City of London (Markets) Bill

Tuesday 23rd June 2026

(began 3 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:29
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I. AM chairing today's opposed Bill Committee with me on the committee today are Edward Argar. Alex Barros Curtis and Jenny Riddle Carpenter. We are here to consider the City of London Markets Bill, which was deposited in Parliament in November 2024 and introduced into the House of Commons in January 2025. The Bill received its second reading in January 2025, following consideration by the Court of Referees in April 2025. Certain signatories to a petition against the Bill, Makhdoom Foods, PM, Prime Fish and L, a fishmonger, were found to have a right to be heard on their petition.

And it is this petition that we will be hearing today. The petitioners are represented here today by Mr. Chaudhry Sahab Amjad, the promoter of the Bill. The City of London Corporation is represented here by Paul Wright, City Remembrancer and parliamentary agent for the bill, Richard Tierney KC, Kimberley Zia and Paul Double. We will first hear from Mr. Tierney, who will make representations in support of the Bill on behalf of the promoter, members of the Committee may ask questions at any time. The promoters evidence bundle will be uploaded to the Parliament website after this session, I will remind the parties before us today that except when examining a witness, they should not directly question each other, but should instead direct and address their remarks to the chair and the Committee.

We intend to sit until 12:30 p.m. and then again from two this afternoon until 5:00 at the latest. Should we not conclude proceedings today?We will resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow. I would like to acknowledge the weather and the heat that everybody is experiencing. And so please do feel free to take off your jackets if you so wish. And if the weather does become unbearable, we can temporarily suspend proceedings if necessary. And I will now hand over to Mr.

Tierney. Thank you.
10:32
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Good morning, chair. I'm going to start by making some opening remarks in support of the bill. As you've kindly observed, I appear on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, along with my learned friend Marzia, who sits to my left. Mr. double is the promoter of the bill, and Mr. Wright is the city remembrancer, the legal representative of the city. So the Smithfield and Billingsgate markets provide a place for trade in meat and fish to London and beyond. There is almost universal acceptance that the sites are no longer fit for purpose.

And whilst both sentiment and habit make these decisions difficult, the traders and the corporation, which is the market authority, the landlord and the landowner of Smithfield, and in part of Billingsgate, have recognised for some years the practical reality that these markets cannot continue where they are at Smithfield. The modern meat trade is neither suited to the building nor to the surrounding road network. Businesses supplied by heavy goods vehicles sit in the heart of a modern city. Billingsgate is a site which has always been a compromise and simply does not provide the cold chain environment in which the modern trade in fish is carried out.

Sites have huge potential for economic and social regeneration. A new cultural quarter is already emerging at Smithfield through the arrival of the London Museum in the poultry market. Buildings, with the remainder of the market. This can form a destination in the City of London for Londoners and for visitors, which celebrates the history of the site but reinvigorates it for future use at billing. Gate. A substantial contribution to London's housing needs can be made through new, well-connected housing, including affordable family homes in a place of acute need on the edge of the nation's most dynamic employment markets, both developments will deliver significant environmental improvements.

The traders at both markets want to continue their trade elsewhere. Over many years of engagement. It is now agreed between the Corporation of the City of London and the traders that the corporation will no longer be the market operator. A comprehensive move to a site embarking ultimately failed because it was neither affordable nor the right solution. However, through its financial and practical support, the corporation is assisting the traders to deliver a project that they do want, which is a new site for co-located markets at Albert Island.

This bill is a critical stage on the route to delivering the project. Only Parliament can remove the market restrictions on the current sites unless the market restrictions are removed. There is no scope for the sites to be released for their intended uses. If the sites cannot be released for those uses, then the corporation cannot pay for the surrender of the market leases and the funding for the move falls away. The new site cannot sensibly be built without the certainty that the traders will move, and the markets on the existing sites brought to an end.

That is the why, but also the why. Now the Bill must be enacted to push forward the process of the move, unless there is certainty that the sites will be vacated and the market restrictions will be removed, the benefits to all of this process will be put at risk. The position of the traders here is critical. The Bill does not seek to evict them. Rather, it seeks to give effect to the collective agreements that have been reached with them, that they will move away from the current sites.

Put simply, the markets will only cease on a date after the date when they have agreed to vacate the. Committee will note that they are here to speak in favour of the Bill and not against it. Any change of this scale will require adaptation and. The petitioners are. One group which will need to adapt. However, they will be able to continue to buy fish from the Billingsgate traders from a new site. The Corporation has carefully considered their position, including through commissioning an expert assessment, and there is no reason to think that their businesses at Ridley Road will be undermined by the change.

The focus of the complaint is the transition between the existing Billingsgate market and the new accommodation for the Billingsgate fish trade. The bill is purposefully not drafted, with an open ended commitment to keep open the existing sites. That does not reflect what has been agreed with the traders, or with the need for certainty for the scheme to proceed. However, in fixing the date when the markets will cease, the corporation is committed to supporting the traders, ensuring food security and working with key stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition and to emphasise it can only appoint a day for the cessation of the markets which accords with that which has been agreed with the traders.

The amendment The petitioners now request to the Bill is unacceptable to the corporation. It would undermine the financial arrangements between the corporation and the market traders, and it would hinder the move to the new site by preventing the process of removing market restrictions until a later date, it would seek to rewrite what has been agreed to be the best way to give effect to the move, and for those reasons, the promoters position is the Bill should not be amended in the way suggested or at all. It is a critical stage on the route to delivering a strong future for both the meat and fish traders at the current sites and for the sites themselves.

And so, chair, I'm proposing to call. A total of five witnesses to speak on the bill. Firstly, Mr. Chris Bonner, who is the director of the programme, then Sharon Ament, who is the director of the London Museum. Who is a consultant engaged by the corporation who's been directly involved in the negotiations that have led us to this point. And then two representatives of the existing traders, Greg Lawrence, from the Smithfield Market Traders Association and Mike Eglin from the London Fish Traders.

So those are the five witnesses. And if you are happy for me to proceed, I will call Mr. Bonner.
10:38
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Yes.
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:40
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Of course. So um hello, Chris Bonner. I began working for the City of London Corporation back in 2018 as a consultant on their then markets co-location programme. So I guess I've been closely involved with the project since its very earliest conception. Um, I'm now the director of Regeneration development, which is responsible for what the existing sites will be in the future, but also supporting the traders in their transition to a new site at Albert Island before joining the corporation as a transport for London for over a decade, working in infrastructure projects.

And I'm currently the chair of Urban Design Learning, a voluntary role. Go back to the beginning from the very early stages of the markets co-location programme, it had become clear that Smithfield and Billingsgate, at least in their current forms, were no longer fit for purpose as modern wholesale food markets. At Smithfield, we're actually dealing with purpose built buildings, but they were built in the 1860s. The east and West market buildings are on page 40, so I'm going to refer to only pack one. So on page 42 and 43, um, our grade two star listed and the rotunda, which actually gives access down to the car park is grade two listed.

Now, as you can see from the pictures, whilst these are architecturally magnificent pieces of Victorian infrastructure, their configuration fundamentally limits modern operations. There are severe constraints on vehicle access servicing, refrigeration infrastructure and space for technological upgrades. In short, trader growth is constrained by the buildings themselves. In some cases, trading now spills out onto the curtilage of the building and actually onto Grand Avenue. So a public thoroughfare that bisects the buildings, which actually leads to both safety and hygiene risks. Ultimately, the volume of vans and heavy goods vehicles that are attempting to enter and exit this central London location just no longer is sustainable and is actually having a detrimental impact on inner London's air quality.

External expert studies commissioned in 2021 concluded that to modernize Smithfield properly would require the traders to decant somewhere else for several years, and then the cost of modernising the property would run into the hundreds of millions. In 2024 prices, nearly 400 million. Even then, the buildings would remain constrained by their listed status and by the surrounding street network that is beginning to close in around them. Billingsgate on. So I'd go to page 89. Billingsgate. Whilst newer presents different but equally significant problems dating back from the 1980s, it lacks the chilled community infrastructure now required by modern fish markets.

