I have to say that the market is and has been immensely successful. It undoubtedly forms a considerable attraction at the centre of Romford. Havering is proud of its markets, and rightly so; but does that entitle Havering to stop Redbridge having a market of its own merely because it would be within six and two-thirds miles of the Romford market? With respect, I do not think that it does, especially, if I may say so, given the relatively modest nature of the Redbridge proposal embodied in this Bill.

I turn now to deal with the Bill. Its proposal is very modest. There will be only one market and it must be located within one mile of Ilford Town Hall. It will be held on council-owned land which is currently used as a car park with space for 50 cars and it will be situated towards the eastern end of Ilford town centre beneath what is called the Griggs Approach Road flyover which forms part of the town centre ring road.

The market will contain some 80 stalls, as compared with Romford's 600. In fact, given the need to provide adequate facilities on site and circulation areas for servicing, it could not physically accommodate more. It will be a high class market selling a wide range of goods, although, as one might expect, offensive and obnoxious products will not be sold and no stall will be permitted to operate if it will cause a nuisance. It may be open for up to six days a week but not on Sundays.

Even if the Bill is passed, the market will still need planning permission. That will be sought and will be subject to the full planning consultation procedures in the normal way. I must point out that the Redbridge market is very strongly supported by the Redbridge Chamber of Trade and Commerce and the Ilford Traders Association. That is an important point. It used to be said that the established shop-keepers and department stores in an area rather dreaded the thought of a tatty open air market being situated somewhere near them as they would feel that it would lower the tone of the area and perhaps drive shoppers away. However, today such is the attraction of these modern open-air markets that they are an added inducement.

The Ilford Chamber of Commerce and the Ilford Traders Association organised a petition because of the efforts being made by the London Borough of Havering to block the Bill. In the relatively short time that the petition was being completed it attracted 6,500 signatures of people in favour of a Redbridge Market. Perhaps I may quote from an article in a local newspaper, the Ilford Recorder. On 4th May of last year the newspaper wrote strongly in support of the council's Bill. While making the point about the Romford Market, the article stated: Nothing that has been thriving for 642 years" — it is now 643 years — is going to be upstaged by a newcomer but that newcomer could enhance a town that surely deserves it. Ilford's town centre has fitted together like a giant jigsaw. Now let's have the missing piece". Again, the two insurance companies strongly support this proposal. In emphasising the importance which they attach to the market, they say that it would complement the major new shopping centre development and will be a great benefit to the town. They have invested heavily in the project and they do not feel that their new shopping centre, which is only a stone's throw from the site of the proposed market, has anything to fear; nor should Havering have anything to fear with its markets, which, as I said, are between four-and-a-half and five miles away from the area.

Therefore, one has to ask why Havering council still objects to the Bill. The council's Petition to the House is a long one and it would be quite inappropriate for me to deal with it now in detail. But if your Lordships agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, it can be sent to a Select Commitee where the Petition will no doubt be examined fairly and thoroughly.

The main burden of the council's case is that it is entitled to the ancient common law protection which is based on the six and two-thirds miles rule. The council justifies that fact by arguing that the market at Ilford will be "seriously detrimental" to the success of the Romford markets. Redbridge vigorously refutes that argument and it has a mass of consultants' evidence to support its case. However, it is an issue best argued out before the Select Committee rather than in this Chamber.

It is right to point out at this stage that during the passage of the Bill through another place several significant amendments were made in Havering's favour, including—and I read this with some astonishment —a right in perpetuity, as I understand it, to have paid over to Havering 10 per cent. of Redbridge's profits from its market. I thought that was perhaps going a bit far but I was told that the matter could not be re-opened in this House because of well-established rules between the two Houses. Redbridge has accepted this, even though it argues strenuously that its 80-stall market, nearly five miles from Romford's 600-stall market, will have a negligible, if even noticeable, effect. I see the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his place. He will no doubt develop the case against the Bill. Perhaps I should do better to reply to his comments, if I can, at the end of the debate.

