Brezk-íslenzk viðskipti - 01.05.1947, Blaðsíða 22

BRETLAND OG ÍSLAND, Maí, 1947
by
The Editor
BILLINGSGATE
TRONG opposition to the “ ironing out” _ of
Billingsgate Fish Market by the London Town Planning
Experts has been received from fish salesmen. The
debate at last week’s Common Council, when a decision
was made to remove Billingsgate Fish Market,
lacked reality. It was a hasty decision, every argument
seemed to have reference, not to the desirability or
otherwise of removal, but to fear of the Minister of Town
and Country Planning. Sir Cuthbert Whitaker, usually
so coldly logical, frankly said that if the Court did not
decide to remove, Mr. Silkin would intervene.
BRETLAND OG ÍSLAND sent a representative to
Billingsgate Fish Market this week, and he found opinion
against removal among the fish salesmen far from
negligible. Indeed, very few expressed approval, and
such reluctant consent as was given was discounted by
many doubts. Many of the leading fish salesmen refused
to express an opinion in such a way that it is clear they
they are opposed to the scheme. The removal of
Billingsgate Fish Market to North London would certainly
be detrimental to the trade. Notwithstanding the fact
that little fish now comes to market by water, fish sales-
men value the waterside site, which is of great potential
importance, they believe that trade can be carried on
with the Scandinavian countries as was the case before
the Wars. They believe that the space available at
Billingsgate is sufficient considering the tendency towards
better quality fish. However, during January, 8,945
tons of fish were delivered at Billingsgate Market, against
10,375 tons in January, 1946. Of this 55 tons were
condemned against only 18 tons in the corresponding
period of 1946. This was .615%, or 1 ton in 162.416 tons
against .168% or 1 ton in 593,541 tons. Of the total
tonnage delivered in January, only 11 tons came by water.
Mr. E. W. Young, of Lawrence Brothers, was adamant
in his opposition. To uproot Billingsgate would break
the whole tradition of the fish trade. Merchants would
lose contacts with retailers who might in the end by-pass
London altogether to the detriment of the whole con-
ception and the great injury of Londoners from the point
of view of price and supply.
Mr. S. C. Chalmers, who has traded at Billingsgate for
45 years holds similar view, believes the waterside site
essential, and expressed the opinion that a move would
disrupt the trade.
Mr. S. C. Block added that, with the port facilities gone,
the coast markets would monopolise trade which would
be lost to Billingsgate merchants altogether.
These are but a sample of the views of the merchants
who were seen by our reporter. All refer to the value
of the Market in giving London and indeed, the Metro-
politan area, magnificent, steady and ample supply of
fish of all grades at the cheapest price.
Billingsgate is one of the markets of the City which is
a conglomeration of markets. To move it because
Town Planners want an arterial road is the negation
of planning.
The Market and its service to the public comes first.
Without markets the City of London would need no
roads, no wharves and no planners.
22