Traders rely heavily on ice rather than ambient temperature control, making compliance with modern chilled chain very difficult. The site is also. Well, yes. From this slide you can see the site is also very spatially constrained, bounded by major infrastructure and impacted by restricted trading hours. Studies done at the same time as the Smithfield ones are referred to earlier on, determined that it was potentially possible to actually build a new market on the existing site, but it would come at a considerable cost of about 250 million.

In 2018, the corporation purchased Barking Reach, which you've probably heard of as a potential solution to this problem. However, by 2024, it became clear that the site would not deliver viable long term futures for the traders. Construction costs had escalated dramatically due to industry wide pressures, in part caused by the war in Ukraine. Traders raised justified concerns over access, road capacity and connectivity, with an already overheated part of the A13, a detailed. Independent economic assessment by Deloitte and CBRE at the time concluded that, unfortunately, Barking Reach was no longer viable at this.

Point, the programme had actually escalated to about £1 billion, at least half of which was not funded. At the same time, relationships between the corporation the traders had deteriorated, with many of the traders expressing that they no longer wished the corporation to be their landlord, at least at a new location. At this point, independent expert Theresa Grant was appointed to consider the optimal way forward for all parties. You will hear from her later, but her clear recommendation was that the market should be democratised and that traders should become masters of their own destinies.

Taken together and in full agreement with both sets of traders, these conclusions led the corporation in November 2024 to end the market's co-location programme. Agree a compensation package and deposit this bill. Once that decision was taken, the corporation undertook extensive communication. This included press notices, national and specialist media briefings and direct engagement with traders and their representative bodies. Despite. No longer intending to be the long term operator or landlord of the future market, the Corporation has continued to provide intensive, practical support.

Dedicated teams including myself, commercial property specialists in a range of external advisers, are working directly with both trader associations. Through this process, it became clear that a new market did not need to replicate the scale of barking reach. A modern footprint. Better designed could facilitate current and future demand a lot more efficiently. Furthermore, traders have reflected on their operational requirements to build in future flexibility to address potential obsolescence that was faced at Barking Reach after a. Site search involving privately owned land, London boroughs and the Greater London Authority.

Albert Island in the Royal Docks was identified. Uh, could you go to page 32?The circa 27 acre site is owned by GLA Land and property G lab, which has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Corporation and granted the traders exclusivity to bring forward a scheme they've. Traded bodies, responded positively and arranged site visits almost immediately. I think that's really important that the actual end occupiers were both enthused and understood the potential of this particular site. Site actually benefits from outline planning consent for industrial use, providing quite a strong precedent and the new scheme actually slots into the limits of the existing one.

The GLA is also appointed a dedicated office alongside the ones I mentioned earlier on, and commercial advisors and the London Borough of Newham, who will be the host borough, effectively have expressed strong support, including a letter from their recently elected executive mayor. Following pre-market engagement with developers investors, which is actually generated considerable interest process, a process is now underway to appoint an experienced development partner that can deliver new Smithfield and new Billingsgate on this location. Will remain in public sector ownership. The GLA retaining the freehold and working with the corporation to put legal controls in place to ensure a wholesale market is delivered and continues to operate on this particular site.

Subject to those arrangements, traders also have the opportunity to co-invest in the site as I understand it, but I'm sure you can ask them. Traders are actually genuinely excited about having some skin in the game, and to expand even more to provide more to the London supply chain. Given the scale of investment required, public sector bodies alone no longer have the resources to deliver wholesale markets, as demonstrated by the sheer costs of actually modernising the sites at their existing locations. In my opinion, the best way to future proof these markets for the next century is through significant private sector investment at a new location for which there is clear developer appetite, subject to the democratisation process.

The traders who are relocating have demonstrated firm commitment by agreeing to enter into a 30 year pre-leasing agreements, effectively an early lease and to put significant funds towards fitting out the new premises. In the meantime, the corporation is continuing to meet the costs of appointing that development partner on their behalf. The overall programme is intended to run through to 2029, with the markets fully fitted out and operational at that point. However, progress at pace is dependent on Royal assent to the Bill, which we've assumed will be achieved by mid 2027 and until then, work is understandably being taken at risk.

In terms of the actual trader commitment at Billingsgate, 65% of traders, which represent about 90% of the overall turnover, have committed to relocating together to a new site, although not moving. The reasons are quite varied. Some are relocating elsewhere within the M25, some are selling their businesses, possibly to the moving traders, and a small number remain undecided. Over a total of 48 businesses, 31 are moving to Albert Island at. Smithfield, 25 of the 26 businesses are moving to Albert Island, with the remaining business continuing to trade elsewhere in London.

This means that 100% of the current Smithfield trade will continue to operate. I have reviewed the petitioners proposal to restrict the corporation's ability to set the appointed day into a new facility is ready and to provide a further 150 million in compensation to traders relocating to a replacement market. In my view, these proposals are not workable and they're certainly not affordable. They would undermine a complex position that has been carefully negotiated over several years, including collective agreements with wholesale traders, which are our best opportunity to protect London's food security.

Securing. Surrenders ahead of parliament was essential to maintaining a balanced business case, enabling the delivery of new homes at Billingsgate and cultural amenities at Smithfield, while providing the development community with the certainty of vacant possession required to unlock significant private sector investment. Actually for both for Albert Island, but also for the future of the existing sites. Vacant possession is scheduled to be delivered within 24 months of Royal Assent. That's up to. Obviously, if the island is delivered before then, they can go before.

Whilst that has always been the case at Billingsgate, sorry. At Smithfield, a recent collective agreement with Billingsgate traders aligns their timeline from eight months to 24 months. That was important because on our own estimation, that is when Albert Island will be delivered. Corporation remains committed to a smooth transition and to. And to avoiding any gap in market provision. Crucially, it has agreed that if the new market is not going to be ready, not that we anticipate that when vacant possession falls due, all parties will return to the table to agree a solution, just like we have done in the case of Billingsgate, which will be necessary given the existing agreements that are in place.

These measures directly address the substantive concern, namely, the risk of a service gap. By contrast, the petitioner's proposals would jeopardise the public benefits and probably risk the collapse of the whole project in all circumstances. This is likely to lead to the gradual decline of the markets over, say, the next decade. Given the difficulties of the current locations as outlined, but also the complexities of securing a collective agreement on the programme. Just a tiny bit on the existing sites. Smithfield now sits at the heart of London's most significant regeneration areas between the Barbican, the London Museum and then down to Saint Paul's.

Where we go to slide 45. Adaptive reuse of the east and west market buildings will complement the London Museum, moving next door, hopefully by the 28th of November this year, and unlock enormous public benefit. New public realm, cultural and creative spaces and potentially food led activity. Reflecting the site's heritage. It's estimated this could attract around 1.5 million visitors every year and around 600 jobs. Gate on slide 85 is slightly different because the sits. The site sits outside of the corporation.

Its redevelopment will actually be guided by the London borough of Tower Hamlets Local plan. Yeah, thanks. With heritage considerations um, playing less of a role than compared to Smithfield, the site sits at the boundary between Canary Wharf and Poplar, an area marked by quite stark socioeconomic contrasts and is currently significantly underdeveloped for a site of this strategic location, there's actually quite a rare opportunity to use the site to help bridge those divides and actually physically, by putting a bridge over Aspen Way, which is the main road that bisects the two sites, two areas, but also working with Tower Hamlets to deliver proposals for up to 4000 new homes, many of which will be affordable, many of which will be family sized homes.

Because of the size of this site, it's about 14 acres, and actually the density of the site is in a tall building zone. It will generate around 14,500 new jobs. Finally, to address. Concerns about food security, the corporation commissioned independent analysis by artefact, a global data in R consultancy specialising in evidence based research and stakeholder engagement. Artifacts. Work informed by extensive engagement with traders, suppliers and customers, found that none of the trade from Smithfield Billingsgate supplies supermarkets, which dominate household consumption and operate entirely outside of market supply chains.

The analysis also identified a wide and resilient network of alternative supply routes already in use, including established wholesalers based in Brixton and Rainham, alongside delivery led from further places from further afield, including the West Midlands. Farmers and suppliers anticipated little disruption due to established delivery models and the majority of trade actually happening, not on the site itself. It happens offsite about 80 to 85%. In addition to being able to deliver directly to customers, the new location at Albert Island is conveniently located close to the existing sites, allowing for continuity, continuity of service and supply chains.