The case for the London Borough of Redbridge is straightforward. There is a strong demand for an open market at Ilford. Councils can normally meet this demand by using their powers under Section 50 of the Food Act 1984. Redbridge cannot do so on this occasion because of the existence of an ancient royal writ market and an alleged lost modern grant market—a legal fiction—at Romford, some 4–84 miles away. That market enjoys what the courts have described as an "archaic" protection at common law. In addition to its two common law markets, Romford has itself established a third market under Section 50. It has expanded its own market operations.

The proposals of the borough of Redbridge are modest: only one market on a small site. The borough is quite certain that it will cause no loss to the Romford markets. However, it is prepared to offer compensation and the Bill now reflects that to the tune of 10 per cent. of the annual profits in perpetuity. The best place to test the arguments about loss of trade, size, location, trading days and compensation must be in the Select Committee and not on Second Reading. However, the Bill will not get there if the House does not give it a Second Reading. I hope it will do so. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)

5.11 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I too hope, in fact I know, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I shall rest content that detailed scrutiny of the Bill will be carried out properly and carefully in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.

I wish to begin by acknowledging that from his knowledge of the area, his commitment to the people of the area in his previous role, and his careful reading of what has happened so far, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has given the House a fair picture of the desires of Redbridge Council and of the concerns of Havering Council.

I wish to declare an interest. I advise the National Market Traders' Federation on parliamentary affairs. To that extent I shall put forward the worries of market traders. They are not opposed to but alongside those of the Havering Council. I have had the benefit of the references brought directly to my attention by Havering Council and, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, having seen the petition that has been put in. It will go to the Opposed Bill Committee and will quite rightly be argued out there.

The National Market Traders' Federation makes no great claims. It has 25,000 members, some of whom stand at the market of Romford. There are many more than 25,000 market traders throughout the country. The federation does not claim that it represents the views of market traders. It is inevitable that in a democracy such as ours one seeks to represent views of some people who favour and some who are against proposals.

If we look at the action taken we know that at least one-third of the ruling Conservative Party in Redbridge is opposed to the Bill. It comes before us from a divided council. We know that it is opposed by a united council as concerns Havering. We know that when the Bill reached us it had received a Third Reading in another place by the very narrow majority of 48 to 43 votes. Therefore we are looking at a piece of legislation which is certainly not universally welcomed.

The legislation bears directly on the interests of the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering. However, it affects much more than simply the interests of those two boroughs. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned a matter which I would refer to as charter rights. In this instance we are talking about a charter right dating back not to time immemorial but to the year 1247. Hundreds of places have charter rights. Those places have established markets with accompanying rights. Those rights were enjoyed in the main by local authorities, although that was not always exclusively the case.

The Select Committee of this House will, I hope, not consider just the narrow confines of the Bill, but rather the totality of what is envisaged. There are many areas with charter markets which could be affected by the historic precedent that will be set by the Bill when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, very fairly gave us the history of this matter. In 1891 a Royal Commission considered the grievances that many people felt as regards the protections that were enjoyed under charter rights. The Royal Commission recommended that those ancient rights should be abolished. However, that recommendation was never proceeded with. I submit to your Lordships that 100 years later it is about time that a Royal Commission or a government body of some kind should look at the whole situation. I submit that it is not right, fair or proper that the ancient market rights which have been enjoyed in many of our towns and cities should be whittled away. I can tell the House that if the Bill becomes an Act it is likely to be the beginning of a long continuous process of action by neighbouring authorities which will use the Redbridge Bill as a precedent for their own actions.

