| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I take the hon. Gentleman's point ; indeed, it is in line with my feelings about the amendment, although I would feel differently if we were dealing with the broader issue. I feel that the proposal would be extremely unfair on Romford council, and on everyone trying to trade within the vicinity of the proposed shopping area.
Mr. O'Brien : There are other possibilities of unfairness. When we last debated the Bill, we were told that Redbridge council would not necessarily run the market, and that its operation might be taken over by a third party--a private individual. Is there not a danger that such an individual
Column 199
would seize the opportunity to exercise more unfairness in relation to the local shopping community and the neighbouring markets?Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. This is not the appropriate moment to pursue legislation that would gradually create wider powers for Sunday trading. I support the ultimate objective, but I do not support the steps that would be taken to get there if we were to use a creeping method, which would be one effect of passing the Bill. When we go into the Division Lobbies, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I will find ourselves in the usual position of being on the same side of this matter. As for the other amendments in this group, there is a proposal that the market should be allowed to be held on only one day a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch made that proposal. As I am of a much more generous disposition and spirit, I have proposed that the market should be allowed to be held on two days a week--if Redbridge is to be allowed to have it at all, to which I have objected throughout.
It must be wrong that the Redbridge market should be open for the whole week. That is asking a great deal of hon. Members. I referred to that point on Second Reading, and I have heard nothing in the meantime to make me change my opinion. On that occasion, I referred to the fact that not many hon. Members were present, and few hon. Members are here now. Therefore, the point bears repeating so that it reaches a slightly wider audience.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and for Ilford, South propose that there should be 80 stalls a day, on six days a week. That would provide Redbridge with an enormous number of stallholders. I do not recall having heard or read anything about the number of stallholders who would have a stall for six days a week, or about how many different stallholders would have a stall for one day a week. We should probably find that as many stallholders were occupying their stalls as those who are occupying the Romford stalls on a day-stall basis. That proposal would pose a great threat to the Romford market.
Times have changed. People have no difficulty in getting to a market. The legislation was drafted on the basis that it was extremely difficult in the old days to travel by horse or by foot to market. Most people travelled by foot to market because only the comparatively rich could travel to market by horse. The reason for the six-and-two-thirds-mile-limit was precisely the need to protect traders within an area where one could easily travel to market.
Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point) : Within one day.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Yes, within one day, as my right hon. Friend reminds me.
It is now possible to travel many miles within a day. Our wives get into the car and travel long distances to a sale where they wish to buy something, or to a shop that stocks an article that they want to buy. The need, therefore, for two markets in the area has not been established.
As for the point that is raised by the amendment, would it be right for one of the markets to be open six days a week
Column 200
so that housewives in exactly the same catchment area of the two markets would be able to go to one of the markets six days a week?Mr. Harry Barnes : One also has to consider the traders. As the hon. Gentleman said, people no longer walk to market, but saturation point must be reached when it comes to those who want to be involved in trading.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. If the market were open for six days a week, it would pose a substantial threat to the Romford market and to all those who are trading in the area.
The Romford market is open on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. On Mondays and Tuesdays, many of the people who normally come to Romford to do their shopping in the market do not go shopping in order to preserve Romford market's trading position on Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South wants the market to be open in direct competition with mine, on the days on which mine is open. He also wants it to be open on the first two days of the week, when mine is not open. The House ought not to grant powers of that kind. It would contravene statutory rights and historic common law rights that have been preserved for centuries.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would explain why he thinks that it is necessary for Redbridge to have that six-day right, whereas we have been content for a very long time with the three days that we enjoy at the moment. I should also like him to explain what the consequences will be for Romford. There is certainly not room for both of us, according to the timing proposed by my hon. Friend. If such a power is granted, we shall disregard what the powers that have run this country for a thousand years have said is right. Furthermore, we shall disregard what has always been protected by statute and what the House has always laid down in the past. Against the will of the council that is the recipient of these ancient rights, direct competition would be allowed within its restricted area of six and two thirds miles.
I am sad that there are so many empty Benches. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said earlier, this does not affect just Redbridge and Romford : it affects the whole community. There are 284 markets. Will the precedent that we are proposing to set, if the Bill is given a Second Reading and duly passes its Third Reading on another day, be disregarded? Shall we be the only market that is affected by the Bill?
I suggest that that will not happen. The Bill will be used as a precedent. There will be an unstoppable flood of hon. Members coming to the House and taking up a vast amount of parliamentary time on similar Bills. It would be neither right nor proper to have to deal with 284 applications such as this one during the next heaven knows how many years, nor would it be right for this House to be asked to change the general law and to abolish market rights that we have enjoyed for so long.
