Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 120)
MONDAY 30 JUNE 2003
MR LEIF
MILLS CBE AND
DR MIKE
LIGGINS
Q100 Mr Mitchell: Lots of people
go into court radiating confidence.
Mr Mills: I am sure they do.
Q101 Chairman: Is this a showstopper
issue, the six and two-thirds miles? You are sitting there basking
now in the warm feeling that you can now go ahead and say, "We
can sell the unsellable" and, as we have heard before, the
see-you-in-court merchants are waiting behind you to challenge
this position under the status quo. Is this not just yet another
barrier to progress in trying to sort out the problems of New
Covent Garden?
Mr Mills: Obviously I very much
hope that the Corporation do not seek to go down the legal route,
it would be remunerative to lawyers and it would delay things.
The reality is that we want to proceed with extending the leases
of our existing traders and offering new leases to fish and meat
people who want to come. We want to make a reality of the one-stop
shop. I cannot conceive how any court of law can uphold the six
and two-thirds miles, which the Corporation has said has stood
the test of time, whatever that means. I cannot conceive that
we will benefit by not going ahead and being frightened by the
Corporation's threats of what they will do to us if we do.
Q102 Chairman: Just help me to understand
something because we have heard the views now of two organisations
who have very different perspectives on this matter. I do not
get the impression at the moment that we have heard a recipe for
positive resolution of the differences of opinion between the
way that you see the markets of London developing and the way
the Corporation see this. Certainly Mr Saphir had a clear vision
of that. Somehow we do not seem to be proceeding to the Saphir
solution. I almost get the sense that you are saying, "We
have had just enough from the Government that we could go it alone
perhaps with a little bit more encouragement over the use of the
asset, so we are prepared to do that". Is that what you are
going to do? Are you going to get your head down and go for it
on a survival basis and say, "Now the City have said they
are not prepared to invest, we think they should, but if they
will not we will go it alone"?
Mr Mills: It is partly that, yes,
but in an ideal world we would like the Saphir Report to be implemented.
I believe Hounslow want Western to be a composite market. I think
what Saphir recommended is the best solution.
Q103 Chairman: You may disagree with
this but the earlier evidence from the City said, "There
is a limited amount of wholesale business to be done in London,
so we think that it would be better to have a composite market
out at Spitalfields". You are saying, "No, if we had
enough flexibility we think there is enough business to go around
to enable our survival package, together with a bit of cash from
the general activities on site to keep us going". Is there
any thought that you might get round the table with the other
side and at least come to some kind of agreement as to what is
the market potential for London in all of the markets that you
are all involved in, because I am not getting a clear picture
as to what is the pool of business for which you are all competing?
Mr Mills: I think that is what
Nick Saphir actually did in his report.
Q104 Chairman: But you all disagree
with Mr Saphir. You look at what Mr Saphir's study does and then
everybody goes off and does their own thing again.
Mr Mills: We accept the Saphir
Report, our traders have accepted it and our union has accepted
it for Covent Garden, so we all accept it, but the reality is
that the Corporation does not accept it and significantly has
altered its view on the report. In that context, what can we do?
The answer is we have to pursue our own strategy towards building
up Covent Garden as a composite market.
Q105 Chairman: Really both sides
are going to go down guns blazing from what I can see.
Mr Mills: If I may put it this
way: we are trying to operate the capitalist system effectively
of a free market with no restrictions on trade and genuine competition;
the Corporation of London is not. As my friend, Brendan Barber
at the TUC, said, "We have got to save capitalism from the
capitalists".
Q106 Paddy Tipping: I am not sure
whether I can follow that.
Mr Mills: It is a bit stretched,
I accept that. The serious point is that I cannot see how the
Corporation's stance is compatible with effective competition
that benefits the consumer.
Q107 Paddy Tipping: Putting that
on one side, let us look at what is in your hands. Who are you
talking to and over what kind of timescale do you think you can
make things happen?
Mr Mills: As I said, we are talking
to about seven companies at the moment. I would hope by early
autumn we will get a clear picture as to whether any of them,
one or two or what number, want to pursue it seriously. That is
the time frame. Obviously I cannot tell you in open court, as
it were, the names of the companies we are talking to but there
are some significant players.
Q108 Paddy Tipping: But it depends
upon getting a partner to come along with you, redeveloping the
site. Who are you talking to about site redevelopment? Wandsworth?