I referred to markets which could be affected by the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quite fairly pointed out what was proposed in the Bill. The preamble to the Bill states that it would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a market in the part of the borough known as Ilford, notwithstanding any infringement or non-compliance with any rule of law or enactment. We shall have to assess what is meant by the words public and local advantage". The noble Lord said that in the absence of agreement, as in this case—market rights can, of course, be breached, assuaged or compromised if there is agreement—the Private Bill route could be used to override existing rights and entitlements. I believe that that is a dangerous precedent. I certainly think we should consider carefully in your Lordships' House before we embark on this costly piece of legislation, as we have been given the Bill on a tenuous basis. It is not only costly to your Lordships' House but also to the authorities concerned. I know that authorities these days are very careful about the amount of money they spend and about the size of the poll tax that they levy. I shudder to think what the poll tax payers in both the boroughs I have referred to are saying as regards the enormous cost of this measure.

I have looked at what happened in another place. I picked up a suggestion that the sponsors of the Bill have seen fit to allocate £50,000 and £4,000 a month plus expenses for their lobbyists. I do not know whether that is true, but it was never denied. Big money is being spent on behalf of ratepayers in order to achieve those ends.

It is right that I should indicate to the House the position of the London Borough of Havering. A great deal of its case has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I am grateful to him for saving the time of the House. He is right about the distances and the special protections involved. Redbridge council is perfectly entitled to establish a statutory market within its own borough. If it chooses Co site it in the part of the borough which is outside the six and two-thirds miles from Romford then Havering would have no say in the matter.

However, if it wishes to site a statutory market within six and two-thirds miles of Romford market it can do so only by obtaining the consent of Havering. In effect, the Bill seeks to require Havering to tolerate a rival market at Ilford, operating six days a week, notwithstanding that it infringes the Romford market rights. Havering would therefore be placed in much the same position as if it had been compelled to grant a licence in perpetuity for that rival market.

I do not have the same knowledge of either Ilford or Romford as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, I have been to the Romford market a score of times. The noble Lord is right; it is a good market. I have not visited the market in connection with the Bill, but I used to live in Becontree and therefore I know the Ilford market. I noted his sense of pride in the way Ilford town centre has become alive. I passed by it a month ago and I did not recognise where I was. I could not see Harrison Gibson's, I could not see the ice-cream shop that I used to go to and I could not see a great deal of the Ilford I used to know. However, I know what the noble Lord was talking about. It is a vibrant place. Nevertheless, in the context of Havering, a market at Ilford is likely to be a danger.

We maintain that there is no real difference in the circumstances applicable to Romford market and those applicable to common law markets up and down the country. Conceding the principle in this Bill would make easier the compulsory extinction of other market rights.

The Bill is being promoted by Redbridge and still being opposed as a matter of principle by Havering—and that needs to be put on the record for the Select Committee to take careful note of the fact. Although agreements of a kind have been reached, particularly in respect of compensation, in another place the Members who represent Havering—who in my view did a very good job as constituency MPs—hammered home time and time again the fact that the London Borough of Havering does not want the Bill even though substantial changes have been made to it.

Already neighbouring London boroughs are making discreet inquiries as to the progress of the Bill and may consider doing something similar.