In the specific case of Ridley Road Market. In a separate report from one from pages 136 onwards, artefact found that traders already sourced from multiple suppliers beyond Billingsgate and the delivery services from Billingsgate wholesalers will continue from the new location. It is understood that the petitioners are particularly concerned that the Billingsgate traders, who they currently source fish from, will be moving to Albert Island. I can confirm daily Seafood Limited, Polydore Seafood Limited and Seafood Choice London have all written letters confirming their intention to move to Albert Island.

Overall artefacts February 2025 report concluded that the food supply is supported by multiple viable channels, and that concerns over food security due to closure of the physical Smithfield and Billingsgate sites are largely overstated. So I guess in conclusion, this programme is about future proofing London's wholesale food system, supporting traders to modernize and thrive, and unlocking enormous public benefits from the existing and historic sites. Have actually been really difficult decisions for the corporation, and it's taken quite a long time to reach where we are now. But they have been evidence based.

They have been carefully considered and taken in the long term public interest, so I know. That was a lot, but it's quite a complicated ten years. Thank you for hearing me.
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:58
10:59
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yeah, yeah.
10:59
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Please.
10:59
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I guess firstly, I'd say I agree, I agree, these are this is a large, complex programme with a tale of what you then do with the existing sites. And there are a lot of kind of external factors that are affecting that. I think the programme is quite robust. I'll come on. But I think the programme is quite robust based on what large infrastructure projects I've done in the past. There's quite a lot of fat in there. In order to deal with some of those things.

I also think it's quite rare to have the host borough, the City of London, the GLA and the end occupier at this early stage, all pushing together to actually make this happen. I think that the corporation and the traders have shown um, over many years that they can get back around the table. I did allude earlier on to the fact that when we did the original deals, we weren't sure what the site was going to be or how long it would take. Would it be an existing warehouse that you'd have to retrofit, for instance, or would it be a new site where you could co-locate?And at the time, the Billingsgate traders wanted up to eight months after royal Assent.

And I think now we know the programme a lot better, and we know that it will be delivered by 2029. We recognise that if they stayed at eight months, there would be that gap materialising that you say. So we did get around the table and we and extend to 24 months. Um. It's hard to say. I think if there was going to be a problem, if there was going to be a gap, we'd know quite early on the scale of this problem.

Uh, at a site of this scale. And we'd work out what those mitigations were. Clearly, if you're talking a couple of weeks or maybe months, there'd be a case for, um, the traders remaining where they are. I think if it was going to be a bit longer, we'd have to come up with a different solution. It might be a phased approach to Albert Island with some bits coming on stream slightly earlier, whilst the rest of the construction is is complete. It's quite a big site so you could probably do that.

I think we'd just have to tackle that as it comes down the line.
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thanks, chair. Um.
11:04
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yes. So I guess, um, we did look at what would you do if you just kept the markets exactly where they were?In a sense that might have been the easiest thing. Um, and effectively what you'd have to do to fully modernize Smithfield is decant them because of the constrained nature of the listed structure. And obviously you can't be doing major works with food for food, with food going on. Um, by the time you've done that and then modernised a grade two listed structure, you were up in the hundreds of millions of pounds.

I'm not sure if they had escalated. That's just the cost of doing it. With Billingsgate, it was a little bit easier because there's more room. So you could you could maybe build a new building whilst the old one is kind of operating and slowly being demolished and then move them across. But that was still about a quarter of a billion. I think the problem was, even if, which we don't, even if we had the money to do that, they'd still be in the wrong places.

You'd still have hundreds of HGVs and vans coming into central London locations where, in the case of Smithfield, all the roads are beginning to be pedestrianised. Um, it's a real problem for their businesses. And at Canary Wharf everything is literally growing up around the Billingsgate sites. Quite anachronistic, I guess, in terms of Dagenham, the costs did rise to to to about £1 billion. Um, I think that was partly what was going on with the cost of inflation, partly going on with the cost of construction, which was just exponentially rising, kind of externalities, like wars happening, I think, again, even if we had that, if we could pluck that kind of half £1 billion gap, we concluded that actually even Dagenham was then in the wrong place.

So I think it was brought for the right reasons. At the time, we were looking for a site of scale because we actually were going to move New Spitalfields there as well, and tracts of land that are 4042 acres do not come up. Um, in East London at a central location. So we bought it and it's, it's fine. It's an investment purpose now I suppose, but at the time that's what it was going to be for. I think from the trader's perspective, they had begun to work through what their operating model was going to be going forward.

And they probably recognised that it was just too far out. So they'd have to have some sort of hub in central London, and then their main operations out in Dagenham, quite inefficient, quite expensive. And when we dug into the amount of vehicles, even with modernisation, even with electrification, even with maybe using the river, that is required for a, a wholesale food market, the bit of the A13 that it ended up connecting on was just too overheated. That was a real concern.
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:13
11:13
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Page 152.
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thanks very much.
11:14
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Um.
11:14
11:14
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Yes, please. Yes.
11:14
11:15
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Thank you.
11:15
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Hello.
11:15
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Um.
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:18
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Um, the day before we opened at London Wall site in 1976, in the times, I think it was, it said, tomorrow the Queen will open the new Museum of London. I hope she finds it so. For many years, ever since before we opened, we have been an obscure museum housing in an obscure. Culturally intuitive place. Housing an important collection on behalf of the nation and engaging as many people as we could. So to move to a new site on the market location, uh, was a tremendous opportunity, which arose because the city was looking for a really good social use for its general market in 2014.

Um, we undertook a site options appraisal to look at, you know, was this the best site for the museum?This was chaired by one of our board members, Evan Davis had many different people sitting on on that board. Representatives from the commercial sector and from tourism. And we concluded that the very best place for a museum would be in this market here, that you can see the general market and the poultry market it had lain, um, unused the general market for over 30 years and therefore was available to us.

Um, and since we, we made our announcement last week, we have had nothing but positive news. This site provides us with fantastic access. Um, all roads lead to Smithfield. I have found um markets make great museums with big storage areas and trading floors. Multiple entrances, which removes the barrier to coming into museums. And we've created this a fabulous, super sustainable retrofit. And I think as because of its sustainability credentials, we will become a model for heritage, sustainable heritage, retrofit.
11:19
11:20
11:21
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Thank you.
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

So, um, first of all, looking inwards into London Museum itself, we've got the London collection is 7.5 million objects in size, so it's enormous. Um, hitherto we've been a wonderful collection in a terrible building. Uh, this gives us the opportunity to change that whole visitor experience. And I'm determined that people who had the same circumstances as me all those years ago will come and find a place. And their story in London Museum. We want to engage with three different crises as we see them the climate crisis, the fact that we're living in a post-truth world, and how museums and institutions are really they're we're trusted institutions to look at evidence and to portray evidence through history and, of course, a divided society at the moment where there are many people who are trying to pull society apart.

Museums are places where you can stand beside people who are very different to you, and hear their conversation about an object and realize the common empathy that we have. So the museum experience is really important. We're creating a new public space, not just in the museum, the general market, uh, trading floor, uh, will be the size of Piccadilly Circus. So it's a new public space both inside and hopefully eventually outside. We will open into the night time, riffing off of the character of Smithfield itself.

So how do you be the best museum for London?You be London, and that's 24 hours. So we are working on a Friday, on a Saturday night to be open to create a new sort of museum experience. We're working with fabric and we will work with others. Um, our exhibitions in our galleries. We will be putting more objects on show when the second phase of the museum comes in. Uh, the public, researchers, academics, anyone will have access to over 200,000 objects.

Um, we're telling new stories of London and we're using the latest research that research will come to the fore more, um, tangible public history. Uh, we have, uh, the second biggest costume collection after the Victoria and Albert Museum, one of our most used collections, um, a big human remains collection, which is used in scientific research. We have art protest collections, the common stories of the common person. Um, we are really keen to stand on our own two feet more. So this new museum site will enable us to be more economically sustainable.

And our objective is to indeed stand on our own two feet more and to reduce our. Dependency on taxpayers money, and finally, it will enable us to conserve better. The London collection, which is a responsibility we have, which is enshrined in the Museum of London Act 1965. It's our collection. It's the Citizen's collection. Um, and in our current site it is in danger on a daily basis. I don't know what would have happened after the deluge last night.