The GLA?
Mr Mills: We have not talked about
it with the GLA as such, although we have had discussions with
a number of the Assembly Members and we have discussed it with
them informally. Wandsworth Council, yes, we have had some fairly
detailed informal discussions. As I said, if somebody can square
the circle of putting up the capital monies involved, guaranteeing
the future of the market and they make a profit from redeveloping
parts of the site, I think Wandsworth would be more than happy
and I would hope the Mayor's office would be more than happy.
The companies we are discussing the issue with are well aware
of the Mayor's policy of x% of affordable housing in any new residential
development.
Q109 Paddy Tipping: Talk to me about
the timescale on this then?
Mr Mills: We started discussions
at the beginning of last month. We are hoping that if they want
to pursue the matter further they will give a firm indication
that they might make a serious proposal to us by early autumn.
That is the timescale.
Q110 Paddy Tipping: What needs to
happen after that, you will get your planning permission? That
is not an easy process.
Mr Mills: We have got to do a
number of things. Wandsworth Council have got to get directly
involved. Obviously we will keep Defra informed and at the appropriate
stage they have got to be involved. At some stage—and I
say that advisedly—legislation is necessary but it does
not have to come at the beginning of the process, it can come
later on.
Q111 Paddy Tipping: Just remind me
what the legislation is?
Mr Mills: There are four Acts
of Parliament that govern us. The major one, the original one
in 1961 sets up the Market Authority and gives it ownership of
the site, and the subsequent Acts make that the Nine Elms site,
so that would have to be altered, and the financial limits on
our powers would have to be altered, but a lot of the actual work
and discussion with these property development companies could
take place before legislation.
Q112 Paddy Tipping: Who would bring
the legislation? Is this a Government Bill, a Defra Bill or Defra
suggestion?
Mr Mills: I would imagine it would
be a Government Bill.
Q113 Paddy Tipping: So this is wholly
dependent upon Defra saying, "We are going to take this on,
we can see a way forward, we are going drive it through"?
Mr Mills: Yes, I would put it
the other way, we do the donkey work and they push the legislation
through.
Q114 Paddy Tipping: And have you
got confidence in that Defra are really going to back you?
Mr Mills: Yes. The two gentlemen
with you know this extremely well but for ages Covent Garden has
posed a problem for government. I think we can see now a solution
for the benefit of all concerned and that is what we are trying
to go for.
Q115 Mr Mitchell: Perhaps I should
know the answer to this but last time we met and came out to the
market, which was fascinating—and I hope the Chairman will
take us again although I am not sure he will—you were all
on about fear of the congestion charge. What happened and what
bearing does the congestion charge have on the siting of some
central London market for the purposes of supplying London?
Mr Mills: The congestion charge
would not have any significant effect on our proposals for redevelopment
if somebody else took us over and redid parts of the site. It
would not have any effect on that because we are actually just
outside the zone.
Q116 Mr Mitchell: Stuff does not
go through the zone?
Mr Mills: Some stuff does, yes,
and the cost of that is either borne by our traders or passed
on to their customers. It is also borne by some of the workforce
who have to pay it to go back home through the zone. We have got
to be fair, GLA has done a week's survey last October of traffic
levels and is doing a similar one in October this year to measure
the impact and see if the congestion charge has affected that.
We are still very much pushing for exemption of market traffic
from the charge.
Q117 Mr Mitchell: So it is not all
over by the time the charge begins to apply in the morning?
Mr Mills: Not at all.
Q118 Mr Mitchell: You say: "We
see some realistic possibility of property development companies
acquiring the site and committing themselves to running the market
as an efficient and thriving market and accepting the capital
liability involved." If that happens, what is your role,
what do you do?
Mr Mills: I go into the sunset.
Q119 Mr Mitchell: Not you personally
but the Authority.
Mr Mills: The Board would have
no function but the general manager and the staff of the Authority
in my view, and the most realistic option, is that they would
be retained as the people who actually run the market.
Q120 Mr Mitchell: By the new effective
owners?
Mr Mills: Correct.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed. That has been an illuminating few minutes of your side
of the argument. We can now deliberate on that before we have
the opportunity of putting these views to the Government. May
I thank you for your written submissions and also for the written
submissions we have received from other witnesses; they have been
very helpful indeed. Thank you very much.
| 
