County Hall

HL Deb 08 June 1992 vol 537 cc1162-84

6.43 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the importance to London of the site of County Hall and its attributes as a listed building, and in particular whether they have considered its suitability as a site for the London School of Economics.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first explain what this Question is not about or at any rate what it is not about in my mind. I wish to make it quite clear that this is not an anti-Japanese move. I recognise the importance to London of overseas investment. There is no suggestion in this Question of any discrimination against Japanese companies which wish to invest here. Nor is it about London government. I accept that the Government will pursue their plans for London and that County Hall will have no place in those plans. Finally, it is not a matter of special pleading on behalf of the London School of Economics. I did not attend the LSE myself. I was not approached by the LSE to raise this issue. In fact I approached the LSE and asked whether it would be useful for the House to debate the issue.

The Question is about the place of a major building in the life of London. I brought the matter to your Lordships' attention because I believe that a public building should remain in public use. The matter is of public interest and should be considered publicly.

County Hall is part of London's heritage. It was designed for public use and was paid for with public money. Therefore the use of the site is a legitimate public concern. The land was acquired by London County Council under an Act of 1906 which gave it compulsory powers to acquire land, for the purposes of erecting a hall, offices and buildings for the business of the council".

An architectural competition was held in the following year and County Hall was built in stages over a period of 25 years or so.

The recent history of the building has been complex and chequered but the history is not yet complete, though it may widely be thought to be so. The buildings are now in the hands of the London Residuary Body, which is something akin to the receiver of the GLC. Like local authorities, when it disposes of land the London Residuary Body must not dispose of it, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained".

That is quite proper, but it is not the end of the story. The same provision—Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972—allows a disposal not at the best price with the consent of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, under Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1985, which dealt with the abolition of the GLC, each residuary body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State".

In other words, responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. That is why I am asking this Question of the Government.

The current position is that the London Residuary Body entered into an agreement immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament to sell the riverside building to a Japanese corporation for hotel and leisure facilities and flats. However, the contract includes a clause which allows revocation of the contract by the London Residuary Body before the end of 1992. That is an unusual clause. I wondered at first why it was there. I could understand why a purchaser might want time to reconsider, but it is a particularly helpful clause in that in this case the seller has the chance to reconsider. It is particularly helpful because this contract had not been in the public arena beforehand. Most importantly, it allowed the possibility for the Secretary of State to direct revocation and the disposal of the buildings to another purchaser.

Apart from the riverside building—the one which, as its name implies, fronts the river—I do not know what may be proposed for the other buildings on the site. It is fair to say that they are not well loved. It is also fair to assume that they are likely to go for a commercial use—perhaps for offices, with which London is currently vastly over-supplied. It is understood that the price agreed by the London Residuary Body is £60 million. I say "understood" because the London Residuary Body will not disclose the price until after completion, which under the current contract is set for October 1993. There are questions of secrecy—perhaps "confidentiality" would be the less aggressive word—surrounding the arrangements. I am not asking the Government to answer those questions today but I do ask the Minister to confirm the price if he is able to do so.

Noble Lords may ask why I do not consider the sale price to be a matter of particular importance. It has some importance but I do not believe that it overrides the other interests of Londoners and taxpayers. The price is not an insignificant amount. It would be paid by the London Residuary Body to the London boroughs, of which there are 32, plus the City of London. If I have the price right, that is an average of under £2 million per borough. Again, that is not an insignificant amount, but given the current restrictions on capital spending, that money would go to reduce local authority debt. It would be relevant but it would not be a major matter. The boroughs could not go out and spend that money.

In any event there are precedents for asking the London Residuary Body to consider whether it should obtain the best possible price and indeed for asking the Secretary of State to consider the same matter. There are properties in Covent Garden which were held by the GLC. They were sold en bloc following a direction by the Secretary of State which allowed less than the best price, and indeed the involvement of community trusts and restrictions to protect the historic nature of Covent Garden and its speciality shopping and entertainments. That was justified on the grounds of the importance of the area and additional benefits to London as a whole offsetting less than the best price.

Land at Thamesmead was sold to a housing trust for something like 10 per cent. of its value. That led to a challenge in the High Court, but the disposal was upheld because it was the best price that the trust could afford. In the case of industrial and commercial estates and seaside and country homes, two large portfolios, some 4,000 properties in all, contained, like County Hall, some good bits and some bad bits—something of a curate's egg as well. In that case the view was taken that the maximum yield would be obtained by breaking up the estates and leaving a hard-to-sell residue with a negative value. But in both cases the London Residuary Body sold in bulk at a discount in order to avoid being left with the rump and indeed to avoid delay.

Most recently, I understand that part of Jubilee Gardens has been sold to the Arts Council for the price of £1 in the public interest. If the property is later developed, the proceeds will go to the boroughs. But, in other words, the price of that property was not the sole issue.

Why should County Hall not be used as an hotel? That is not just because the imagination of those of us who knew the building will not quite stretch to the notion. I am sure that those of your Lordships who are familiar with the building will recall the sparsity of plumbing and wonder how it might become a luxury hotel where all rooms should have a bathroom. I believe a good deal of work would be required for that.

Nor is it just a matter of market economics. I believe that if we concentrate simply on marketable uses of individual sites and individual buildings our capital city would be the poorer for it. I think it is appropriate that we pay heed to have particular sites interact and combine to enhance the character, the confidence and the pride of our city.

County Hall is a public building. A commercial use could be grand; it could be in keeping with history, but it is more likely to be mundane. Indeed, the difficult lay-out of the building would lead to pressure for change of a listed building. The riverside building is a Grade II^* listed building.