Um, from being rained on. And the conditions in our London museum at London Wall are not good. So this will enable us to preserve that collection in perpetuity, um, in line with our objects.
11:26
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

You very much.
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:28
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Yeah.
11:28
11:29
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Yeah. Thank you.
11:29
11:29
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you.
11:30
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Any does that.
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:31
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Okay.
11:31
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

That's great.
11:31
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you Alex.
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Hello.
11:36
11:36
11:37
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Well, thank you. Um. Yes, I'm a retired local government chief executive with 49 years experience in the public sector, including non-executive director board experience on both public and private boards. Um, in addition to my current role with the City of London Corporation, I'm also an independent advisor, um, supporting local authorities in intervention and acting as a senior advisor to Mhclg on local government reorganisation. I was commissioned in May 2024 as an independent consultant to work on behalf of the city corporation to review the proposed markets co-location programme.

The programme was designed, as you know, to relocate the current markets to Dagenham Dock site on a purpose built and purposely purchased site. Um. Prior to my commencement of the commission, I undertook an in-depth review of the historic committee reports, consultants reports and documentation relating to the corporation's journey that had brought them to that particular point in time. I also met with, um, all of the key officers who had been involved in progressing the programme, including retired officers and retired consultants who had previously worked on the programme.

Um, and I wanted to ensure it was a very thorough background check I met with. All of the key elected members and chairs of the relevant committees, um, to get their views and their background and understanding as well, um, due to global events. And Mr. Bonner will have pointed out that in some detail, um at the time the corporation became very concerned that the cost of the delivery of the markets at Dagenham Dock site had escalated to a point of unaffordability. Um, prior to my involvement in November 2023, um, CBRE and Deloitte were commissioned to review the construction costs and assess the viability, including some value engineering works, to see if the costs of the delivery of the building at Dagenham Dock could be, um, brought down.

The results of that work was also fed into my study and into my review, and I presented a report to Policy and Resources Committee and the Court of Common Council in July of 2024, recommending that the co-location of the markets um at Dagenham Dock be, um, terminated. The conclusion was reached not just due to the unaffordability of the construction, but also the building itself, according to very clearly set out in the CBRE and Deloitte report. Um was incapable of being repurposed should the markets have failed on the site and would have need to have been demolished.

So that would have resulted in a massive loss of investment. Um, the, uh, it wasn't a sensible approach to take. So the corporation, um, asked me then to review alternative solutions in, in concert with the traders and to spend some time researching what might be an acceptable solution for the traders. So not just for the corporation, but actually what would be a sensible and acceptable solution for the traders themselves. So with that approval I subsequently entered into formal discussions with traders at Billingsgate and Smithfield.

Um and we explored various solutions, and I'll point some of those out to you. Represented at these meetings um by their associations, their chairs, deputy chairs and other members supporting them in these discussions. The, the formal meetings that had commenced, I had started some informal meetings months before when I had arrived. And that was really to gain an understanding of the traders wishes, ambitions, but also to try and build some trust with the traders. As I was aware, relationships between the corporation and the traders in the past hadn't been as good as it could have been.

Um. So. Um, following on from that, um, and looking at, uh, the information that was put before me, I had to find a delicate balance between investment keeping the markets running as they were keeping them trading safely, and also making sure that future investment was economical, both for the traders and for the corporation, because continuing to operate the markets where they are in the condition they are is a cost to the traders as well as to the corporation. So it's not all corporation costs.

It actually costs the traders as well. So it was finding a very delicate balance between all of that. Um we worked on uh, many solutions and I've just listed a few of the options that were put on the table at the time for the traders to consider. Um, but there were many more other on top of that. So we looked at a revised scheme at Dagenham Dock that would have been a lot more economical to build, but it would have been much more restrictive.

We looked at options to redesign new Spitalfields Market um to enable both markets to relocate and be accommodated on the site. We looked at the rebuild and the refurb of existing markets, the rebuild of Billingsgate Market and the refurbishment to remain in situ, doing a little bit at a time. It became very apparent. And we spent many, many weeks doing this. It became very apparent that none of the solutions that were coming forward were deemed to be acceptable to the traders, and they did input into these as well, with suggestions of places we could look at.

You know, we looked at New Covent Garden and whether there could be space made available there. We did extensive discussions there and visits to the site, including the traders visiting the site as well. So we left no stone unturned to be honest. Um, but it was clear that what we had to do was give the traders the ability to deliver their own future. And I think one of the um phrases they used when I first met them in our very first meeting when they um.

Explained the difficult relationship they had had previously with the landlord, as they call the corporation, was they wanted to be masters of their own destiny. And the only way we could achieve that and the traders could achieve that was to give them compensation and allow them to design and decide on their own future. So that is the solution. We we came to. Um, so. So, uh, we. Had to take into account and some of those difficult, decisions.

The constraints that they were currently under, which have been outlined in some detail. So I won't go into that in detail, but the location was very important to the traders that they moved to. Um it became apparent as well during that conversation that they were less than happy with the Dagenham Dock location from day one. And I think it would have been very difficult to deliver that project ultimately had it remained on that site. So between August and November 2024, um, we had intensive negotiations with the traders, um, to agree a package to allow them to achieve their objectives and goals, um, and to give them autonomy to allow them to get a fit for purpose building in a location of their choice that would serve them for at least the next 50 to 100 years.

Um, the, the compensation package was approved by the Court of Common Council in November 2024. And then this private bill was laid, in Parliament on the 27th of November to seek the democratisation of the sites to allow for the rest of the plan to progress to fruition. A crucial element of the negotiation was a commitment from the corporation that, once agreement was reached, the corporation would continue to support the traders to identify and secure their new location. Both markets had committed to relocate as a collective, and their preference was to be on the same site.

So they gave us a clear mandate of what to go and what to do and what to what to seek for them. Um, so between November and January 2025, the legal agreements were signed with each of the individual traders in both markets. An upfront payment we call payment one was agreed for the traders to assist them with funding work to secure their new locations. A further payment being made at Royal Assent, which was called payment two and a final payment at vacant possession um of their current premises, which was payment three.

These three payment milestones were agreed to enable the traders to find their future, to fund their future without creating a financial burden on the traders. In doing so. It was also agreed that the traders would have sufficient time following Royal assent, to vacate the sites and, in the case of Smithfield, it was agreed as a two year period. Billingsgate initially requested an eight month period following royal assent. Though we've mutually agreed since then to vary that to align with Smithfield to a two year period.

Um. The corporation also agreed contractually to avoid Christmas period for for, uh, moving of the markets because that is the busiest period. So we incorporated a Santa clause into the contracts to allow them to trade over the Christmas period and into the, well, into the new year, which is their busiest time of year. Since January 2025, we have been working with landowners around London, developers and developers to identify potential locations for the traders to relocate. Um architects have been commissioned, have worked with the traders to identify and capture their minimum requirements, design what new buildings would look like.

And as you know from earlier presentations, we were very lucky to identify a site owned by the GLA in a location that was perfect for the traders, um, very close to Billingsgate Market and very acceptable to Smithfield market traders as well, where we could co-locate the two markets on the site. So I would safely say a solution was found that was acceptable to everybody involved. Um traders have been working extremely positively with the corporation um to secure a new location to secure a developer for the new markets.

They have committed to signing pre-let agreements and leases to give developers confidence that there's a future in investing in this new market. And they, they will be investing millions of pounds of their own compensation to fit out these new markets. Um, the um project itself, um, I believe is co-designed. We've co-designed the new build. It's been co procured with the landowners, with the traders and it will be co-delivered with the, with the traders. Um we've worked hand in glove with them since, since January 2025.

Once we got to the point where we all agreed we needed to, to collectively find a solution and secure food security for the future. And I think right from then till now, um, we have had success after success in finding, securing and agreeing to what the future will look like and securing that future for the traders. And I'll stop there.
11:47
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Absolutely. Um so earlier it was mentioned we commissioned artefact initially to do a substantial study, which is in your pack on food security. And we needed that to advise us and inform us of, um, in fact, our decisions and the decisions the corporation were making that they wouldn't detrimentally affect food security. Um, for the South East and for London. And that gave us that reassurance when we received the petition, we then commissioned artefact again because we, we did not know if um the impact could be small or large or what it would mean for those traders.