It is a question of compromise. Is it possible to compromise and avoid a great deal of cost? Attempts have been made to reach a compromise. However, it would be a compromise on a principle. There are some principles which we all hold on which we would not compromise. This is a principle upon which apparently compromise cannot be reached. However, I hope that an accommodation can still be reached at this late stage on what Ilford wants and what Havering denies it in order to avoid the enormous costs involved in the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the Petition. He said that this may not be the appropriate place to go through it in detail. However, in making the case for the committee to consider it is right for me to quote selectively from the Petition. Paragraph 11 states: As a result, market traders have built up substantial businesses and your Petitioners are aware of large sums having been paid for goodwill of businesses established in the market. The market is extremely successful, forming an attraction to Romford, and is considered by your Petitioners to be a major factor in the economic success of Romford town centre". Paragraph 14 states: The Bill would enable the Council to establish the proposed market at Ilford without regard to the common law rights enjoyed by your Petitioners". The committee should consider the manner in which common law rights will be taken away from people who enjoy those rights. Paragraph 15 states: Your Petitioners submit that it is not proper for their market rights to be removed in this way. As a matter of policy, all public general Acts relating to local authority markets, found in Part III of the Food Act 1984 and its predecessors, have scrupulously preserved all rights such as those enjoyed by your Petitioners. The proposals in the Bill accordingly represent a departure from a policy accepted nationwide by governments of varying political complexions. The Bill should be seen as running contrary to the accepted norm and should not be allowed in the absence of special circumstances. In your Petitioners' submission there are none in the present case". Paragraph 16 states: The preservation of rights such as your Petitioners' is not, it is submitted, the perpetuation of an ancient and unjustified monopoly. Market law in England and Wales forms an integral part of the system of checks and balances which has been evolved over the centuries to cater for the needs of a mobile society in which regulation is required to some degree so as to ensure that enterprise and prosperity are not stifled by uncontrolled free trade". I turn now to the main point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought was the cause of the aggravation in Havering. Paragraph 18 states: The Bill would jeopardise Romford's position. By giving the Council power to establish the proposed market in sufficiently close proximity to your Petitioners' market to attract rival trade and within the common law protected distance, the Bill would in your Petitioners' opinion be likely to result in the Romford/Ilford area becoming over endowed with markets all vying with each other for a comparatively limited volume of trade, to the disadvantage of all concerned". The noble Lord tells me that there are consultants and advisers able to produce statistics which show that that is not true. Paragraph 18 continues: Your Petitioners consider that the small size of the proposed market compared with Romford market is to a large extent offset by the fact that the proposed market will operate six days each week as against Romford's three. If the proposed market were to be covered its advantage would be further increased". Paragraph 19 states: They [your Petitioners] nonetheless submit that the movement of trade from one town to another does not increase its volume but merely effects a redistribution, in the present case from a town which is reliant upon its market to one which is not. Your Petitioners fear that there is not sufficient trade to support markets held in such close proximity, especially if they are held on the same days". Paragraph 21 states: Your Petitioners are greatly concerned by the complete absence in the Bill of any provision for the protection of the market traders whose livelihoods are likely to be badly affected by a rival market at Ilford or the other businesses in Romford whose trade may suffer if your Petitioners' market ceases to prosper. Nothing in clause 4 would benefit such people whose loss would not, therefore, attract any monetary compensation". I am not competent to say whether that is so. However, if the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is correct—namely, that the incredible amount of 10 per cent. in perpetuity is to compensate the London Borough of Havering, not the shopkeepers or the stallholders for a diminution in their profits —that point must be taken into account by the committee.

Your Lordships' Select Committee will have a very onerous responsibility. Not only must it draw upon the history of this issue, it must consider the very closely divided way in which the Bill was brought before it. It will look at the narrow majority that the Bill obtained at Third Reading in another place. It must also look at the enormous domino effect which, in my view, will be put into operation if this Bill is enacted.

I referred earlier to other places which have markets that could be affected: Yeovil, Banbury, Chelmsford, Swindon, Plymouth, Shipley, Watford, Mid-Staffordshire—I pick that up particularly and perhaps Mrs. Heal will be interested to follow up that point—Grantham, Witney, Bridgewater, Kingston-upon-Thames, Morecambe and Lunsdale, Huntingdon—a certain gentleman called Mr. John Major may be interested—Plymouth Devonport, Aylesbury, Ribble Valley—of interest to a certain gentleman who is the Home Secretary—Colchester South and Maldon —there there is the Minister for Energy —Bristol West —which is the constituency of Mr. Waldegrave—Worcester, and so on. All those places have markets which are currently protected by a charter. In my view all those markets will —not could —be at risk if this Bill makes progress.

I ask your Lordships to take very careful note of all that has been said. I look forward with confidence to the outcome of the committee's consideration of the Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I intervene very briefly to restate the Government's view on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Reay has asked me to apologise for his absence. He had to leave to catch an aeroplane.