Mr. Barnes : In the 17th century, the tradition was to introduce Bills of this type. In later times, general legislation was introduced ; the law was consolidated. For example, local enclosure measures were followed by a general Enclosure Act. After several Bills relating to markets had been passed, it might be thought that the law ought to be consolidated and there would be general legislation.
Column 201
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : That is a very good point. It is not right that changes of great magnitude should be made in this way. Redbridge has introduced this measure because of its parochial and self-centred desire to get itself a market, in contravention of all history and tradition. That is not the right way to go about it. If a change is to be made which will have national consequences, we ought to introduce legislation to cover all markets. Then it would be not only my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and for Romsey and Waterside and I who would be deeply concerned about the results of the legislation : all my hon. Friends who have markets in their constituencies would come here to support us. I believe that such a proposal, with the assistance of many Opposition Members, would be defeated.Mr. Barnes : My reason for taking part in the debate is that Chesterfield market is almost exactly six and two thirds miles from Dronfield, my own town, which is in the neighbouring constituency. 8 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : It is a great relief that the hon. Gentleman is supporting me. As a consequence of what happens tonight, Dronfield might decide to set up a market, although I am sure that the people of Dronfield would be much too sensible to do that, because in that part of the country, as in my own, there is demonstrably not room for two such markets, let alone three, in such a confined space. I remind the House of what I said about Barking and Dagenham. If they wish to set up a market, we will come back here and go through precisely the same procedure all over again. On that occasion, Romford would have about the same chance of winning a vote as we do tonight, because it is piecemeal legislation, involving one local borough against another, and I am afraid it has not commanded as much attention as it should.
I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot take a robust view. That is most undesirable, and certainly not in line with the Government's wish to preserve markets in such a way that they can remain profitable and effective. I know that it is not the wish of a Conservative Government to change without good reason rights which have been enjoyed for 1,000 years.
I hope that I have made the points that I wish to make on the three amendments. I am not quite clear whether we shall have one or three votes, but clearly the amendments require individual attention. It might be greatly to the advantage of the House if we were to divide on each of them, but that is a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Neil Thorne : (Ilford, South) : I shall try to deal with the points as they arose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said that the 300 stallholders had an average of two stalls each, making a total of 600, and that there was no waiting list. I found that rather surprising because on a previous occasion I said that Redbridge had had 250 applications for the 80 stalls. If stallholders were to have two stalls each, there would be only 40 possible opportunities. That would suggest that a number of stallholders in Romford believe that they could profitably
Column 202
have a stall in the Redbridge market, too, and therefore have confidence in a demand which others have suggested does not exist.Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Is not my hon. Friend ignoring the fact that it is well known that Redbridge market is seeking the right to remain open for six days a week? It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest that market traders would be in Romford for our three days and in his constituency for the other three days. It is much more likely that they would decide to set up their stalls for six days in the same place rather than to-ing and fro- ing. That would make a great deal of economic sense and is one reason why I oppose him so strongly.
Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend does not understand market traders as well as I thought he did. If he did, he would appreciate that market traders normally work as a family and that the father, mother, daughters and sons are usually in the business together. They are likely to have a stall in Bexley on the same day as they have a stall in Romford, and it is very likely that they will want a stall at Ilford on the same day. So I do not think that there is likely to be any such conflict. They are unlikely to move into Redbridge and ignore Romford. Romford is a substantial, well- established and viable market with 600 stalls and an established clientele which I do not think will be affected in any way by an 80-stall market at Ilford.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I understand market traders well enough to know that none of their families are sitting on their backsides waiting for the legislation to go through the House. It is nonsense to say, as my hon. Friend suggests, that they are unoccupied at the moment. Of course, Romford is a well-established, successful and thriving market. That is because it has enjoyed statutory protection for nearly 1,000 years. My hon. Friend is trying to destroy that success and stability and that is why he is wrong.
Mr. Thorne : As I said on a previous occasion, I do not under any circumstances agree that a market of 80 stalls can possibly undermine a 600 -stall market at Romford. I have visited Romford market for more years than I care to remember and I shall continue to do so. I believe that the matter of a small market in Ilford is purely coincidental, so I do not think that my hon. Friend makes a relevant point.
Mr. Squire : None the less, it is worth recording that if it were merely coincidental, the question of compensation would not have been discussed or put into the Bill. That is a recognition that it is more than coincidental. Obviously, my hon. Friend is making the case for the Bill, but even he would accept that.
