4 THE WAY FORWARD
23. Lord Whitty told us that he "would hope
that we could reach a conclusion on the future of the Covent Garden
site in less than five years".[29]
He said that the "key issue" was finding a partner to
provide sufficient capital to run the market at New Covent Garden
and fulfil the Government's commitment to sell it as a going concern.[30]
However, Lord Whitty went on to acknowledge that there were other
bodies with an interest in these negotiations. For example, the
London Borough of Wandsworth has responsibility for the planning
implications of any redevelopment of the site. Also, as part of
its response to the Saphir Report, the Greater London Authority
(GLA) said that the Report provided a useful initial overview
but "did not examine in depth the economics which underpin
the markets or take full account of the planning objectives that
will influence the future of the market sites".[31]
It suggests that the options need to be considered in the context
of the markets' wider strategic implications for the finalisation
of the London plan.
24. We recognise, as Mr Saphir suggested in his
evidence, that "this is a multi-dimensional problem".
We are therefore concerned that there is a lack of strategic 'grip'
of the complex issues surrounding the future of London wholesale
markets. We share the Greater London Authority's concern that
in taking a view on the future of the market sites, account needs
to be taken of other policy issues such as planning, transport
and employment. There appears to be little prospect of this happening.
The Saphir Report offered a way forward but, without Government
intervention, there now appears to be little prospect of implementation
of his main recommendations. The Corporation of London is exploring
options for Billingsgate and Smithfield, and the Government is
investigating solutions for the Nine Elms site with private developers.
There appears to be no strategic oversight of the implications
of these separate developments.
25. In addition to pursuing options with private
developers, the Government has announced that it plans to allow
the CGMA to diversify at New Covent Garden Market. The Government
does not plan to introduce legislation to amend or repeal the
prohibitions on London markets and will allow the courts to decide
on the interpretation of the current legal and other restrictions
on markets. Since the Agriculture Committee reported on the future
of Covent Garden market in 2001, the Government does not appear
to have reached a decision on the future of the market, it has
not withdrawn from control of the market and appears to have pulled
back from its commitment to introduce early legislation to enable
the privatisation of the market.[32]
26. We are very disappointed in the Government's
response to the Saphir Report. As the relevant body with the most
power and resources, we believe that the Government should now
start to assume some leadership on this issue. It is in a strong
position to bring all the relevant parties together and broker
an agreement on the way forward. We are disappointed that it has
failed to do this and is showing little intention of doing so.
In 2001, the Agriculture Committee concluded that the future of
New Covent Garden Market had been "left hanging". Unfortunately,
two years on the future remains equally unclear. We urge the Government
to set out its objectives for the future of New Covent Garden
Market, how it plans to realise these objectives and the timescale
within which each will be achieved. The recent history of New
Covent Garden Market has been one of delay and prevarication;
the consequences of continued delay threaten its existence.
29 Q 176 Back
30
Q 177 Back
31
GLA, Wholesale markets review - outline research programme,
para. 1 Back
32
Agriculture Committee, New Covent Garden Market, Eighth
Report HC 173-II 200-01 28 March 2001, Q 226, Q 115, Q 118 Back
|
