City of London (Markets) Bill

The government states that the City of London (Markets) Bill has undergone a full assessment of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and the minister sees no reason to dispute the promoters’ conclusions. This is a formal ECHR compatibility report required for a Private Bill under Standing Orders.

The Court of Referees heard arguments about who has the right to be heard in a petition against the City of London (Markets) Bill. It ruled that Bags of Taste Ltd and 23 individual customers do not have standing to participate, but the three Ridley Road fishmongers do have standing and may be heard on the petition as a whole, with their rights not to be limited. The underlying Bill would repeal existing wholesale market legislation (Billingsgate and Smithfield) and move toward relocating markets, with those issues to be considered by the main Committee separately.

This written evidence sets out the rules and historic precedents for who may be heard in petitions against Private Bills (locus standi), and the promoter’s stance on challenging petitioners’ right to be heard. It argues for a stricter, three-part test—petitioners must show direct and special interests, sufficient representation, and a material injurious effect—while normally restricting ad hoc or broad-interest groups, but allowing local authorities or representative bodies under Standing Orders 95 and 96. It also notes a parallel, cautious approach for the Holocaust Memorial Bill to decide right-to-be-heard matters, aiming for procedural efficiency by focusing on individuals or bodies with direct interests.

Artefact’s February 2025 study for the City of London concludes that Smithfield and Billingsgate wholesale markets should relocate to modern, fit-for-purpose premises by 2028/9, with most traders planning to move together to preserve four core market qualities: historic value, servicing small buyers, hub functionality and inter-trading. The City envisages redeveloping the current sites—Smithfield into an international cultural destination beside the London Museum and Billingsgate into housing and public space—projected to generate about £9.1bn in GVA by 2049, with compensation and dedicated transition support for traders. It argues there is minimal food-security risk from relocation, given supermarkets’ dominance in household meat/fish consumption and the market’s focus on out-of-home supply, while noting the study does not assess economic impacts or pinpoint new locations; it recommends ongoing engagement and monitoring.

This is a petition by Frank Hall Ltd opposing the City of London (Markets) Bill. It argues Smithfield Market should remain a meat market and be preserved as part of Britain’s heritage, warning that closing or altering it could cost local jobs and increase traffic, and asking the Government to listen to affected communities.

An organised petition, led by Bags of Taste and local fishmongers, opposes the City of London (Markets) Bill’s proposal to close Billingsgate Market without a ready replacement. They warn the closure would harm small traders and residents who rely on affordable, fresh fish and could undermine London’s Ridley Road market. The petition calls for delaying any closure until a viable, accessible alternative site is secured and properly communicated.

Peter Acton submits a petition opposing the City of London (Markets) Bill, arguing that Smithfield and Billingsgate markets should not be closed or sold. He calls for shelving the Bill and establishing a working party to plan New Smithfield and New Billingsgate markets to protect London’s food infrastructure, economy and heritage.

This guidance explains how anyone directly and specially affected by a private bill, such as the City of London (Markets) Bill, can petition against it (in whole or part, including against any Additional Provisions). It details how to prepare and submit a petition—using the official template, a £20 fee, and online portal or email/post—within the petitioning period (deadline for this bill is 5pm on 30 January 2025, with potential further periods for Additional Provisions). Petitions are processed by the Private Bill Office and, if opposed, referred to an opposed bill committee where petitioners may appear and be represented; there is a right-to-be-heard process if standing is challenged, and petitions can be withdrawn at any time (though fees are non-refundable).

Four private Bills — General Cemetery, Norwich Livestock Market, Malvern Hills, and City of London (Markets) — were examined to check compliance with Standing Orders. The Examiners found that the required notices, deposits and procedures were complied with for all four Bills, meaning they can proceed through Parliament. The Malvern Hills Bill raises a potential issue of royal consent due to repeals of protected provisions, which is being considered with the relevant government department.