Mr. Thorne : I said to my hon. Friend previously that I accepted the compensation provisions purely and simply because the Opposed Bills Committee which considered the matter in considerable detail, on the advice of counsel appointed by the respective councils, reached that conclusion. That was not my view. I felt that it was extremely generous and unnecessary, particularly as on only two days in the week would there be any conflict between what Havering does at Romford market and what Redbridge wishes to do.
Mr. Bendall : Does my hon. Friend agree that the many markets in east London which are very close together all do exceptionally well and that there is no deterioration of business in any of them?
Column 203
Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend makes a good point. The number of markets encourages people to use them. I believe that when people have successfully visited some of the stalls in Ilford market, they will be more ambitious and will see what the 600 stalls in Romford market have to offer. I have every confidence that within a year or two of the passing of the Bill, by the will of the House, both markets will be thriving even more than now. That is my honest belief.I am informed that no protection is sought for Redbridge market, so it is unlikely that a six and two thirds mile limit will be relevant. The calculation of compensation was dealt with on a previous occasion.
Mr. O'Brien : Compensation was decided on the understanding that the market would operate six days a week. Do not proposals for Sunday trading alter the formula for assessing compensation?
Mr. Thorne : I think not, because the proposal of the Opposed Bills Committee would still apply. That measure was not sought by the London borough of Redbridge. Redbridge has been most diligent in applying the Shops Act 1950 and insisting that shops shall not trade on Sunday. It has been far more diligent in enforcing the law in that regard than any other authority in the neighbourhood. There is no reason to suppose that the borough would agree to allow Sunday trading in the market in advance of a decision to the contrary by the House. Any question of letting the land to another operator would be on the condition that it were not used in that way. There is no question but that the authority did not apply for Sunday trading. If the House wishes to give that right, it will be accepted but not used.
Mr. O'Brien : I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said that amendment No. 2 is an enabling amendment. If the constitution of the council changed after an election, it could use the amendment to allow Sunday trading, although the present council opposes it. Is not there a danger that the amendment may lead to the principles and policies of the council being ignored or disregarded? I suggest that we should reject amendment No. 2 to ensure that the council's principles are adhered to.
Mr. Thorne : I should be happy if all three amendments were rejected. Amendment No. 2 would enable the council to hold a market on Sunday. The council has been Conservative-controlled for the past 25 years, but if it were to change another political party might decide differently.
Mr. Bendall : Such a change could not be made if the premises, property or land on which the market will be situated were let and there was a clear clause in the contract not permitting Sunday trading.
Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend is right. I assume that tenants may apply for a waiver if they wish. If the landlord agreed to a waiver, there could be Sunday trading. But I am not asking the House to pass the amendment any more than I am asking it to pass the other two. If the House decides to give the authority such a power, it will accept it but not use it.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked about prohibition, but that was not requested.
Column 204
It has been suggested that the Bill is likely to lead to a stampede for waivers for markets. The private Bill procedure is expensive and takes a long time. Authorities are not likely to rush into it unless they are convinced that it is the right thing to do.Hon. Members asked how many constituencies are likely to be affected by the Bill. My constituency does not stretch six and two thirds miles in any direction. In large constituencies the distance between markets would not be a problem because they would probably be under the same local authority. It is wrong to suggest that 284 charter markets are likely to be adversely affected by the Bill.
Mr. Bendall : When the original limit of six and two thirds miles was set, London had not spread out to the extent that it has now, which is obviously why that limit was set in those days.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East raised the question of union interests in shops. Norwich Union and Prudential are developing a substantial shopping mall in my constituency. They believe that a street market would help the promotion of the centre. Far from detracting from the interests of shop workers, it would enhance their numbers and their pay bargaining opportunities. I have no doubt that the proposed market would benefit workers in Ilford.
8.15 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes : The hon. Gentleman is saying that the market would be generally beneficial to the area, but I assume that it would not operate on Sundays.
Mr. Thorne : That is right. Sunday trading in the market would be unfair to the other shops in the area, and the council would not grant permission for it. Moreover, I am certain that it would stipulate in the lease that the market could not open on Sundays. As I said before, I shall not ask the House to vote for any of the three amendments.