So why the London School of Economics? Partly because it is there; it has worked up the plan and it would be an excellent fit. It has worked up a scheme which has gathered considerable public support. Apart from the plumbing, the main impression for visitors to the riverside building is the long corridors, the distances one has to walk and the amount of space. That is a correct impression. Indeed, only some 50 per cent. of the space of the building is usable. The other 50 per cent. is a public area. That is well suited for a university, where there are many people who move around between lectures and seminars to talk and exchange the ideas that are the most valuable part of university life.

Also, the building is well suited to conference facilities, including the Council Chamber. The LSE would propose that use. It would not be necessary or indeed intended to make any substantial alterations to the listed riverside building. That has meant that the proposal has been supported by those who have an interest in the heritage aspects. Among them is the Royal Fine Arts Commission, which supported the recent planning application.

The proposal is also supported by the neighbours of the building, St. Thomas's Hospital—the full title of which I have now learned is the United Medical and Dental School of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital. It wrote to the local authority in support of the planning application, welcoming the proposal and saying that the presence of the LSE in the midst of what it described as a university complex, referring to its own work and the possible move of the life sciences department of King's College to Stamford Street. It stated: The presence of the LSE in the midst of this University complex could greatly enhance academic postgraduate and undergraduate teaching and lead to greater collaboration in research".

I asked another neighbour, Lambeth Palace, about its attitude. The palace authorities told me that they were quite happy that I should read to the House their letter to the local planning authority. The letter from Lambeth Palace fairly stated: We are not aware of the details of the scheme, and so our comments as fairly near neighbours must be necessarily limited. However, we thought you might wish to know that, in general, we would welcome this proposal. It seems to us that an educational institution would fit the cultural ambiance of the South Bank more appropriately than some of the other possibilities of which we have heard, e.g. a hotel".

The local planning authority has granted the London School of Economics permission for the change of use. The application extended beyond the riverside building to the other buildings on the site. The island block at the bottom of Westminster Bridge is an hexagonal building which lends itself remarkably well to use as a library. It would provide maximum reading light for those who wish to work there. That is important because the LSE houses the British Library of Political and Economic Science. The proposal would be that the north and south blocks would be used for a social science park. Noble Lords will be aware of science parks elsewhere where commercial organisations paying a commercial rent have what might be described as a symbiotic relationship with the university.

In other words, one of our premier educational institutions could expand its service, enlarge its spheres of operation and play an increasing role in the commercial as well as the academic life of London and of the country; it could carry out activities which it so badly wants to carry out now and which it cannot because of the cramped—that is an inadequate word —site on which it now exists. The expansion could be very exciting. It could, for instance—and I know that this has been proposed by the school—involve collaboration with the Civil Service College to develop the British equivalent of the French École Normale d'Administration.

The LSE could stay on its present site and continue a piecemeal development; it could meet the current shortfall in space by adding on bits of building in the way that it has had to over the past few years, but that would be most unsatisfactory. To acquire space near its Houghton Street premises to do what it could do at County Hall would cost something of the order of £80 million or £90 million. Indeed, one must question the wisdom of continuing expenditure on a site where the options are only to extend an existing rabbit warren.

I believe that every Londoner would benefit indirectly from the enhanced stature and facilities that would be provided here. I wondered initially about the scale of the development and the impact on the surrounding area, but I am very much persuaded that, though a large number of people would use the site, they would not, as with other large communities, strain transportation and infrastructure, as would a similar number of people in a commercial venture. I am conscious of the likely overload of Waterloo, particularly when it begins to act as a Channel Tunnel terminal. But it is worth noting that most students travel by public transport; they would not overload the roads, and they travel outside peak hours.

I am sure that noble Lords will be asking how the London School of Economics can pay for this. The school has proposals for this as well; it believes that the best arrangement would be for the listed building to be transferred to a trust and leased to the school at a peppercorn rent. The proceeds of the school's current buildings would be invested in the renovation. Here I have another question for the Minister. The school cannot estimate the precise cost of this because it has been unable to gain access to the riverside building—the London Residuary Body has not felt able to allow it access. I ask the Minister to confirm that he will use his good offices to persuade the LRB to grant that access.

Under this arrangement if the building were eventually disposed of, the proceeds then would go to the boroughs. That may sound idealistic, but it behoves us to strive for a vision. County Hall, facing the Palace of Westminster—indeed, sometimes confronting it—has a civic history. It is part of our capital's heritage. We know of the Government's keen awareness of the country's heritage, and we have a new department to deal with it. A public or civic use of sufficient dignity would do justice to that history and that heritage.

7 p.m.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, with slightly less emphasis, perhaps I may also disclaim a private or personal interest. Rather more than 40 years ago I gave one course of lectures at the LSE in the temporary absence of a more qualified member of staff. A few years later I was an unsuccessful candidate for the chair unfortunately vacated by the late Harold Laski.

Showing its continued wisdom, the school rightly preferred Michael Oakeshott. On the other hand, I feel, as I believe other members of the academic community in the House and outside feel, that it is an important element in the country's system of higher education which it could enhance if it could escape from its present sordid physical circumstances.

The noble Baroness was a little kind. Anyone who attends a lecture at the LSE is always appalled, especially if they come not merely from better endowed universities in this country but, as so many do, from overseas. It has also played a great part in Britain's relations overseas. I suppose that next to Sandhurst the LSE has produced more members of the ruling élite of Commonwealth countries, especially the new Commonwealth countries, than any other institution.

In recent decades there has been a notable shift from undergraduate to postgraduate education and research and towards a higher proportion of overseas students. I gather that it is intended that that shift should continue to some extent. In other words, we are talking about an institution of international renown.