And again, we were very concerned. We commissioned artefact who did an in depth study, came back and reassured us that, um, there, you know, we really had nothing to worry about. Many of the other traders on Ridley Road traded elsewhere. There was many other options for them to trade. And they, other traders had absolutely no concerns whatsoever about the move. But I also engage with the traders at Billingsgate and asked them um about the traders at Ridley Road and um their view was there was no risk to them continuing to, to provide those traders with fish because the, I think what we all need to recognise is both markets have um very are very lucrative businesses.

They're not prepared to stop trading. They're never going to stop trading because it's too lucrative to stop trading. So that business will continue regardless of where or when. So from a Billingsgate trader's perspective, there was never any risk that they would not be able to provide produce to customers as they would see it. Um, and you know, the both markets are very committed and very clear that they want to continue their lucrative businesses and they are quite demanding in their requirements in terms of location design, etc..

And we've been able to fulfil that. So in terms of the petitioners, we were given great comfort from the traders that they would continue no matter what, to find a way to satisfy their customers.
11:49
11:50
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Um.
11:50
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

What I say it was a complex and intense negotiation. I think I can't even begin to describe, um, how tricky it was, bearing in mind traders by their very nature trade on a daily basis. So they're extremely good negotiators. Um, so it was a very intense process. I would fear greatly at the risk of reopening any kind of negotiation around that. And I'm sure the traders can speak for themselves today around that um, agreement. Um, also the way we have designed the compensation package, as I set out for you, is to enable the traders to fund their new location, their new um, facilities.

They will have to spend millions on fit out. They will need to invest that. And we've actually designed the payment schedules and the phasing, um as well as that they will have substantial tax liability that they will have to cover and they will have to cover. Sorry, this is a bit technical, but they will have to cover the full tax liability before they receive the full amount. So we've designed it to allow them to cover their tax liability before they actually receive the full amount.

So that money is spoken for in terms of tax and fit out. So to start trying to redesign and you know re re. Play around with that. Those processes those very carefully calculated um amounts would be pretty disastrous in my view and could prevent the future market from actually being secured and going ahead because the traders have to be confident as well when they sign up to 25 year leases. They've agreed to do to give the development market confidence that they have the funding in place to be able to fund that till they get off the ground.

Now, if we start playing around with that, we might see a lot of the traders fall away and say, I'm not prepared to take the risk.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:55
11:55
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

That's great. Alex.
11:55
11:56
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Yes. When a developer, um. Takes on a new project, a new site. So we're out to the market at the moment to appoint a developer. Just so you're aware, with the, well, the GLA as landowner, they have to procure the developer. So the GLA have gone out to market to procure a developer. Um, the developer won't invest their own money unless there's some certainty of at the moment with the current property market being so volatile, unless there's a guarantee of end use.

So they want to know they've got customers at the end of it. So we're asking developers to come in, invest hundreds of millions of pounds in building a building that is very bespoke. It would only be suitable for market traders. Um, so they need a guarantee that at the end of that they will have customers, they will have leases signed with customers. So in order to give that certainty to the market, so we get the good developers to come forward with investment, we've given a commitment that the traders and the traders have given this commitment.

They will sign up to 25 year leases. Be five year break clauses that will allow the rent to be reviewed upwards, but there won't be break clauses to allow them to back out of that, if you know what I mean. In the normal property world, developer would build a building and then go out and look for customers to fill the building, and they'd probably sign up to five year leases. This is very different in terms of a commitment, which is why we believe we will attract good developers with good investments.

And one of the key things for this is to get low cost finance. And if you've got 25 year leases, you will get low cost finance, which will mean the rent for the traders ultimately will be suppressed. It's no point in building lovely new shiny markets if the traders can't afford to trade there. So one of the requirements we have very clearly is that we can keep the rents at a rate and at a level that we've agreed with the traders they can afford.

They believe they can afford their commercial rents, but their affordable rents we've taken into account, um, things like rates and service charge. And we've been able to model that with Deloittes to show what would a cost of a new market in a new facility, um, be per square foot per year. And the market traders have given us the indication of what they can afford. So that's fed back into the process right round to what's the cost of capital. And how can we suppress the cost of capital.

And one of the ways is to give the market certainty with 25 year leases.
11:58
11:58
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Few, yes.
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:03
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Thank you.
12:03
12:03
12:04
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Okay. Thank you for your question. Um, so the permission that's on the site is for, um, industrial and. Trading on the site. So we have been working very closely with Newham council planning team. Um, their preference and our preference was to be able to continue to use the extant permission. Um but make sure it doesn't restrict us. So for example in the previous permission there's a boatyard identified on the site which. I'm pretty sure will not be progressing in the new permission, which will give additional space to the traders to be able to expand on the site as well.

Um, the view is we may be able to use parts of the previous planning to um. Operate the site for the new designs. Um and the planners have seen the new designs and actually appointed a specific officer on this project, um, to be dedicated to progressing this, um, because of our ambition to move that very, very quickly. Um, and there's a number of factors if I could just bring in here. So, um, there's the planning permission, but there's also the groundworks that will need to take place on the site.

We won't need the planning permission in place to start the groundworks. So once the groundworks commence, they can pretty much commence once we get an indication of the progress of the bill or otherwise. Um, and those groundworks would then save about probably nine months in construction terms. So we're looking at the construction programme aligned with the planning permissions to identify how we can cut time out of the process to ensure there is no gap at the end. So it's what can we bring forward to the front end.

We will then again goes back to the prelates. Um a developer wants a point and as I said, we're out to a point. Now. They may be prepared to take some risk as well in investing. Um, pre-planning if they get that confidence and comfort from um the planning team. Um and if they have the pre-let signed up that will give them confidence as well. So they may be prepared and we're kind of, um, the developers we've spoken to and set out the scenario.

They've given a very strong indication on that. So we would be hoping that we would be able to front load a lot of the construction work. Um, we're very confident around our planning and the designs that have been brought forward. They've been very, um, intensively worked up with the architects and the planners at Newham. So there's nothing new in there. There's no surprises for them. And they've given us very strong guidance on what would and would not be acceptable.

So we know that our planning, once submitted in full, will be um in line with the requirements of the council.
12:07
12:07
12:08
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Okay.
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:08
12:10
12:10
12:11
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

Miles, 60 years.
12:11
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Excellent.
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

The utmost confidence, um, have taken all the trade, all the traders will be taking all their trade is um and I've always said. You can be next to Harrods if you ain't got the right people in the staff, you might as well be anywhere. And the, the mentality of the staff and the, and the businesses in Smithfield are. Always positive, always, always positive. And we're very. We don't see that as a hindrance at all. And I just I've just got to say this as well.

And, uh, through the Covid period, we was never closed. One day we was. Never closed. One day we were Monday to Saturday serving the prisons, the not the schools. The hospitals and care homes, all those type of businesses and schools. The schools wasn't. But some schools were open, funnily enough, and. But we didn't close one day. We was. Obviously we was classed as important workers from the government of the day and I'm very proud to say that we've never closed.

I would go as far as to say. The South East couldn't do without Smithfield Market. That's how important Smithfield Market is. You know you can. I'm going to go. I'm going to drift away here because I enjoy telling you how important Smithfield Market is, and I'm going to drift away. And you hear we're having new trades. Given the conservative government, the Labour government having new trade. Of America, New Zealand, we've been trading with them all the time and it doesn't come out all the time.

And, uh, and obviously we still trading with Europe, but we've been trading all the time. Trading with Australia is not just coming come about. New Zealand just come about. We'll be trading all the time and um supermarket trade. Supermarket this type of weather now trades on the floor. Not too good. And all of a sudden the supermarkets can always give an excuse. Oh we survived long temperature and it wouldn't be. But they don't fancy it.

And where does it normally end up?Smithfield market. Smithfield Market can sell anything at a price, obviously, but we can. We take anything. Um. It's it's a, it's a wonderful, wonderful environment. And, uh, one of your colleagues, Emily Thornberry, comes every Christmas and we, we look after her, we look after her. She wants one turkey. We always make sure she gets two turkeys. So we look after her.