It is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that tradition. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to these powers being sought to establish a market at Ilford by Redbridge London Borough Council. No department has any point outstanding on the Bill. We have reviewed the whole matter of charter market rights to consider whether they are a restraint on trade. We found this a highly complex matter, which could involve compensation for loss of rights and which might well be expensive. We concluded that as existing franchise rights, present little impediment to trade —market trading being such a very small part of UK retail trade—we should leave matters as they stand at present.

The Government take the view that the issues raised by the Bill and other similar Bills in relation to markets and existing market rights are essentially of local concern and that it would not be right for the Government to intervene. It is for the Bill's promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they seek are justified, bearing in mind all the local circumstances.

There is one Petition against the Bill in your Lordships' House and the Petitioner will have the opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position that we are today to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.

I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual, conventional way to a Select Committee for detailed consideration.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I am in particular grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the painstaking way in which he spelt out the objections to the Bill. I entirely understand the Government's position. I see the difficulty that they would face if they tried to bring in general legislation. I suspect that it would certainly need to be preceded by a proper inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, indicated. However, that is not the issue before the House and it will not be an issue in the Select Committee.

I shall not respond to every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Those points will be argued out before the committee. The noble Lord was good enough to indicate that he at least is prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.

However, I cannot resist making one point. The noble Lord said that if the London Borough of Redbridge had chosen a site that was over six and two-thirds miles distant, there would be no objection —perhaps he said that there could be no objection —because the whole basis of the petition and the opposition to the Bill has to be based on that ancient law as spelt out by Bracton 700 years ago. Is the noble Lord saying that there would be no objection? Let us suppose that the market were to be sited at the south end of the borough, let us say on Wandsworth Flats, where it might be more than six and two-thirds miles away. Is he saying that it would have so little effect compared with one sited at Ilford, which is four and three-quarters miles away, that that changes the whole picture? I do not believe that that is the case. What he is really saying is that a market in Redbridge, wherever it is, will have very little effect on this large, prosperous and thriving market in Romford where the sites go for a premium.

However, the Bill provides for 10 per cent, compensation to Havering. The noble Lord asked what the traders will get out of it. The answer is that, if the market suffers, if the traders find that indeed they lose custom —I shall not anticipate the evidence and suggest that that is fanciful, but it is fanciful —the rents that Havering should command would fall and the traders would be paying a lower rent for their premises. It would indeed be Havering that would have to have the compensation to make up to its community charge payers what it would have lost. But, as I say, I believe that that is fanciful.

That is the way that the traders would benefit. If they lose nothing, why should they receive any benefit? There is another answer. Most of the traders will be the same people. Many of the people who operate in the Romford market will wish to operate in the Redbridge market. I therefore believe that the argument about the traders is a little unreal.

Reference was made to a rash of Bills. Of course there have been some Bills. While the present common law remains in force and Section 50 of the Food Act 1984 does not override the charter rights, the correct course is that each case should be argued out on its merits each time through this procedure. That is precisely what the London Borough of Redbridge is doing. It has been done by others —the London Borough of Bexley, for example. The case is argued out. If serious damage would result and no proper compensation can be negotiated, the Bill can be thrown out. If not, it seems to me that it should go through.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I was waiting for the noble Lord to mention the magic name "Bexley" which he was kind enough to do before he finished. The committee that will consider this Bill will, I am sure, take careful note that the position with regard to Bexley is wholly different. At Bexley there was a complete agreement. There is no agreement in this case. The London Borough of Greenwich approved the Bexley Bill. The London Borough of Havering disapproves of the Redbridge Bill.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I understand that the councils of Havering and Greenwich took different views, as the noble Lord has correctly stated. But it cannot be an argument against this Bill that other promoters of new markets may bring forward proposals for markets, by private legislation. With respect, this House has to look at the Bill that is before it and examine the merits and demerits on their own without regard to what others may do on another occasion or in relation to a different part of the country. It is amply clear that the Bill must go to a Select Committee. I hope very much that the House will give it a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.