In the case of the building, I have a feeling that there are times when history somehow produces its own logic. The LCC, which built it, as the noble Baroness has described, was the product of a reforming wave in London in the last quarter of the last century which produced also the LSE. Indeed, some notable figures in British public life were involved in both those ventures. I do not wish to enter, and nor has the noble Baroness, upon vexed political territory. All one can say is that the fortunes of the then LCC were somewhat chequered, whereas the LSE has gone, as I have said, from strength to strength.

To have the opportunity of marrying those two great creations of an important reforming period in our social history is one which no government ought for a moment to overlook. I find it difficult to believe that a Secretary of State who has an opportunity to bring about that marriage would baulk at it because of the technicalities of financial advice from the LRB. That is a body whose interment one awaits with some impatience.

There is no obvious way in which the merits of the building, including its fine internal appointments—its great hall and so forth—can be preserved if it is put to commercial use. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, to turn it into offices or a hotel, as is now mooted, would inevitably mean such a degree of reconstruction that the imagination of the original architects would be largely lost. The Survey of London has recently investigated its history and the history of its arts treasures, and to investigate its history is surely one way of promoting its survival.

Furthermore, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the move to that site would be of benefit to some institutions other than the LSE itself. There are a number—some noble Lords no doubt have experience of one or another—of small research institutes in London, outside the realm of the physical sciences, which suffer a perpetual problem of location because the places that they can reasonably rent tend to be a long way from the libraries and other facilities which those who research in them require. The possibility of using the other buildings on the site to let to societies and other such institutes would be a major boost to the intellectual life of this city and to Britain's contribution to research in a number of fields. I am thinking of international relations and strategic studies—subjects with which I am personally associated—but I am sure that that is equally true of many institutes which deal with more domestic matters.

There is, as it were, an inherent logic about bringing those things together, and it is a logic which has convinced a great many people of the desirability of that marriage, or remarriage, between those two creations. I find it difficult to believe, as I have said, that any government would throw away that opportunity, especially remembering that people ask about London when they visit not, "Are there enough hotel rooms?" or "Can we rent another office?", but "What have you to show which is a parallel to what some other great cities are doing?". What we have to offer is in part the intellectual and educational achievements of this city, and to have them on the other side of the bridge from Parliament would again signal something which even the most casual visitor could hardly fail to notice.

If the Government are moved by nothing but commercial considerations, perhaps I may point out that tourism is, alas, one of our major financial resources. To agree to any other solution now that this one is available seems to me—if I may borrow a phrase—not so much selling the family silver as slashing the family portraits.

7.9 p.m.

Lord Dainton

My Lords, sometimes I even surprise myself by my own actions; but never more so than when I succumbed some 12 or 13 years ago to the blandishments of the then director of the LSE to become one of its governors. I did so because I had "cased the joint" (as the Americans say) both in a private capacity after he had asked me to join, and earlier, as chairman of the University Grants Committee. Both those investigations showed me that the London School of Economics had more than a touch of quality. Moreover, I was curious to discover how a hard-nosed experimental scientist like myself, with a reputation for blunt speech, would fare in an institution devoted to politics, economics, sociology and cognate subjects generally regarded by physical scientists like myself as "soft".

Over the years, as I became more and more involved in the policy and decision making of the school, my respect for it grew. Its international renown is unquestioned. Fifty per cent. of its students are from overseas, nearly 40 per cent. of these being drawn from the USA, Canada and Germany. After leaving the LSE, they become powerful advocates for this country. The London School of Economics is therefore a great influence for building good foreign relations for the United Kingdom, not only now but in the future. Just under 45 per cent. of its students are postgraduates, as was hinted by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. That fact testifies to its research reputation. If further testimony to its quality and influence were required, one has only to look at the careers of its alumni. Whether the disproportionately large number of them in this House is a recommendation, I leave to your Lordships' individual judgments.

I shall not weary your Lordships with more praise of LSE. Rather, I wish to make two points; and ask whether the Government are averse to them or open to them. The first is that rarely have I been in a university institution whose buildings—and I speak as an expert here—are so ill-adapted for their purpose, so ill-disposed relative to one another, so full of broken levels, so congested, so lacking in places well designed for study by staff or students. I could go on. The Houghton Street site is small and the buildings crowded. No one is to blame for this. The school has had to do the best it could in difficult circumstances over many years.

If I speak with some feeling on the matter, it is because for many years I have been chairman of the library panel, which is responsible for the British Library of Political and Economic Science, to which reference has already been made. It is an internationally famous research library, largely housed in a former commercial warehouse.

The second point is that the LSE is now at a moment in its history when it could and should grow and fill the important role in Europe which not only the governors but many influential Europeans expect and hope that it will occupy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has explained what a remarkably good "fit" County Hall provides for the activities of the LSE, and that this solution is thought to be economically sound. But of course more investigation is required.

As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, County Hall provides the opportunity of the century to solve, at one stroke, LSE's problems. I remind your Lordships that in two years' time LSE will be 100 years old and it would be a splendid celebration of its centenary if it could occupy County Hall. If that were possible, then as surveys have established, the various departments, including the library, can be decently and efficiently housed at costs which are reasonable and fully justified. Its future growth could be secured well into the 21st century.

I am well aware that just four weeks ago today the Secretary of State for the Environment, with his colleagues, began a re-examination of the possible uses of County Hall. I hope that your Lordships will, by your support today, convey to him that to allocate the site to the LSE would confer inestimable benefit on this country and its capital city, as well as on the London School of Economics itself. This is indeed, if I may quote Brutus, a tide in the affairs of the LSE, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune", but which if missed, would both stultify LSE's development and deny to an historic setting and listed buildings a singularly appropriate use. I ask the noble Viscount to urge his colleague, the Secretary of State, to take a decision which is wholly favourable to the proposition that the London School of Economics should occupy those buildings on the County Hall site, which it needs and thus provide for its growth and continued development.