But, and, and we'd all look after you all year if you come. But come down to Smithfield. You're welcome, because he. It's a place. It's a place. To be seen. And we ain't got too long to much longer. We only got 2 or 3 years, and he's a wonderful place. He really is a special.
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Thank you.
12:28
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Want to.
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

No thank you.
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:31
14:10
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you.
14:10
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:16
14:17
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Um, no. Other questions to ask unless I can assist the committee with, um, any other points that are raised. I just want to draw the committee's attention to one specific area, which I know was the subject of some questioning, which is in relation to engagement with the petitioners. And just to emphasise that um, since the petition has been received, there's in terms of documentary evidence, the artifact report has been the consideration by the corporation of the impacts on those Ridley Road traders. And that, as I pointed out earlier, includes some direct engagement with the petitioners, but also with other traders on Ridley Road to understand whether the concerns were universally shared.

So that's the first point. The second point, just to be clear, is that, um, the petitioners were initially represented by another person with whom there was direct engagement over, over many months, um, shortly before this committee or a committee was going to hear the petition, that person dropped out of the picture. And it is since then that there have been there's been more direct engagement with Mr. Chowdhury, who appears today. So I just wanted to emphasise that that that it's the change of representation that means that the engagement um, with the gentleman who you'll hear from shortly is more recent, but certainly the predecessor representative there was um discussion over many months.

And the final point, I think just to underscore is that um. Whilst the proposed amendment that's been put forward has, has only recently been received, it's something which um, the. Corporation has anticipated and considered as to whether there is more that can be done on the face of the bill in respect of um the transition. And I just emphasize again, the evidence that you heard from Mr. Bonner and Miss Grant in particular, and also from the two representatives of the market traders, that the purpose of this bill really is to give effect to what has been agreed with all of those who participate in this.

These markets. And, um, we're keen to ensure that, um, as the bill progresses, if and when it progresses, that it does so on a basis that reflects that and reflects the, the agreements that have been reached. Um, so those are the points I'd want to underscore from our case, and we leave it with you on that.
14:18
14:19
14:19
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Stay there?Yeah.
14:20
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, thank you. Chair. Uh, I'm. I'm a physics researcher that works on novel neutron detectors, largely with AWI to stop nuclear smuggling. Avoid it. I'm not actually in the front lines. I work in a laboratory. But more importantly, I'm the son of Chaudhry Amjad, the owner of PM Prime Fish. Uh, one of the petitioners who I'm representing, along with the others. I, for more than a decade, my entire childhood all the way through my education whilst getting a PhD, I worked in Ridley Road Market.

I was a fishmonger there. With the business. I had deep connections with all the petitioners, a lot more people that work in the market, and many of the customers. Uh, the bill provides the corporation with the authority to close Billingsgate Market and repeal historic legislation associated with it. The corporation is required to give 90 days notice of the closure of these markets, and it has complete discretion over when to give this notice. This gave rise to two concerns amongst the fishmongers.

Firstly, having no source, the fishmongers fear that a replacement market will not be set up at all. In that case, the corporation still has the right to close Billingsgate, leaving us nowhere to source our fish. These businesses rely on Billingsgate going there three or more times per week to supply. Without it, they would have to close. One of the owners stated that he'd end up on benefits with no other options, and I'm sure many of the others and their staff didn't echo this purely out of pride.

The second issue, the second concern amongst the fishmongers, a gap in trade. Even if an alternative fish market is planned, the corporation can close Billingsgate at any time, even before the replacement market is up and running. There is a strong financial incentive to do. To do so, to save on the expenses of running the markets and press ahead with their plans to use the vacated sites if there is. Such an interruption, the fishmongers fear that they will go out of business.

Billingsgate sells around 25,000 tonnes of fish and fish products per year, accounting for an estimated 9 to 11% of all fish consumed in Greater London and the South east. This volume is handled by a number of wholesalers at a common location, keeping prices low through competition and into trading surplus stock to minimise waste. This uniquely allows the Ridley Road fishmongers, who trade in smaller quantities to compare prices and buy the best value fish of the wide variety their customers demand. This is true in general for any market, but it is vital for the trade of perishable goods where low cost fresh produce, offcuts, small amounts of surplus and seafood nearing the end of its freshness are scooped up by the small volume.

Traders like those on Ridley Road and elsewhere in London, to provide cheap quality options to their, uh, lower income customers. Without Billingsgate or some replacement market, they would they won't be able to access the prices or quality of a number of wholesalers. Uh, of number of wholesalers in a common location as they currently do. Instead, they would have to rely on independent suppliers who aren't willing to deliver such small quantities. In many cases, they will fall back on a sole supplier.

This will all trickle down to their customers in the form of sorry, in the form of prices. They can't afford, a decline in quality and a limited variety. They're not interested in. Uh, it was mentioned earlier by one of the witnesses that the suppliers have confirmed they're moving to Albert Island, or it was submitted as evidence. Actually, the three letters from the different seafood providers, these letters are of intention, not obligation. They they're not legally binding, uh, in, uh, and.

Is not a commitment that they'd actually relocate that they'd, uh, will survive the transition financially. Um, intentions written before a developer has even been appointed carry no enforceable weight, as far as I'm aware. Uh, the, uh, and I think here's a clear example where the Dagenham precedent is precisely the lesson good intentions collapse under financial pressure. Everyone here has. All the witnesses have stated a lot of good intentions, but there's not really much of a legal obligation for them to commit to these.

A closure with no replacement market means that there is an effective concentration of power in the hands of those businesses that are large enough to command a good relationship with wholesalers and disadvantages. Smaller businesses that rely on a on the market to source produce the. Capacity of smaller Ridley Road like fishmongers to operate is not some local charm. It is a cornerstone of London's commercial ecosystem. I saw this firsthand during the pandemic, uh. As supermarkets struggled with supply chain collapse, the customer base grew and, uh, the customer base in the markets grew, especially in Ridley Road.

These open air markets absorb the overflow, providing safe, affordable, a safe, affordable lifeline to communities facing sudden economic instability. The loss of this niche of small, decentralized fishmongers is actively stripping London of its shock absorbers, leaving the city more vulnerable to the next major crisis. Many of the Ridley Road fishmongers supply to restaurants and catering, and 47% of Billingsgate trade is bought by catering companies. There is a network of businesses that rely on sorry, that rely on this supply chain. Uh, climbing a ladder from Ridley Road like fishmongers to Billingsgate, than director wholesalers.

No source or gap in trade would mean the entire bottom of this ladder is cut out, leaving many businesses with severed supply chains. Importantly, kicking out the bottom rungs of the ladder, such as Ridley Road, fishmongers affects catering and restaurant start. Additionally, the absence of a viable Billingsgate replacement means that the central showroom, where new entrants can meet and develop relationships with suppliers, will be gone. Future, larger start up businesses will also be affected. Early on, one of the witnesses mentioned that 83% of the fish trade is done off the floor.

This is a deeply misleading metric that confuses the mechanism of transaction. With the genesis of the market, that 83% exists exclusively because of the trust, relationships, and structural price discovery established on the physical trading floor. Remove the floor and you destroy the foundation. The trade is built on. Lloyd's of London possesses processes billions of premiums digitally, yet fiercely maintains its physical underwriting room. Uh, over 60% of John Lewis's trade is conducted online. The London Stock Exchange and London Metal Exchange rely on centralised physical infrastructure and face to face showrooms because they understand an open physical market sets the price and competition keeps it low.

I would imagine the Corporation of London would aggressively defend the physical trading floors of finance and commodity exchanges within its square mile, yet it seeks to undermine the physical trading floor for the food sector. Ridley road and other small markets feed poor, diverse communities where access to affordable fish and seafood directly mitigates otherwise problematic health issues. By my experience, roughly 85% of the PM Prime Fish customers are of South Asian, African and Caribbean descent. And amongst South Asians, there's a three fold increased risk of type two diabetes and of afro-caribbeans.

