Greater London County Hall (Hansard, 18 February 1986)

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the disposal of Greater London County Hall by the London Residuary Body until after 31st December 1988; to exempt Greater London County Hall from the provisions of section 100 of the Local Government Act 1985; and for connected purposes.
There are two main elements to the Bill. The first relates to the importance of the building that is Greater London county hall, and the second to the importance that it has had, has at present and can have in future as a building to serve the people of London, our capital city and the nation as a whole.
I should like to begin with a brief description of the building. County hall was built on a site which was previously derelict marshland that was acquired by the London county council in 1905. An architectural competition was held in 1907 and a unanimous choice was made by the assessors that the architect, Mr. Ralph Knott, should design a building to house London administration.
That scheme was accepted in February 1908 and thereafter construction began. The foundation stone of the main building was laid by His Majesty King George V in 1912 and the building was opened by the King in 1922. The building was completed in 1933.
There are also ancillary buildings, additional blocks other than the main building. Hon. Members will know that the whole structure was completed as the headquarters for the administration of London. That event was commemorated by a visit and an unveiling by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in November 1963. Since the passing of London administration from the London county council to the Greater London council, the building has remained as the centre administering London's affairs. County hall is also well known to hon. Members, as it houses the Inner London education authority.
The building is clearly of architectural importance. It was made a grade II listed building by the Minister of Works in 1951, the year I was born. The main reasons which justified that decision were the exterior and the principal floor. However, the whole building is listed.
Certain parts of the building are without doubt exceptional as contributions to the heritage of the city of London and of the country. The west door and the chairs behind the west door of the council chamber are made of oak believed to be some thousands of years old. The chamber walls are marble and the pillars were quarried in the Italian Alps. There is also Belgian marble in the building.
The whole building, the chamber, the reception areas and many of the rooms on the principal floor make up a building which Londoners have, from its erection, been proud to see as their administrative headquarters. At the head of the main staircase there are the names and coats of arms of successive lords lieutenant of the county of London since 1889. Inside the building there are conference rooms, committee rooms, exhibition halls and interview rooms as well as all the other ancillary, administrative offices. There is a ceremonial suite and a members' terrace.
The building has always been recognised for its importance and was most recently discussed in the Local 194 Government Bill which became the Local Government Act 1985. During the Bill's passage, two matters were raised which I hope mean that what I ask today is in accord with the information given in the Committee at the time.
Under section 62 of the Act, the residuary property of the GLC, including county hall, passes to the residuary body which will take over that function on 1 April 1986. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)— accepted the importance of the building and that there should be no hasty decision about its future use. He said: The important point is that County Hall should be put to good use. It will be the responsibility of the London residuary body to ensure that that happens … They and the staff of the residuary body will need to continue in occupation for a time. Our intention is that at an early stage the London residuary body will institute a feasibility study of the possible future uses of the building. The Under-Secretary of State later said: The freeholds of factory estates will transfer to the residuary body. The procedure for the county halls is roughly the same. They would transfer to the residuary body which would then consult and carry out a feasibility study on the best future use for that building."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 28 February 1985; c. 1818].
I seek time for the London ratepayers—the people who pay for the building — local government and Parliament to consult properly and for the London Residuary Body to be properly appraised of the uses to which people wish the building to be put.
My Bill aims to keep the building in the hands of the London Residuary Body until 31 December 1988. That gives two and a half years in which the building could be used. It should not be kept in mothballs. As the law stands, it could be sold after 1 April. That would go not just against the spirit of what the Government intended when they introduced the Bill but against the wishes of the vast majority of Londoners, people interested in architecture, and the people of Britain.
My Bill would prevent the immediate sale of county hall. It would preserve it in public ownership for people to make a considered judgment about its future, separate from the issue of abolition. This is the issue which will confront people immediately. My Bill would give adeqate time for Parliament, local government and public bodies to consider whether they have a use for county hall before a decision is taken which could irreversibly lose it to the public domain.
The Bill would not, because it could not, prevent such a decision, but nor would it preserve county hall in mothballs. In the interim, the London Residuary Body would be under a duty to offer the building for use by bodies such as ILEA, the London joint and co-ordinating comittees and all other regional and public bodies which might be interested in it. I am not entirely serious when I say that it could possibly be used until our additional buildings are completed. It would help with the inadequate accommodation provided for hon. Members in this building
The Bill's purpose is to give the public services a chance to exercise a claim to the site and this historic, listed and important building. It would impose that duty on the London Residuary Body.
There are one or two pragmatic reasons for such a move. The London Residuary Body will employ many people. They must be housed. ILEA will continue, although in a new form. The county hall computer could 195 not be easily moved. If ILEA and other bodies were to move out of the main building, many of the functional aspects of the complex would remain in the main building —the boiler house, the kitchens and the like.
The inscriptions around the council chamber and elsewhere signify that the building should remain in public ownership. The building has been converted to be as available as possible to many people.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
Even the SDP.

§ Mr. Hughes
I am being tempted from behind. It would be available to all the political parties. Disabled people can get in easily to use the building.
When it was announced that I would be seeking leave to introduce the Bill, I received a letter, and I shall end by quoting from it.

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
Only one?

§ Mr. Hughes
I have received several letters, but I shall quote from this one which comes from someone in Basildon: Dear Simon, subject County Hall"— [Interruption.] The letter is not from someone I have ever met, a relative, or a friend— I share your concern over the future of County Hall. So much so that I wrote a letter to the Private Secretary to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales over this same issue. He replied knowing of the Prince's deep concern over this important building in the capital. What worries me is that at some future date some speculator will come along and buy up the whole shooting match and, to quote one of the Prince's favourite terms `put up some preposterous'"—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is straying. We never introduce the Royal Family in support of our arguments in this place.

§ Mr. Hughes
I strayed in quoting. I apologise, as I did not propose to suggest that the Royal Family were unanimously behind me, although I hope that they would be. The writer continued by reminding us how county hall grew out of what was a swampy flooded Thames river site in the 1920s. He revealed that he originally came from the best constituency of all, my own, Southwark and Bermondsey. The writer concluded that, if we froze the issue for two years, we would give time for the authorities to make up their minds as to what will happen to that fine building in the future". I hope that the House will give us the time to make the best decision about an important building in the interests of Londoners, ratepayers and the country.