7.16 p.m.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I should declare an interest as a governor of the school. On behalf of the governors I am sure we wish to record our appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the extremely clear and cogent way in which she put the case tonight. We wish to emphasise that the fact that she did so on a completely unsolicited basis is all the more reassuring. We really are grateful.

Before I turn to the proposal, I wish to emphasise one point which the noble Baroness made. Among the governors there is concern that a scurrilous rumour has begun to develop that in some way what is being argued is hostile to the Japanese. We wish to make it absolutely clear that as a body we understand the tremendous importance of successful co-operation, commercial and otherwise, with the Japanese. There is nothing whatever hostile in the proposal. But we believe that the case for the move should be fully and properly examined.

As befits one of the country's best known university institutions, the purpose of the proposed move is educational. The school wishes to respond to the challenge presented by the Government's wish to expand higher education and at the same time to further its mission so eloquently and well described in 1901. Perhaps I may quote that mission as then described: To organise, promote and supply liberal courses of education specially adapted to the needs of persons who are … engaged in any kind of administration, including the service of government or local authority, railways and shipping, banking and insurance, international trade, and any of the higher branches of Commerce and Industry". As we look at our own nation facing the challenges of the 21st century, could there be a more relevant investment than one in the healthy future of the school undertaking what has always been clearly its purpose?

Specifically, in the Riverside Building (the listed building) there are six priorities in the proposed move: first, to refurbish and equip the building to accommodate 50 per cent. more students than at present. I should emphasise, however, that there is no intention to make substantial structural alterations of any kind to the fabric of the building since, as the noble Baroness emphasised, the fit between the present activities of the school and the range of spaces available in the Riverside Building is good. It is for this reason that it is believed that the school's proposals have attracted the positive support of those concerned by the heritage dimensions of the listed building.

The second priority is to establish a conference facility to utilise the principal rooms on the first floor, including the council chamber. The LSE has a long tradition of providing public lectures and making available facilities to others who wish to provide educational services. It is hoped to expand this side of the school's activities and there is confidence that it could be done on a fully commercial basis.

Thirdly, we should establish a national resource centre for the social sciences. The social science research community is coming under considerable pressure to respond to the Government's desire to see the Science Vote spent more selectively and in a more concentrated fashion. As the United Kingdom's leading centre for research in the social sciences, the LSE both wants to respond to this and also wishes to make its facilities, especially its library—the British Library for Political and Economic Science—more accessible to the wider community of UK research workers.

The intention is also to develop, in this and other ways that would be possible in the riverside building, closer interactions with policy oriented research organisations of the kind exemplified by the Policy Studies Institute and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. There would be space for one or more such organisations to join the school as tenants in the riverside building if they so desired. It is probable that some would join the school.

Fourthly, we should expand the present Interdisciplinary Institute of Management and develop a wider European focus for its activities than is the case at present. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness refer to a matter the school likes to refer to; namely, the potential for establishing an institution similar to the École Normale d'Administration in France.

Fifthly, we should expand and extend existing courses designed to contribute to the professional development of those working in the professions, the financial services industry, Whitehall and Westminster. Sixthly, the school should house the new and imaginative centre for the study of global governments upon which it is just embarking. These initiatives would enable the school to maintain its present approximately 50/50 ratio of UK and foreign students while moving to a 40/60 ratio of undergraduate/postgraduate students and of course to retain its position as the UK's premier research institution in the social sciences.

In the island block the school intends to house its outstanding library which is the finest such collection of documents in the United Kingdom. The collection would be readily and securely accessible to others such as those who work in the Houses of Parliament and visitors to the National Research Centre. The remaining buildings on the site, the north and south blocks, would after refurbishment comprise a social science park. That has been suggested. There are a number of organisations which would benefit from proximity to the LSE's expertise and its library and which would be prepared to pay a commercial rent for space in those blocks. In addition, it is likely that spin-off companies would be established in such premises where commercial development of some of the ideas generated by the LSE's academics would be possible. Enterprise LSE Limited, the school's recently established consultancy company, would be such a tenant.

The County Hall buildings and the riverside building in particular are eminently well suited for university use—this has been argued—as the noble Baroness has described. Thousands of people could move from room to room between lectures and seminars. The ratio of 50 per cent. usable space to 50 per cent. public area is positively attractive.

The LSE believes that its proposals can be achieved without recourse to Department of Education budgets. However, while the school's costings have been prepared using the best possible information available to it, a full structural survey would have to be undertaken to enable the school to assure the Government that its proposals were financially feasible. Before proceeding there would have to be rock solid certainty that future maintenance costs would be manageable. In this context it must be stressed that the school has so far been unable to determine with the necessary precision the cost of carrying out the refurbishment that would be required or the future scale of maintenance costs as the London Residuary Body has so far denied it full access to the buildings and has not made available full survey reports on their current condition.

Therefore the amount of money that the school would have to spend in purchasing and refurbishing the property is still uncertain. Satisfactory answers on that matter are a vital precondition to proceeding further. The school is quite prepared to invest all of the realisable value of its present buildings in the purchase of the freehold and refurbishment of the site. However, the school's preference would be for the freehold to be held in trust on behalf of the London boroughs while it was given the security of a long lease.

In 1989 the school was awarded the Queen's Award for Export Achievement. It then earned £8.2 million. Last year this had risen to £10.5 million. The school expects this figure to more than double as a direct consequence of the move, the attendant changes in the composition of its student body and the nature of its research programmes. This year, for example, the school's income from research contracts from the EC has increased threefold.

