County Hall, Wakefield (Hansard, 12 March 1987)

§ Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have had a long wait, but I sincerely hope that we shall gain some benefit from the debate. You may recall that on 4 March I waited a long time to intervene on this same subject, the use of county hall, but on that occasion we were discussing county hall, London.

Under question 14, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), whose constituency is 400 miles away, was given the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he had had about the continued use of county hall for the London marathon. I waited for a long time hoping to ask the same type of question. I live only two miles away from county hall in Wakefield, but I thought that if a Scotsman could ask a question about a building 400 miles away, I would be entitled to ask a question, living as I do only two miles away.

Time has gone slowly tonight. I have waited five hours. I was told that we would quickly reach the Adjournment debate. But last week, tempus fugit. It flew quickly. After rising to my feet twice, Mr. Speaker said to me, "Bad luck". He drew my attention to the fact that it was 3.31 and then terminated questions. I saw a broad smile come across the faces of the two Environment Ministers. I know that they were pleased that I had got the chop.

However, my fortunes turned because, having applied for an Adjournment debate, I was quickly told that I had been lucky. Instead of bad luck, I had good luck. However, at this time of night I doubt whether I was lucky to get the Adjournment.

When I left the Chamber, having got the information about the Adjournment debate, with my usual warmth and affection for Government Ministers, I said, "Hello, Chris. How's things?" Chris replied, "All right. We have got a debate next Thursday; I am looking forward to it." I said, "So am I", and here we are tonight. That is where the mutual admiration society finishes— it had only a short life. I am here to argue an absolutely different point of view from that of the Minister. The mutual admiration society that the Under-Secretary and I were going to form has terminated already.

What have I found out? On Sunday, in a newspaper proscribed by some people, I read the headline: Ridley urges sell off. It stated: A new crackdown on local councils holding large amounts of assets was signalled yesterday by Nicholas Ridley, the Environment Secretary. Ridley indicated that a future Conservative Government would take steps to encourage councils to sell assets, such as land or property, to the private sector.

The Secretary of State and his predecessor took positive steps regarding county hall in Wakefield. I have made representations and led delegations because I am concerned about that marvellous building. It is one of the finest buildings in the country. It was purpose built in 1888 after the county council decided to build its own residence. At that time, the council resided in Wakefield city town hall. However, in the space of four years, it built a marvellous edifice which was officially opened in 1898.

596 The building has terrific historic value. The stone work, the staircase, the carpeting, furniture and panelling were purpose built for the local authority. The standard of county hall is above that of the Palace of Westminster.

What has happened? From the representations and discussions that I have had, I believe that I have been misled on certain occasions. When I met the Under-Secretary I was told that the decision to sell off Wakefield county hall was the responsibility of the residuary body. However, when I visited the residuary body I was told that the responsibility lay with the Minister. I was used like a ping pong.

Having been so misled, I shall continue with my strong representation that county hall should stay with the Wakefield metropolitan district council and remain a public body building. It should not be sold off for use as a hotel, casino, dance hall or bingo hall. It should retain the dignity of the purpose for which it was built. In other words, it should be used for local government.

If the Wakefield metropolitan district council arid the police authority, which was in the West Riding, were to remain with the Wakefield metropolitan borough council, millions of pounds would be saved. The local authority is short of accommodation because of the additional duties that it has to perform following abolition. The police authority is stretched. Indeed, for several years it was told that it could have £30 million worth of new headquarters. Consideration was then given to refurbishment, which would have cost £8.5 million. If the police authority were committed to have the education block by arrangement and by package deals and the local authority were to have the county accommodation, at least £6 million or £7 million would be saved immediately.

When I referred this matter to the Home Secretary, my questions were directed to the Department of the Environment. The DoE referred me to the residuary body. When that body has gone to the highest bidder, I hope that the Minister will intervene—I trust that he will assure me this evening that he will do so—and take into consideration all the issues that are involved, instead of concentrating on the highest bidder, who will make a. quick buck. It is probable that he will try to rent the property to the local authority and the police, as others have tried to do in the past with other properties. I appeal to the Minister to assure me that he will take into consideration all the issues and ensure that there is proper consultation.

