Government response
Introduction
1. The Government welcomes the decision of the
Committee to follow up the work of the Agriculture Committee in
2001 and examine developments in the light of the Saphir report.
2. The Government's response to the Saphir report
was published on 20 June. As the response makes clear, Defra is
happy to work with others to take forward common interests on
a common strategy for all the London markets. However, in the
absence of agreement between the market owners on a way forward
the Department's first responsibility is for the Covent Garden
Market Authority, which Defra sponsors. We agree with the Committee
that it is important to develop clear plans for the future of
New Covent Garden Market and to resolve uncertainties which have
affected the market for too long.
3. But the future of the market is a complex
issue. It needs flexibility to change in line with the needs of
its users and the Authority is looking for large sums of money
to fund repairs and improvements. Investment of this kind must
be properly justified by the future returns from the activities
which it is provided to support. And replacing the Authority with
a managing organisation more suited to the future envisaged in
the Saphir report requires careful preparation.
4. This response takes the Committees conclusions
and recommendations (in bold type below) and addresses each of
them in order.
Recommendation 1
It is clear that the original reasons
for Government involvement in Covent Garden Market have long ceased
to be relevant. We believe that it is no longer appropriate for
the Government to be involved in the ownership and management
of a wholesale food market.
5. The Government agrees with this conclusion,
and we are exploring options to divest ourselves of involvement
in the Market. However, we should make it clear that the Government
does not own or manage New Covent Garden Market. The assets of
the Market are vested in the Covent Garden Market Authority. The
Government's role is, in the main, to appoint the Authority Chairman
and Members and ensure that the Authority complies with the provisions
of the Covent Garden Market Acts.
Recommendation 2
We welcome the decision of the Government
and the Corporation of London to commission a review of London
Markets in line with the recommendation made by the Agriculture
Committee in 2001. We also welcome Mr Saphir's Report and the
clear conclusion that it draws on the way that a secure future
for London's wholesale markets can be achieved.
6. The Government also welcomed the clear conclusions
and recommendations of the Saphir Report and their acceptance
by the Authority. We were disappointed by the Corporation's rejection
of the main recommendations but we are continuing to work towards
a solution for the future of New Covent Garden Market.
Recommendation 3
We agree that London's wholesale markets
should not be allowed to drift into decline. We suggest that there
is a significant risk of this happening as a result of the failure
on the part of the Corporation of London and the Covent Garden
Market Authority to reach an agreement over the future of New
Covent Garden Market. We are also disappointed that, despite the
fact that the Saphir review has been published and recommends
a coherent way forward, stallholders and employees at London's
wholesale markets continue to face an apparently indefinite period
of uncertainty.
7. The Government agrees that London's
wholesale markets should not be allowed to drift into decline.
As we said in the Written Ministerial Statement of 20 June 2003,
it is for the market owners to plan for the future of each market
in consultation with the relevant local authorities, the Greater
London Authority, the London Development Agency and other stakeholders.
We have stated our willingness to play our part in this process
and are working towards resolution of the future of New Covent
Garden Market.
Recommendation 4
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.
8. The Government has made its position
clear. It is for the market owners to determine the scope of future
investment and development in response to market stimuli. Proposals
from market owners will necessarily be considered by planning
authorities, including the Greater London Authority, in the normal
course of events.
Recommendation 5
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 timescales
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.
9. The Government does not consider
that the role proposed for it by the Committee is appropriate
for central Government. Defra's priority in this area is to develop
its strategy for disengagement from New Covent Garden Market in
keeping with the Committee's view that its continued involvement
is no longer appropriate. We have however also taken the view
that there should continue to be a wholesale market operating
on the site. We are currently looking at possible opportunities
for the future development of the Market site, both in the interests
of the market itself and for additional uses. Once these investigations
have been completed we will be in a position to announce the direction
we see for the future of this Market.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
9 December 2003
| 