Finally—this has also been stressed—if the school were not to move to County Hall it would still be faced with the inescapable need to modernise its existing buildings and to acquire new ones. While it is difficult to be precise in the present market, the school estimates that it would need at least £90 million to carry out its expansion plans and between £33 million and £48 million merely to make good its present shortfall in space. The school believes that County Hall would be a much better place for such investment. I believe that the school situated on the prime site across the river could be a powerful indication of confidence in the United Kingdom's role in playing a dynamic part in meeting the huge social, economic and government challenges of the third millennium.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke

My Lords, I too welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in testing the intention of the Government on the future of County Hall. I do so with special interest in the outcome as I am a Londoner born and bred and was educated in London from primary school to the London School of Economics, where I am now an Honorary Fellow. I have also been involved with the LSE in its preparations for its centenary in 1995.

I do not wish to repeat the excellent arguments that have already been advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords on the suitability of the site for the LSE. However, I wish to emphasise certain points which I hope the Government will take note of even at this late stage.

In discharge of its statutory rights to maximise the commercial benefit of the County Hall, the LRB has considered only the monetary offer of the Shirayama Corporation to convert this unique site to a hotel and leisure complex. But London has an abundance of hotels occupying the most prestigious sites—those sites range from Hyde Park Corner to Park Lane—and in every major location. Universities and their colleges, on the other hand, are usually small in number but are universally cherished by urban authorities as enhancing the status and culture of the city in which they are located. To adopt a strictly commercial evaluation of a unique site without regard for any cultural or national heritage interest is to equate a hotel and leisure complex with the singular needs and special characteristics of the LSE—a university college of worldwide renown and influence.

The school has produced 23 past or present prime ministers or presidents worldwide, 41 governors or presidents of banks and over 120 ministers and ambassadors. These are the invisible exports which the school regards as the basis of its 1990 Queen's Award for Export Achievement. For the Government to permit only the commercial return on the site to determine its use cannot be right. The following are my reasons for this unequivocal judgment.

First, the LSE needs to double its space requirement if it is to meet the additional numbers of UK and foreign students projected over the next decade, even if present density exceeds a standard set by the University Grants Committee, as graphically illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.

Secondly, there is a remarkable fit between the requirement of the school and the riverside building. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the LSE will fit into the riverside building without requiring any structural works to the building. No external or internal alteration of substance is proposed. Therefore, the listing provisions affecting County Hall will not be challenged. The riverside building was purpose-built for a public body with a variety of functions intrinsically similar to the LSE requirements for accommodation.

Thirdly, the influx of 5,000 students, rising by the year 2000 to some 9,000 students, will bring life, activity and sparkle to the Waterloo area in a way that commercial development of County Hall could not.

Fourthly, despite the difficulty of access to the site mentioned by noble Lords, I estimate the cost of the adaptation of the site for the LSE as approximately £55 million. That is probably less than half what would be needed to upgrade County Hall to the standards required by a commercial development such as Shirayama proposes.

Finally, the LSE will launch a centenary fund-raising appeal later this year. As chairman of that campaign I can say that the acquisition of County Hall could make a substantial difference to that appeal, thus ensuring that, together with the sale of Houghton Street, the school should be in a position to commence the move without recourse to public funds.

I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will seize this one-time opportunity to raise his eyes from the bottom line of the profit and loss account and consider instead the whole balance sheet of London's cultural and social assets. He has the power and responsibility to create a unique and historic environment for the education of generations to come. I hope that he will not retreat from that responsibility.

7.31 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I shall be brief. As one who was on the staff of the then London County Council I was much involved with work at County Hall. From County Hall, in those far-off days, flowed policies, inspiration and reform beneficial to Londoners and, indeed, to the country. That statement was made by my noble friend Lord Beloff.

I have long had a connection with the Social Studies Department of the London School of Economics at Houghton Street, which I still have today. I know some of the difficulties of the students and staff who work in cramped conditions in a dark building. I support noble Lords who have pressed Her Majesty's Government to influence the residuary body to accept the application of the London School of Economics to purchase County Hall. A seat of learning on that site could be of intrinsic value to London, to the country and even overseas.

There are many students from all over Japan attending the London School of Economics. Furthermore, there is a close link between Toyota and the London School of Economics. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there is no question of an objection to an application from another country for the site because there is already a connection between the London School of Economics and friends from Japan.

The question of finance was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Sharp and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I would add that the Houghton Street site is extremely valuable and will bring in a great deal of money.

I should like to say a few words about the lives of the students. I believe that students' lives would be greatly enhanced if the college was south of the river. Just imagine the students being able to go to the little restaurants south of the river; imagine them buying their fruit off the barrows south of the river and their T-shirts; and imagine them attending the Old Vic. I believe that siting the London School of Economics south of the river would, as my noble friend Lord Sharp said, add sparkle to the life of the South Bank. That would be greatly welcomed by people living south of the river.

I also believe that students would find it far easier to obtain accommodation near the London School of Economics on the South Bank than they do at present. Furthermore, being close to Waterloo Station and Waterloo Underground station students would find it much easier to travel from outside London or outer London into the college. Furthermore, as has been stated by other noble Lords, they would not travel at the same time as commuters and would not cause congestion on the railways.

A hotel and leisure centre have been proposed for the site. I point out that it was planned to have a leisure centre at Battersea Power Station and that proposal has not been successful. Furthermore, if there were a hotel on the County Hall site taxis would turn up merely to drive people to the West End; that would not contribute to the life of that part of London, which would be a great pity for the South Bank.

We should consider the needs of the London School of Economics and its students and staff, but we should also think of the people who live on the South Bank. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on this debate and consider not only the building and the seat of learning but also the social benefits that will flow from locating the London School of Economics on the South Bank.

7.39 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, there is a link between this debate and the one which preceded it. In the course of that debate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the possibility of the Lyceum Theatre becoming the home of a new dance theatre. In this debate we are concerned with another building; we are considering the future of County Hall. If in the course of two successive debates we were able to do a little to bring appropriate life back to those two famous buildings, we should not have wasted our afternoon.