I believe it's 1.51.5 fold increase. Uh, in addition to severe risks of cardiovascular disease, the Health Foundation has repeatedly warned that poor diet has overtaken smoking as the leading driver of preventable death and health inequality in the UK, the NHS explicitly recommends consuming oily fish to combat start consuming oily fish to. Protect against cardiovascular disease, along with other benefits. When these communities are unable to afford fish, which is part of their traditional diet, they fall back on hyper processed convenience foods and takeaways, resulting in escalating chronic illness and a heavier financial burden on the NHS, and stretched services.

This is one piece of a broader risk to food security. Wholesale markets keep food prices down, reduce food insecurity and increase variety and access to fresh produce. A survey commissioned by the GLA states that 2 million people in London and the south east of England are at risk of food insecurity. This is the direct area that Billingsgate serves. A report by the UK Joint Intelligence Committee explicitly warns that the UK's overreliance on concentrated corporate food networks creates a fragile chokepoint for cyber attacks and other system failures, making the further centralisation of UK's food supply.

Uh, an increasing this vulnerability in national security. There are many risks of leaving London, the only capital city in Europe without wholesale food markets and the loss of places like the Fishmongers on Ridley Road is part of that. The core issue, the fish. The core issue the fishmongers have with the bill is. Potentially volatile transition. It would seem sensible to ensure that there is an incentive for existing traders to move to any new market, so. So as to not have a significant loss of expertise because of the confidentiality underlying the compensation scheme, it is difficult to quantify, quantify the incentive compensation here.

Uh, the Corporation of London previously assured the public that 90% of Billingsgate traders would relocate to a single site. Their official report softened this to 90% continuing operation beyond the physical premises. This is not a new single site. This is not even a new market. They could go to Mars and start breeding sharks. It's within that 90%. Beyond this physical premises. In negotiations, they then stated it's actually 64%, some of which are delaying retirement for the payout, making the fishmongers that at Ridley Road suspicious about what part of their supply chain will remain after this transition and wave of retirements.

Additionally, we fear that they might do what they did in Dagenham due to rising costs. They closed plans for replacement market and didn't adequately disseminate that information with the new site. With the new site, construction is being handed over to a developer. But this doesn't solve the problem as now the developer is a single point of failure. Whilst we appreciate the lengths the Corporation of London are going to in minimizing risk at the new site, they have a financial incentive to move quickly on the.

To vacate Billingsgate and utilize the site. What if the developer defaults, becomes insolvent, encounters an issue or misses critical targets after the appointed day?If a timeline gap emerges, emerges. The Corporation of London proposes the. Operation of London's proposed mitigation strategy is to simply ask the traders to renegotiate vacant possession contracts. A legal stalemate will paralyse trade. This is not a suitable plan B, given the risks I have outlined. The Corporation has demonstrated real commitment to our island and we welcome that.

We are not here to obstruct to obstruct the market's future. We are here because of who bears the cost. If that future is delayed. Every property development carries risk, ground conditions, planning complications, contractor insolvency, cost inflation. These are not exceptional events. They are the ordinary vocabulary of major construction projects. And the corporation knows this better than anyone. Yet. Witness after witness here, they discussed having to move quickly, making sure all the permissions are done quickly.

All the risk assessments done quickly and at the same time having everything be bespoke and unique to this case. At Alban Island, Albert Island, and for every single one of these traders, both of these things cannot. They are not concomitant. They cannot occur simultaneously. You cannot have move extremely quickly and have everything be bespoke. To me, it seems. And to the petitioners, it seems as if they're trying to sell a dream to push this in, to push this bill through.

Uh. And to move quickly on such a complicated project. It's why I brought up earlier the fact that how what form did the previous permissions take these extant permissions that they described on the June 3rd, uh, on the June 3rd letter. Um, uniquely, the City of London Airport is right there. And they did mention there an ongoing negotiations with them, but this seems like a fundamentally different problem to the, past, to the past form. These permissions must have taken, uh.

Apologies. A bird hazard management plan was prepared for previous development proposals on Elba Island. This was not a wholesale fish market, which generates qualitatively different waste and odour profile that is particularly attractive to seabirds and gulls. Right?You cannot move quickly with such a complicated project, and the promise to do so is is it's not an obligation, it's just an intention. Uh, so the question before this committee isn't whether or not those risks exist. They do.

The question is who carries them?Corporation of London gets to develop what they really want. They. As as was said by the past witness, they neglected Billingsgate for so long. And then suddenly, as this other building opportunity came up. They want to make a new site, and they get to make what they want. This bill allows them to develop on the vacated sites, whatever they want, and the Billingsgate traders and Smithfield traders don't know what those payouts look like.

We really don't. So. So the. It's definitely good enough for. It's definitely a large enough payout such that if they. If there is a large enough delay, they feel confident that they'll be fine and be able to feed their families. The risk then falls on the people least able to bear it. Upon the traders at the very bottom of this hierarchy, the very bottom. The most vulnerable and least able to bear the.

Corporation argues that a legal guarantee guarantee, a condition that Billingsgate stays open until the replacement is ready, removes the negotiation agility that may cause landowners to charge more. Knowing the Corporation has no alternative, that it constrains their ability to move quickly. With respect to that argument for. For why the guarantee?With respect to the argument that. That is an argument for why the guarantee is inconvenient to them. It is not an argument for why the risk should sit with us instead.

We are not asking the corporation to take on unlimited liability. We are asking them to accept that the risk of their own program slipping should not automatically be transferred to the smallest and most vulnerable people in the supply chain. Who had no seat at the negotiation table, no compensation package, and no legal protection of any kind. That is not agility. That is the powerful offloading risk onto those with no capacity to absorb it. We want a guarantee if we want a guarantee.

We want the guarantee of a new market. Fundamentally. In the. Submitted, uh, amended bill, I have addressed these concerns by one prohibiting the Corporation of London from closing Billingsgate until a fully viable, comparably sized market. Alternative market is actively operational, ensuring that there is no gap in trade. Two establishing a robust incentive structure that secures existing traders expertise whilst lowering the barrier of entry for new businesses. While we remain entirely flexible on the precise legal drafting boundaries and structural wording, these amendments define the direction.

We'd like to see the bill move. Um, one last thing, sir. The petitioners, uh, chances. And I understand that this may be what they consider, but we don't want any money. We don't want some compensation. We simply want the capacity to have a new market that we can use to sell for our businesses. And I think one of my petitioners keeps going on and on about how he feels betrayed, about how it feels so great being called a a.

A essential worker during Covid that he spent Monday to Sunday. That's every day, uh, at his job, trying to make sure everyone gets fed with this overflow from the supermarkets. And then suddenly as, uh, his life has some financial troubles, this comes around and just leaves him destitute almost. If it does go through, at least in his expectation. I would like to conclude by saying the fishmongers are not afraid of change. They are afraid of a real unaccounted for risk in this transition.

Thank you.
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Yes.
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

You. Um, for.
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Okay.
14:49
14:49
14:50
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Yeah, sure, sure.
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Okay.
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:01
15:02
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

You, chair, can I just start, please, with with Ridley Road and the examination that we have. Um, given to it and I don't in any of this. Suppose that um. The corporation knows best, but it has sought advice on Ridley Road and I just want to put the petitioners position in context. And it's the report that we've already seen starting at page 136 of the bundle. And section six of that report is headed which is page one five.

Three of the bundle says local fish wholesaling alternatives for Ridley Road. And it explains the research that was carried out on behalf of the corporation. Uh, to. Identify whether or. Not there. Alternatives in the event that Billingsgate went entirely. In other words, in the worst case scenario that the petitioners described and um. I just draw the committee's attention to the conclusions of that section on page 155. If we can just move forward under the heading Summary Insight, and it's explains that while Ridley Road fish traders have historically favoured Billingsgate, the current trading landscape offers multiple viable alternatives.

From a wholesale supply perspective, neither. Geography, product availability nor minimum order volumes present insurmountable challenges. The limitations appear behavioural rather than operational, rooted in habit, lack of awareness or reluctance to change feedback from some alternative wholesalers indicates that demand from Ridley Road traders would likely be welcome, provided expectations are clear. Others were hesitant to share trading information, underscoring the informal nature of the sector. Still, the broader takeaway remains consistent. Viable supply routes exist and could be accessed more widely, particularly with targeted facilitation or support.