On 1 January 1988, I want to march from the town hall to county hall to reoccupy the magnificent building that I have described. That is the day on which the residuary body says that it can be taken over. The police band should take that route and the WMBC supporters. We want properly to reoccupy county hall.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope)

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) for raising the issue and for the way in which he has put his case. It is not a new one. We have discussed it on a previous occasion. I hope that he is appreciative of the fact that I can respond to the debate as I could not during Question Time, when he sought to raise the matter. I now have a little more time in which to explain the background to the matter and what is likely to happen in future

597 The responsibility for the future of county hall rests primarily with the residuary body—one of the residuary bodies that were set up under the Local Government Act 1985. The residuary bodies were established to wind up the outstanding affairs of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The property of the abolished councils transferred either to functional successors or to residuary bodies. County hall, Wakefield, has no relevance in terms of transferred functional responsibilities, and therefore quite properly passed into the ownership of the residuary body. It therefore falls to the residuary body to decide just how the building should be disposed of, within the general property guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, at his request, I met the chairman of the West Yorkshire residuary body last October to discuss the issue. At that meeting, I explained that I expected the residuary body to consider all of the options open for the future of county hall and that, in doing so, they should be aware of their fiduciary duty to all of the ratepayers of the former county council area. I also stressed that, in considering all of the options, the residuary body should properly consider opportunities for disposal on the open market. I also made it clear to the chairman that any disposal to Wakefield metropolitan district council or some other public body should be for value — that is to say, a fair market price — to take account of the interests of the ratepayers of the abolished authority as a whole.

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the fact that the points that I made at that meeting were entirely in line with the general property guidelines issued to the residuary bodies, a copy of which was placed in the Library last August. I am pleased to say that the chairman of the residuary body was in full accord with me on those points, and I am content that he and his fellow members are acting entirely within the framework laid down by the guidelines. Indeed, I should take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of the way in which all of the members of the West Yorkshire residuary body have so conscientiously discharged their responsibilities.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of Wakefield metropolitan district council or the West Yorkshire police authority acquiring county hall. I understand that both bodies have submitted bids to take over the property, and I am sure that these bids will be considered on their merits, alongside any other bids that are received. However, I am informed that neither bid takes the form of a firm monetary offer for the building. I remain of the view that any transfer within the public sector must be on a value basis. It should be borne in mind that county hall belonged to all of the ratepayers of the former county council area—not just to those of one district—and the residuary body has a duty to all of those ratepayers. Only by ensuring that any disposal is on a cash basis and that the proceeds are then distributed to all five district councils in west Yorkshire can the residuary body adequately discharge that responsibility.

It has been suggested that, under the present arrangements for the distribution of proceeds from the sale of residuary body property, Leeds and Bradford district councils would benefit most from the sale of county hall. It has also been suggested that the proceeds from such a sale should be distributed between Wakefield, Calderdale 598 and Kirklees, who originally paid for the building. The general principle that has been followed is that the financial benefits and liabilities inherited from the county councils should be distributed to the districts in each county, pro rata to population. This applies to both inherited money and to receipts arising from property sales. Orders giving effect to this principle have already been made.

The liability for any debt outstanding in respect of county hall falls countywide. It is fair that the benefits from its disposal should do so, too. There is no case for treating county hall—or any proceeds arising from its sale—any differently from the other assets or liabilities that the residuary body has inherited.

While mentioning the bids received from Wakefield metropolitan district council and the police authority, I should say that the residuary body has been scrupulous in ensuring that both local Members of Parliament and councillors have been kept fully informed of all developments. I know that the residuary body chairman has had a number of meetings with hon. Members and councillors. Indeed, I understand that he met the leader of Wakefield metropolitan district council only yesterday afternoon.