I approach the matter not from the point of view of the LSE, as other speakers have. I have no particular connection with the LSE other than one which I shall mention in a moment. However, I have a great affection for County Hall. It was in that building that I began a rather late post-war political career in the London County Council. At that time it was under the—I shall not say benevolent because that is hardly the word to describe Sir Isaac Hayward—beneficent guidance of that man who contributed a considerable amount to the life of London.

In my capacity as a councillor on the London County Council, I, with others, approached Sir Isaac Hayward. From those approaches came, among other things, the National Theatre. At that time the proposed plot for the National Theatre was in South Kensington. Sir Isaac allowed himself to be persuaded to provide a plot on the South Bank and so the National Theatre came alive. Once sold on the idea, Sir Isaac, who was a formidable man, put his shoulder to the wheel and from that moment on the building of the National Theatre and the further development of the South Bank became certain.

I have an affection for the building. In my view a very great deal has come out of it. More close to me personally were the great housing estates built by the London County Council, one of which was in Roehampton. If the Roehampton housing estate had not been built, I would never have become Member of Parliament for Putney in 1964. It provided a valuable source of Labour votes. As a result, I was for 15 years Labour Member of Parliament for Putney and for the past 10 years your Lordships have had to put up with me. So I have an affection for County Hall. I like to feel that I have contributed something to it; it certainly has contributed to London.

Had Labour won the last general election, it was intended to recreate a London government of some kind but I do not know whether we would have wanted it to go back to County Hall. However, the question did not arise. I cannot even guarantee that Labour will return in four years time or what will have happened to County Hall before then. In any case, the building has remained empty for long enough. Buildings do not remain unaltered when they are empty. They deteriorate both in physical and psychological ways. They deteriorate in the public mind. It is high time that both the Lyceum and County Hall were brought back into appropriate life.

In listening to this debate—I did not come to it with the degree of certainty with which some other noble Lords have come to it—I have been persuaded that this is the appropriate use for this building. It is an opportunity and if the chance is not taken, London could become much the poorer. The opportunity ought to be seized.

Would this historic building be suitable for this new purpose? I believe that it would be eminently suitable. I said that before I sat down I would mention my own late connection with the LSE. People at the LSE collect the papers of people who have been active in politics. It seems to me extraordinary, but they have shown an interest in mine. If by any chance this project were to go ahead, it would make a rather nice full circle for the beginning and ending of my career to be located in County Hall, as it were. I would not be alone.

I join other noble Lords in expressing the hope that the Government will look kindly on the proposal placed before them so persuasively this evening. I hope that the answer which we shall receive in a few moments will be of the kind that we all want to hear.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. The Survey of London (which published its excellent monograph on County Hall under our auspices in 1991) reminds us in that publication that County Hall came to exemplify the virtues of a lost age: good, traditional materials firmly used … a civilised pile worthy of its splendid position". Sir Hugh Casson, recalling his visits to County Hall when he was working on the Festival of Britain, said: it was a daily delight to pace those generously spaced and handsomely panelled corridors and to wonder at the diligence and detailed attention of the designers". Therefore we are speaking of a building which enhances the South Bank and all London. I hope that we shall think long and hard before accepting any proposals for future use which might have the effect of submerging Knott's main or Riverside Building, a listed building, in some larger, amorphous and incongruous development.

The Anglo-Japanese consortium, whose proposals for a hotel and new office buildings were under consideration in 1989 to 1990, and are so again, had just such plans. The proposed Belvedere and Addington centres which were to constitute the hotel and the offices would have dwarfed the Knott building and were properly judged unacceptable on planning grounds.

The Department of the Environment's own guidelines rule that the best use for a historic building is obviously the use for which it was designed. It seems to me that the London School of Economics, with its great international reputation, would meet that criterion well, if it can find the money.

I first entered County Hall as a schoolgirl from a London secondary school. I went there to compete for one of the modern language scholarships which were then awarded upon examination. I still remember the sense of space, strength, dignity and civic pride which the building conveyed. County Hall needs preserving as a major London public building. The LSE, one of London's great institutions, needs a central and prestigious site for the advancement of learning. I also strongly support the argument of my noble friend Lady Faithfull for better serving the housing needs of LSE students. It seems to me of critical importance that they should have access to relatively inexpensive housing and good communications which a move by LSE to the South Bank would provide. It could also bring more employment and more money, as my noble friend Lord Sharp pointed out, to a relatively deprived area on a long-term continuing basis.

I recognise that the London Residuary Body has a duty to secure the best possible offer. Fortunately, the Secretary of State has the power to set aside such an offer, as he has done before. I suggest that the positive human investment at national level resulting from enabling the LSE to function in the best possible circumstances and enabling students to live and work in conditions under which they will be free to learn with the least possible stress should also be reflected in the balance sheet. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will urge the Secretary of State to exercise his powers in favour of the LSE solution.

7.48 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to whom we are extremely grateful for initiating this debate, I have a personal interest in the LSE, which I should declare. When I came down from Cambridge, I spent a year at LSE. I must admit that the contrast was somewhat bizarre. Even in those days there was a basement lecture room which boasted rats, which I had not experienced on the Cam. I then spent 10 years in industry and returned to stay for over 30 years on the staff of the LSE.

I should like to start by stressing how urgently necessary it is that somehow or other the LSE should have better physical accommodation. There is a limit to what can be done by buying up every building that becomes available in the area. It is an inefficient way to deal with space. The provision is simply not worthy of the work that is undertaken there. The need for new premises cannot be denied.

There is also an undoubted need to preserve County Hall. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, the resurrection of County Hall is to await the success of the Labour Party, I suspect that County Hall might find itself in rather a bad state before it is resurrected.