Supply continuity, if threatened, appears addressable through existing infrastructure. So that's the conclusion that the corporation received from the report they commissioned. And that's on the assumption that the petitioners concerns materialise and that there is a gap in trade. That's the first bit of context. The second point that I just draw the committee's attention to is, um, in, in expressing the position for. The appointment of the day and um, the drafting there, um, which we've already touched on, uh, earlier today, I just want to emphasize that the effect of clause three two is that where there is a written agreement with the market traders, as there is in respect of Billingsgate and Smithfield, that the um Cecil.

Of the operation of the market or I think we've put it again, is the termination of a lease. Uh, cannot take place, uh, before a specified date. So where there's provision made to that effect, the corporation must fix the appointed day in a way which is consistent with that provision. So the whole thrust of this provision is that we've reached agreement with the traders at Billingsgate and Smithfield, and we cannot use any authorisation that Parliament deems appropriate in a way which would cut across those agreements.

So that puts the focus on the traders and their intentions and their agreed position. And then when we get to that, that leads to my third point. What is the intention and agreed position of the traders and. The committee has already heard the way in which it's been expressed by traders, but also by those who have dealt with them most often, um, including miss Grant, the interests on this question are aligned. There is a powerful desire to move to the new site.

And that is the incentive, the structure of the payments has been explained by miss Grant, she explained. There's been a payment already. There'll be a payment on royal assent and there'll be a payment on vacant possession that incentivises the traders to see this through and to hold on until the point at which they have um agreed. To move, which is 24 months after Royal assent. Um that. Leads to the question the way it was put um was the risk of a stalemate.

A stalemate if there's delay in the process. And our short answer to that is the one that Mr. Bonner and Miss Grant offered, which is that in those circumstances, everyone is incentivised to work to ensure there isn't a gap. Continuity is desired, but we need some certainty as to timescale as well. Um. There's then some points which are raised by the petitioners about the prospects of delay or the risk of delay to the site, uh, coming forward at Albert Island. And um, those are things which we've already addressed through our evidence.

And I don't want to cut across or repeat what's already been said by witnesses. But again, just in terms of the documents, can I highlight the committee, the. Support received for the Albert Island development from um Newham. The planning authority. Obviously it may have a planning application to decide. And it will do so um on its own terms. But the in-principle support from Newham for this move to Albert Island is set out. Pages 108 through to 110, which was the former mayor and the newly elected mayor setting out their position, but also the Royal Docks team.

Page 111 of the bundle, who is. Which is the team established by the Greater London Authority, by the mayor, uh, to take forward the Royal Docks development. And again, the strong support from them as landowner, uh, From them as landowner for the development concern. So it's not just Mr. Bonner suggesting that the you know, that there's support for these propositions. It's also there in the documents from the relevant wider authorities. And finally the. The concern which has.

Been expressed has been expressed by miss Grant, has been expressed by the traders themselves is that if we start to assume that there is a way to rewrite this process, to rewrite what has been agreed between the Corporation and the traders at Smithfield and Billingsgate over the course of many years of engagement. Then we run the risk of losing the prize. And that really is the key point here, that whilst we respect and understand the position that's been put forward by the petitioners and their concerns, the.

Position, which is shared with the traders, is that the move to Albert Island is best achieved by allowing those commercial processes to take the course, which they've been set on. And for this bill to secure that staging post, which is the certainty that the land can be released from its market restrictions at the appropriate time. So unless I can assist further, that's all I wanted to say on the petition.
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you.
15:10
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may. So the in the context of the letter, we were, of course, just following up on discussions that had taken place with, uh, with Mr. Choudhury on the um various. Proposals in that letter, various things we would, we would be happy to do about maintaining contact and keeping in touch and things like that. And, uh, the, we, the. Corporation's view in relation to undertakings, of course, is that they are binding. And we would treat them as binding.

The issue for us, I think, would be an undertaking which had the effect of effectively committing us not to. Uh, being able to move forward with those sites in accordance with the contracts we've already agreed until another site, which, of course, we mustn't lose sight of, is not going to be built by the corporation. We're engaging and we're supporting it. But the whole the whole purpose of the the proposal is that the is that essentially the traders are taking charge of their own destiny here going forward.

We're supporting them to do that. So something which is sort of, um, almost beyond our control there, I think that would that would be difficult for us. It would have been. That's the reason why we, uh, were unable to accept the proposed amendment. And I think an undertaking in quite those terms, very explicit terms would would be in the same position, but I certainly wouldn't put it beyond possible that we could come up with a form of words which, uh. We would be prepared to, to commit to discussing further and ensuring, that proper engagement and consultation and all those, all those things before actually going forward and making the amendments and don't wish to, to try and draft on the hoof, as it were, but we'd certainly be able to think about that.

But as I say, probably we wouldn't, I don't think, be in a position to agree an undertaking which went straight effectively put us under an absolute commitment, which would be the same, and we would treat it the same as an obligation on the face of the bill.
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:16
15:16
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Well, I um, that points well understood. Obviously the engagement was with the, the market traders and not the Billingsgate and Smithfield traders and not with the um people who. Are supplied from uh Billingsgate such as the petitioners. Yeah. But that was the reason why we asked uh, artifact to research that point, because the corporation didn't feel as if it was in a position to say unilaterally. Well, this is how they must trade on Ridley Road. And it was a recognition that there was although the wider artifact report had been carried out to understand what's the impact of moving these markets on the food chains and food supply chains in London generally, that actually it was a narrower point that was being made, which was as a specific part of the.

Uh, the, the market for, for fish in London, which, which potentially had to be specially considered. And that's why Ridley Road was examined and the. Process, um which was undertaken by artifact was much better suited to um finding out that. Information than the kind of processes you might expect in, in general public consultations in the sense that it involved direct engagement and visits to Ridley Road to identify who the businesses were, who were the people involved in them, and to speak to them directly rather than to rely on writing or to telephone calls.

I don't recall at the, um, from the top of my head concerns being raised there that they were unable to receive information because of language barriers, but certainly in terms of communication, they were able to understand Ridley Road's concerns. So that's part of the answer. I know that your question is a broader one, which is. But how would they understand what's proposed?And I accept that there probably is a risk of confusion or misunderstanding about what's in mind, particularly when traders at at Ridley Road won't know what's been agreed by the traders associations in the meetings that Miss Grant's described.

And I can see that that creates a sense of uncertainty. Two points on that. One of them is the point I've already referred to in the artifact report, which is. Those concerns, even if well-founded, could be mitigated by looking for fish elsewhere. And that's a sort of understanding of the market and access point. And the second one being that we we are very happy to continue having in mind and liaising with those who are affected by this move.

It's part of the process, which we're already undertaking. There's no concern from the corporation on that part. And if you wanted us to provide that further information to make sure that those who are involved, not just in the immediate trading on the floor, but also who are the customers, are well aware of what's proposed and the timescales and how things are going, then that's the kind of commitment that, the corporation is very happy to take away. And and to formulate.
15:19
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you Alex.
15:19
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Of course, of course.
15:20
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Yes.
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I think this is in the area where it's really down to the the traders to large to a large extent, but with all the things that we've already explained about the corporation's support for that position. So, um, Mr. Bonner's evidence, I'd draw attention to in particular where he explained that there's a process that we are heavily invested in of delivering the Albert Island site, and that involves getting to a position where. For the developer to invest in building out that site, they need to have the tenant signed up because nobody wants to build a fish market site unless they know a fish market tenant is going to take it.

So, um, there will come a point where the corporation's involvement in that process will diminish and it will be as the market tenants want, the market traders want a process between them and their, their new landlord, the developer of that site. In terms of the, the detail of the transition, um, again, that's going to be for the, the, the, um traders to manage, but with the financial support that's provided by them providing vacant possession. And that's the bottom line that they receive that final payment when they are ready to go and we are ready for them to go.

And that final drop dead date occurs and they leave the site. That's when they receive the final payment. And then the the sites are free from from the tenancies. But also if enacted, free from the market restrictions, that would prevent us putting them to other purposes. Is that quite. Answer your question, chair. I'm not sure.
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

I do.
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:55
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you very much.
15:55
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

We're grateful.
15:55
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page