I was asked several technical questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). Those issues would be dealt with in exactly the same way as his authority deals with technical matters relating to Romford market. There is no intention to require anything different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made considerable play of the fact that it has been requested that the market should open six days a week. It is clear that market traders would use the market only as and when they wanted to, and there is nothing to prevent his authority from opening its market on Monday, Tuesday or Thursday as well as Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. Redbridge would not object to it doing so.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : My hon. Friend has fallen into a trap. My authority would not wish the market to open on those days because there is insufficient room for it to trade.
Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend does not appreciate that if there is no demand there is no question of forcing street traders to trade on those days. If they wish to take a stall at Ilford market on another day they can do so, just as they could in Romford market. If there is no demand, the market will not open.
Column 205
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : If there is no demand, my hon. Friend's local authority will discover that its market does not work, but in so discovering it will have destroyed Romford market.Mr. Thorne : I cannot in any circumstances accept that Romford market, which has 600 stalls and which is extremely well run and viable, will be affected by a market five and a half miles away with a maximum of 80 stalls. It is not sensible to make such a suggestion. If anyone will suffer, Ilford market will suffer most and more immediately. The council would not proceed with the market if it were not viable. It would therefore have wasted its money obtaining the Act of Parliament to give it permission for the market. I am not so despondent, because I believe that Redbridge and Havering markets will be successful. In three years' time, both will be extremely viable and well run.
Mr. Harry Barnes : The hon. Gentleman said that the council would not pursue the market if it were not viable, but having given such a commitment and having sponsored the Bill, it may give the benefit of the doubt to the market being viable in the future. The act of seeking the legislation will influence its attitude in the future.
Mr. Thorne : The hon. Gentleman said that the local authority might find that the market was not running economically. However, the district auditor would have something to say if the London borough of Redbridge started to try to run an unviable market. The London borough of Redbridge is an extremely cautious and careful authority. It manages its street markets well and does not enter into enterprises that it thinks will be unviable in the first place. If it were later to find an enterprise unviable, it would not subsidise it to give an unfair advantage to its market over another. In those circumstances, I hope that the House will decide to reject all three amendments.
Mr. Squire : I sense that the House wishes to move to a Division and I do not want to detain it long. I have listened--as ever--carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). The position with the Bill is rather as it is with much legislation in this Chamber. My hon. Friend cannot say that he is certain what the outcome will be, any more than the rest of us can. It seems logical that it will, more likely than not, lead to similar legislation coming before us. That seems to be the nature of things, but I do not want to go over the arguments again.
I noted my hon. Friend's comments on the wording of amendment No. 2 and, in the circumstances, I recognise that it might make little difference were it put to the vote. I also realise that I may be missing a few of the 400 hon. Members whom I mentioned earlier as taking part in such a Division.
As the central issue for those resisting the Bill is that Havering is being asked to give a compulsory licence in perpetuity to grant another market rights in competition, we shall seek to divide the House on amendment No. 3 --subject to your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker--which seeks to limit the operation of that market. Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed : No. 3, in page 2, line 18, at end insert save that the market shall not be held on more than two days a week'.-- [Mr. Squire.]
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 44, Noes 77.
Column 206
Division No. 98] [8.22 pmAYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barron, Kevin
Bermingham, Gerald
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Buchan, Norman
Burt, Alistair
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Dalyell, Tam
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Dixon, Don
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Durant, Tony
Eastham, Ken
Flynn, Paul
Gill, Christopher
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Haynes, Frank
Hinchliffe, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Meale, Alan
Miller, Sir Hal
Mullin, Chris
Neubert, Michael
O'Brien, William
Pike, Peter L.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Skinner, Dennis
Spearing, Nigel
Squire, Robin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wells, Bowen
Widdecombe, Ann
Wigley, Dafydd
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Harry Barnes and
Sir Nicholas Bonsor.
NOES
Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert
Arbuthnot, James
Aspinwall, Jack
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Browne, John (Winchester)
Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carttiss, Michael
Chapman, Sydney
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Dorrell, Stephen
Emery, Sir Peter
Evennett, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Franks, Cecil
Fry, Peter
Gow, Ian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Hague, William
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Harris, David
Hayes, Jerry
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Irvine, Michael
Jack, Michael
Janman, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Kilfedder, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy
Knapman, Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Lightbown, David
Lord, Michael
Maclean, David
Mans, Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Monro, Sir Hector
Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Moss, Malcolm
Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Oppenheim, Phillip
Paice, James
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Riddick, Graham
Ryder, Richard
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Summerson, Hugo
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Thorne, Neil
Thurnham, Peter
Tredinnick, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wheeler, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. David Amess and
Mr. Tim Boswell.
Question accordingly negatived.
| Next Section
| Home Page |