However, neither of the two points that I have made is the major reason that I beg the Government to look favourably at the opportunity for the LSE to move into County Hall. For decades the LSE has been a centre of study for students from overseas. By its nature it is an international institution. I remember one year that someone took a count. We had 42 different nationalities among the students studying at the LSE. I have always found it difficult to work out all those nationalities; I cannot get as far as 42. But that is what I was told. There is no doubt that the tradition of students coming from all over the world has continued and extended. It is even more the case today than when I was on the staff.

One must consider not only the European Community but the global economy in which we have to operate. At the formative stages of their lives, with education on an international level young people meet a variety of other students from other countries. They get to know them, become friends, exchange visits with them and establish invaluable industrial, economic and political links. It is the time of life when those people's attitudes are developed and remain with them. There can be no question but that if at the student stage people make friends, exchange ideas and share studies with people from a variety of cultures they are infinitely better prepared to cope with the world of the 21st century than if they are educated in a single-nation institution with perhaps a marginal number of students from overseas.

On trade and political terms it is very important to encourage an institution which already has a vast international base to its studies. In particular I believe that if the LSE can get into the riverside site there is a very good chance that it could become the European centre for social studies. That is an important area of studies. There are those to whom the mere words "social studies" are anathema. But they include such studies as economics—which I believe is a respectable study these days even among the most prejudiced—psychology, political science and even the much despised sociology (which no doubt will come into its own again sooner or later). It also has an important research and training element for people who will work in social sciences and in the social services, both in this country and overseas.

Other speakers have drawn your Lordships' attention to the number of distinguished people in political life overseas who have been educated at the LSE. It used to be our boast that we had trained all revolutionaries in the old British Empire—for better or worse, is a matter for your Lordships to decide. However, we also trained, and continue to train, a great many people who went back to their own countries to establish social services, to work on the economies of those countries and to lay the foundations to raise the standard of living of those countries. That has not gone far enough, but it will go much further and much faster if students from those countries come to this country, and mingle with students at the formative stage of their education.

Although it used not to be so in my time, there are a large number of German students at the LSE. It is a great opportunity to establish a real European centre of social sciences at the LSE. The institution already has a great reputation which may be much greater outside the shores of the United Kingdom than inside this country: the prophet is without honour. Perhaps the best evidence of the feeling for the LSE from people overseas who have studied there is indicated by the great library which has been established. The late Lord Robbins went twice round the world visiting old students in a variety of countries when the money was being raised for the library. Without the contribution of overseas students, the library could not possibly have been completed on the scale that now exists.

The school cannot maintain standards in its present premises. An unrivalled opportunity, which will not arise again, exists to reinforce the work that it does, to give the LSE a chance to expand and to deliver the education services that will be needed in this decade and in the next millenium.

7.55 p.m.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing this Question to our attention. I immediately declare an interest in the London School of Economics. It is the only place that has given me a job for the past 27 years—but that should not be held against the London School of Economics.

However, I do not speak as an advocate of the LSE's interest but on behalf of the party in opposition. Being at the LSE and belonging to the Labour Party are not as common as people may think. Professor Harold Laski, whom the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to, managed to be disliked both by the director of the LSE and the Leader of the Labour Party. I shall try to do better than he did.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, pointed out with reference to the DES circular of 1987, the best use for a listed building is the use for which it is designed. We are quite clear that the County Hall is designed for London government. We would prefer County Hall to exist for London government. I cannot join with my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, or the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in taking a defeatist position on the prospect of a Labour Government.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, if I may interrupt, I do not take any such defeatist position.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I am glad to hear that. However, if we cannot have a London government in County Hall, we prefer that County Hall be put to public rather than private use. The Labour Party spokesman on arts in another place stated that it is important that we regard the use of the site as a matter of public gain and not private profit. We definitely prefer County Hall to be devoted to some public use.

Many noble Lords have made an eloquent case why the London School of Economics should have the use of County Hall. However, let me deal with the problem of the LRB. The LRB has the duty to sell County Hall to the highest bidder. To that there are several caveats, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. The Secretary of State can indeed give directions that can override the LRB's duty. The LRB has the power to request the Secretary of State's permission to dispose of the property at other than the best price available. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already given examples.

Does London need another luxury hotel? Does any city need a luxury hotel? I doubt it. I ask the Government about the wisdom of selling the building, for, let us say, £60 million —we do not know the exact sum—for use as a luxury hotel. The money could arrive in October 1993.

In the meantime, what is the cost of maintaining County Hall and who is paying for that? I have estimates showing that the cost of providing security in County Hall in order that it does not deteriorate even faster runs into millions of pounds. Is the cost as much as £30 million? Will the delay in disposing of County Hall cost us money and, if so, who will pay? Will the cost be set against the £60 million or will it come out of the taxpayers' pockets?

As regards other problems, many noble Lords have pointed out the aspect of our national heritage. In a previous public inquiry into the use of County Hall the inspector said, in criticising the LRB's case: It is also apparent to me that the procedure followed for the disposal of this building, given its quality and the need to sustain its historic authenticity"— I emphasise the phrase "historic authenticity"— might be regarded as less than satisfactory". If we are to preserve the building, which has been described in fulsome terms by other noble Lords and which is part of our national heritage, we must now consider whether we are making a choice which will irretrievably remove it from public life or whether we are making a short-term monetary gain. In the meantime we are spending money to save the building from deterioration. The commercial gain may not be worth it, but even if there were to be a commercial gain we should set that off against the possibility that we shall not have another chance to build a similar building for £60 million.

Coming late in the debate I do not wish to speak at length. Several noble Lords have made the case for the London School of Economics, pointing out its international reputation, its contribution to public life here and abroad and the prospect of it using the building profitably for itself and for the nation as a European centre for social studies. It has also been pointed out that this is not an anti-Japanese move. My noble friend Lord Judd said that the LSE has intimate relations with Japanese businessmen and so forth.

