County Hall, London (Hansard, 4 December 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, the Government do not accept that the London Residuary Body has failed to find viable new uses for County Hall. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering planning proposals for the County Hall buildings to be used as a hotel, a conference centre, as offices and for apartments and shops.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Government's planning circular No. 887, which states that the best use for a historic building is the use for which it was designed?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I agree that historic buildings should be used, which is also stated in the PPG.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, will my noble friend consult our mutual noble and learned friend on the Woolsack as to whether there is not a grave shortage of court space in central London?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, a planning application is now receiving consideration but I am sure that the building could be put to many uses.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have no interest in what finally happens at County Hall? However, can she tell us what the Goverment intend to do about the carbuncle, the monstrosity that is part of the GLC County Hall building? It is at the foot of Westminster Bridge and blocks the view of the entire river and the Palace of Westminster because some idiot put it up. What do the Government intend to do about it?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, this is not the time for me to go into detail about the planning application. The noble Lord may know that when the inspector considered the original plans at the inquiry he was not unhappy about them in every detail, and the plans now submitted are much more acceptable, and the aspect will be much improved.

§ Lord Mancroft
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that whatever happens County Hall will never again become the symbol of socialist incompetence that it became under Labour Party rule?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, at an early age I was taught never to say, "Never again", and certainly not 96 in politics. No one on this side of the House wishes to see a resurrection of the kind of government that we had when the GLC existed.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the Government to whom she belongs were gravely mistaken in abolishing the GLC, which was a medium of democratic government in London? Are not the Government ashamed of that action, which resulted in rendering the building unavailable for the purpose for which it was designed and to which it should be returned?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the assumption made by the noble Lord. The GLC was an expensive and unhelpful overhead for London government.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, will the Minister consider using the proposed office space in County Hall for Members of both Houses of Parliament, for whom there is a considerable shortage of space? It might be possible to connect the Palace of Westminster and County Hall by means of a travelator underneath the Thames.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am sure that there is no shortage of ideas on the use to which County Hall should be put. Consideration is at present being given to putting it into the private sector for the use that I described in my Answer.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, does the Minister agree that with proportional representation there would have been no real reason for abolishing the GLC?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, there were good reasons for abolishing the GLC. As regards proportional representation, at this time the answer is no.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as everyone knows, the reason for abolishing the GLC was that London people had the audacity to vote Labour, which in some Tory eyes is offensive? Is he further aware that Conservative and Labour councils, together with those of us with experience in London local government, now believe that if the GLC is not to be recreated an organisation of London boroughs must be formed, irrespective of the party in power? Such an organisation should have somewhere to meet to discuss the important and vital questions that affect the entire metropolis.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the reason for the abolition was not to do with how people voted in London but with the fact that it was an expensive and unhelpful tier of local government. Thirty-three London boroughs are doing a wonderful job in replacing the functions of the GLC, as are the London Planning Advisory Committee and SERPLAN. A strategic body and 33 London boroughs are doing a splendid job.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what is to happen to the area below County Hall? I understand that some would-be developers are asking for conditions which would spoil that public park.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I must refer the noble Lord to the planning application, which will be on public deposit.

§ Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone
My Lords, will my noble friend consider differentiating between the various regimes at County Hall, some of which were neither unhelpful nor expensive?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, those aspects which were not unhelpful are catered for under the new arrangements. Those which were unhelpful have ceased to exist.

The Viscount of Falkland
My Lords, is it not the case that the London Residuary Body turned down an application by an American film company to film some scenes from an 80 million dollar production called "Shining Through" starring Michael Douglas? Is not that rather an attractive use for County Hall? Why was that application turned down?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not aware of the details of a specific application being turned down. However, there are security problems at County Hall and it may well be that security arrangements invalidated any cost benefit that would have arisen by allowing the film company into County Hall.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that the former GLC building has been the responsibility of the London Residuary Body for four years but it has been put to no use whatever? The result is that the former ratepayers, now poll tax payers, of the former GLC area have lost a great deal of money. Is it not fair and right that the public auditor should now be considering surcharging the chairman of the London Residuary Body and its members, in the same way that local councils and government officers would have been surcharged had they carried out such an exercise?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord says. The London Residuary Body is realising considerable assets, all of which will benefit the London boroughs and the people of London.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, given the circular which I have quoted, the two planning inquiries at which the inspector said that the building should be held in public use, the collapse of the private sector alternative and the reforms of local government currently being considered by the Minister, does not the noble Baroness agree that the planning inquiry should be reopened? Is she aware that the learned counsel of Lambeth has suggested that if that is not done, the Secretary of State risks judicial review?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the final point is very much a matter for Lambeth council. The three points of criticism in the first inquiry, which is now subject to resubmission of an application, have been addressed by the applicants and that application now sits before the Secretary of State. At present he is considering whether or not the inquiry shall be reopened. This is a period of consultation during which the noble Baroness will have every opportunity to feed to the Secretary of State her particular views. However, I do not agree with many of the statements made by the noble Baroness.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, I fear that this is a subject which we could continue to discuss for quite a long time. We have spent 15 minutes discussing two Questions and I believe that it is the feeling of the House that we should now move on to the next Question.