It is right to pay tribute to the work of the residuary body and to acknowledge the success so far. West Yorkshire residuary body has the largest property portfolio outside London. It is to its credit that it has so quickly got to grips with the task of sorting out the records— transferring the appropriate records to the district councils and joint authorities as it proceeded — and bringing forward for sale as much surplus property as it has been able. I am informed that, to date, it has realised £2.8 million from the sales. This money will eventually be distributed among the five district councils in west Yorkshire and will benefit ali of the ratepayers of the area. If we had acceded to the right hon. Member's requests for all of the surplus property of the county council to be transferred to the district councils, the ratepayers would not have received this benefit.

The residuary body has also done an excellent job in winding up the financial affairs of the county council and in closing the accounts for 1985–86. Both of these tasks were completed quickly. In addition, the residuary body has been responsible for calculating and paying both redundancy payments and detriment payments to former county council staff. Again these tasks were performed scrupulously and swiftly.

I should make one final comment on the role and accountability of the residuary bodies. The residuary bodies are properly accountable. The members of the residuary bodies are appointed by and are accountable to the Secretary of State who, in his turn, is accountable to Parliament. I am therefore content that the residuary bodies are properly and fully accountable for all their actions.

As I have said, I am satisfied that any offers received from Wakefield metropolitan district council, the police authority or any other public sector body will be considered on their merits. But many other expressions of interest have also been received. I am informed that there have been some 60 inquiries to date, and it is quite right that all these should be followed up to ensure that the best possible deal is obtained for the ratepayers.

I understand that some of the inquiries received are on the basis of possible use for hotel or residential 599 development. If these inquiries are to come to fruition, they could be the subject of planning appeals. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to comment on specific suggestions. However, I must record my strong belief that the residuary body should consider seriously all the various possibilities for both private and public sector investment in this building. Over the years, Wakefield's economy has been over-dependent on local government employment and it would benefit from the boost of additional private sector employment.

I have visited this fine building and it could possibly be used by the private sector. However, it is open to Wakefield council to purchase the building. I understand that it has the resources with which to do so, if it places a sufficiently high priority on that objective. Recent press cuttings suggest that Wakefield will be taking £9.5 million from its reserves for its 1987–88 budget and that it is spending £5.5 million on new leisure facilities. That is evidence of the ability of Wakefield council to incur high expenditure. If the council wants to put in a good bid for this building, it will be able to do so. All other things being equal, if Wakefield's bid is the highest it will get county hall for its own purposes.

There is nothing to prevent Wakefield from negotiating with the police authority over dual use. I am unable to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that particularly large savings could be made from a deal involving the police authority and the education authority, but I understand that the West Yorkshire police authority would like to purchase the premises of the education department at No. 8 Bond street at a cost of £725,000. However, that purchase would depend upon Wakefield council obtaining county hall.

600 The West Yorkshire police authority argues that if it obtained the education department's premises it would permit the early centralisation of a number of police headquarters departments and the surrender of unsuitable accommodation in other parts of Wakefield. Furthermore, the proposed redevelopment of the existing police force headquarters would no longer be necessary. The West Yorkshire police authority's preliminary estimate of the proposed redevelopment of the force headquarters is £8 million and phase 1 is expected to cost about £2 million. Estimates have not yet been submitted to the Home Office, but if there is to be a beneficial financial deal involving the police authority's use of the education department's premises, it will be taken into account by those who are considering the bids for county hall.

The right hon. Gentleman implied that there was a threat to this fine building. The fact that it is a grade I listed building is a guarantee that it will not be vandalised. Anyone thinking of purchasing the building would have to take into account the fact that it is a listed building. The fine panelling and other accoutrements to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will have to be retained by any purchaser.

I have been to see the building. It is a fine building for which the right hon. Gentleman rightly has great affection. He becomes emotional about it because he is attached to it, but there is no reason to suppose that the building will be in jeopardy because of the actions of the residuary body in seeking to dispose of it, with the sale being of benefit to all the ratepayers in the former county area.