I ask the Government to rethink now. Is it the case, as we have heard, that the company which plans to buy the site is buying only the riverside site? How does the LRB intend to dispose of the other buildings? Given the delay in disposing of the site since 1976 how much longer will it take to dispose of the site unconnected with the Shirayama purchase? Secondly, will further planning permission be required by the Japanese developers or do their proposals closely match those of the County Hall development group? If so, will the objections raised against the plans of the County Hall development group be sustained against the present plans? How much does it cost to keep the building unoccupied and how much will it continue to cost if only part of the building is sold? We are hoping for an answer which will be at least encouraging if not a firm yes.

8.5 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, it is clear from this afternoon's interesting and useful debate that the future of County Hall is a subject which has the power to raise strong feelings. That is not surprising when we consider what a fine building it is and how prominent it stands as a landmark on the London scene, and one which is so visible from this House. I can assure your Lordships that my colleagues in government are fully aware of the importance which people such as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and my noble friend Lady Park, attach to County Hall. For that reason, we are determined to ensure that the decision taken on its future is the right one.

It might be helpful if I first cover the legal position. The Local Government Act 1985, which abolished the former Greater London Council, established the London Residuary Body and gave it the responsibility for disposing of land and property formerly owned by the GLC. The Act also placed the residuary body, when disposing of land, under the same statutory obligations as those which are binding on local authorities under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972. This means that the residuary body is prohibited from disposing of County Hall for any consideration less than the best that can be reasonably obtained in the interests of local chargepayers in London. To dispose of it for any less than that would require the consent of the Secretary of State.

As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Secretary of State has such powers which have been exercised in circumstances described. However, each case must be judged with regard to the specific circumstances. It was with that clear statutory obligation in mind that the London Residuary Body entered into its agreement with Shirayama. The exact price agreed to constitutes commercially-sensitive information, particularly when one takes into account the fact that the other buildings on the site are to be sold.

That agreement relates to the riverside building only and provides for the sale of that building to Shirayama to be completed in October of next year. It also provides a power for the residuary body—but not Shirayama—to be able to withdraw from that agreement at any time up to the end of this year in return for the payment of compensation.

I cannot accept the suggestion which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the Shirayama proposals represent a use which is unworthy of County Hall. On the contrary, to address a point put forward by my noble friend Lady Faithful], a major new hotel with associated conference centre, offices and shops could do a great deal to bring new life and new jobs to the South Bank and it would be a significant attraction for visitors from overseas—

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I did not say that I agreed with the proposal. I do not agree.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's comment that she did not agree with the proposal, I am saying that I agree that such a development will do a great deal to bring new life to the area.

A major anxiety for my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State in his consideration of the planning application was that the architectural and historic features of the riverside building, including the famous council chamber, should be respected. There is now another alternative proposal before us from the London School of Economics, which the noble Baroness has referred to in her Question, and which has occupied so much of our debate this afternoon.

Many noble Lords have this afternoon indicated that there are a number of features of the proposal which could prove attractive, not least the extent to which a development on those lines might stimulate interest and attract talent and resources from overseas, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dain ton. Noble Lords will be aware that the LSE has obtained planning consent from the London Borough of Lambeth for the change of use of the riverside building for the school application, together with the renewal of the existing permissions for the utilization of the other buildings as offices.

Those proposals raise wider issues which will need careful consideration by my ministerial colleagues. There is, however, one further point that I wish to make. It is, I believe, unlikely that the LSE, with the resources available to it, including those that might be raised by the sale of its existing premises in Houghton Street, would be in a position to offer a higher price for County Hall than that which could be obtained by disposing of the site through other channels. It must be remembered, in this context, that the agreement which the residuary body has entered into with Shirayama relates to the riverside building only.

I do not say this with the intention of ruling out the proposals put forward by the LSE, but rather to indicate that this potential reduction in the amount of consideration to be received for the County Hall site as a whole is one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing the merits of the proposals put forward by the LSE. That is particularly true in the light of the statutory obligation on the residuary body, to which I referred earlier, to dispose of County Hall for the best price that can be obtained in the interests of the chargepayers of London.

Perhaps I may now deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate. To answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the LSE has had access to all the plans and structural records relating to County Hall. I am aware of its wish to obtain physical access to the building in order to carry out a full structural survey. The Government are considering the feasibility of that request.

Secondly, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the Secretary of State has already granted planning permission, upheld in the courts, for the conversion of County Hall into a hotel and conference centre. The permission is subject to stringent conditions, with which Shirayama would need to comply, which are designed to protect the appearance of the riverside building. Changes to the interior require listed building consent which is a strict form of control again intended to ensure that internal features of the building are protected and that alterations are congruent with its character.

Thirdly, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I appreciate that the LSE's existing premises at Houghton Street leave a great deal to be desired. I appreciate also the exciting possibilities which the LSE is considering to mark its centenary. However, it is clear that there must be other sites, other premises, which may be able to provide for the kind of development which the LSE has in mind. The Government are considering whether County Hall is the place in which to house the future development of the school.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the LRB allows £6 million per year for the upkeep of County Hall. That sum covers heating, maintenance, security and insurance. In addition to that, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked how the LRB intends to dispose of the other buildings. Bearing in mind that the agreement with Shirayama covers just the riverside building, the other buildings will be sold in parallel with that.

I assure the House that my colleagues will weigh very carefully all those considerations with the firm intention of reaching a decision which is in the best interest of Londoners and the country.

Lord Desai

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he confirm whether it is true that the LRB has sold Jubilee Gardens to the Arts Council for £1?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I do not have that information in front of me at present but, off-hand, I believe that that is the case.