Royal Commission on London Government

Last updated

The Royal Commission on London Government, also known as the Ullswater Commission, was a Royal Commission which considered the case for amendments to the local government arrangements in the County of London and its environs. [1] The commission was chaired by Viscount Ullswater, appointed in October 1921, and reported in 1923. The inquiry was described as an "unmitigated disaster" for proponents of reformed local government in the capital, as the commission failed to reach a unanimous decision. The majority report recommending virtually no change was signed by four commissioners, one of whom added a memorandum of dissent. Two minority reports, each signed by two commissioners, reached differing conclusions. [2] [3] [4] [5] In the event, administrative reforms were not carried out until 1965 following another inquiry.

Contents

Background

The commission was established in a response to a resolution passed by the London County Council in 1919. [3] During the First World War the two main parties on the council, the Municipal Reformers and the Progressives effectively formed a coalition. After the ending of hostilities there was initially agreement between the leaders of the two parties and the smaller London Labour Party that public utilities such as electricity supply and public transport in the wide Greater London area needed to be co-ordinated in order to provide for adequate planning for the capital. It was argued that an overhaul of local government was needed, involving the absorption of the central City of London and the outer suburban areas into an enlarged London. There was further impetus for enlargement as London experienced an acute housing crisis caused by both financial shortfalls and land shortages. A large housing programme required expenditure that the limited rate base of the County of London could not meet, while land costs within the county were very high in comparison to those of the surrounding counties. [4]

Membership and terms of reference

The Commission was appointed by royal warrant dated 24 October 1921. [6] The terms of reference were: [5] [6]

...to inquire and report what, if any, alterations are needed in the local government of the administrative county of London and the surrounding districts, with a view to securing greater efficiency and economy in the administration of local government services and to reducing any inequalities which may exist in the distribution of local burdens as between different parts of the whole area [6]

The members appointed were: [5] [6]

Evidence heard

The commission held its first sitting on 6 December 1921 at the Ministry of Health in Whitehall. It was anticipated that the body would recommend the formation of a new central body as it was recognised that the government of London had become "unmanageable, and patch work schemes and emergency legislation have been necessary". [7]

Ministry of Health

The first witness was the solicitor to the Ministry of Health, who gave an outline of various authorities existing within the County of London and surrounding areas. He noted how the boundaries of the county were those originally delineated as the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1855, itself corresponding to the area of the "Metropolis" as used at that time by the Registrar-General for the weekly Tables of Mortality. He pointed out that the boundary had been arrived at arbitrarily but consisted of the "City of London and a number of surrounding parishes, which had been gradually added to by successive Registrar-Generals, and appeared to have been formed on no pre-conceived plan, but simply as considerations of convenience might from time to time dictate." He explained that there were no less than 92 authorities within the county, each making rate demands. These included the county council, the city corporation, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the metropolitan borough councils, boards of guardians, assessment committees, boards of managers of school districts, a sick asylum district management board, an insurance committee and an old age pensions committee. There were also four statutory bodies that exercised powers over a wider area of which the county formed a part, namely the Metropolitan Water Board, the Port of London Authority, the Thames Conservancy Board and the Lee Conservancy Board. [8]

The powers and duties of the authorities and the financial relations between them were described as "complicated in many respects". Within the county itself there were three different mechanisms of rates equalisation as well as overlapping powers. [8] The city corporation was the port sanitary authority with jurisdiction along a considerable stretch of the Thames Estuary and also managed a number of open spaces beyond the boundaries of the administrative county such as Burnham Beeches and West Ham Park. The main drainage area of the county council extended outside the county boundaries, and both the City and the county council had powers to build housing outside the area. [8] The London County Council Tramways operated in conjunction with the systems of adjoining municipalities and companies, while the council's education department allowed children from neighbouring areas to attend county council schools. [8]

The remainder of the Metropolitan Police District was divided between five administrative counties, three county boroughs, seven municipal boroughs, 65 urban districts and 12 rural districts. Their boundaries were "irregular, following for the most part, those of the parochial units from which the areas had been built up, and corresponded neither with the physical features of the districts or with the grouping of the population." There was no correlation between population, size and powers. [8]

London County Council

The commission resumed its sittings on 13 December at Middlesex Guildhall, where it heard evidence from the London County Council. Ronald Collet Norman, the leader of the Municipal Reform group on the county council presented evidence. [9] The council's case was that when they had first been created in 1889 they had been placed in charge of a "complicated machine". Over time defects in the arrangement had become apparent, and the "machine" while not being obsolete was obsolescent. The council's solution was the formation of an enlarged Greater London with a "central authority" exercising power over it. The area should comprise:

"...the whole continuous urban area ...together with such a surrounding belt as was likely to become of an urban character within a short time." [9]

They strongly recommended that the boundaries of Greater London for local government, police, public transport coordination, electricity and water supply should be made to coincide. [9] They were unable to describe the exact outer boundary of this enlarged area, except that it should be larger than the Metropolitan Police District but smaller than the entirety of London and the Home Counties. [2] The LCC recognised the need for a second tier of local authorities, and suggested that they should have greater powers than the existing metropolitan borough councils. In order for these to be "strong, independent local authorities" many of the existing boroughs and districts would need to be merged into larger units. [10] The evidence from the county council concluded in January 1922 with discussion of health services. The proposed central authority would take over all the capital's voluntary hospitals and become the port sanitary authority. [11]

Middlesex County Council

Evidence on behalf of Middlesex County Council was given by Sir Herbert Nield, MP for Ealing. The council was in favour of a traffic authority for Greater London, but not of the central authority proposed by the London County Council. Lord Ullswater suggested that the objections to the central authority were simply because it would mean the "swallowing up" of Middlesex. Nield replied that they believed that their county council had been better managed than that of London, and that Greater London was an unwieldy area for a single authority, and that members could not be expected to take any personal interest leading to a huge bureaucracy. [12]

Ministry of Transport

Sir Henry Maybury, Director General of Roads at the Ministry of Transport was called to give evidence on public transport in London. He explained that since the end of the World War I, there had been a problem of traffic congestion in the capital. This had improved somewhat in the last two years, as additional omnibuses, trams and trains had come into service. He recommended the establishment of a London Traffic Committee of not more than 15 members. The traffic area under the superintendence of the committee should be a circle with a radius of 25 miles centred on Charing Cross. He also recommended an end to the competing services of the various operators "which resulted in loss to all parties" in favour of coordination by the committee. [13]

Report

The report of the commission was published on 21 March 1923. [2] [5] [14] The document in fact contained three reports; a majority report, to which a memorandum was attached and two minority reports. [2]

Majority report

The majority report was signed by Ullswater, Munro, Turton and Gray. They stated that the evidence presented did not convince them that "any greater efficiency or economy in the administration of local government services in London and the surrounding districts would be attained by any alteration of the existing system on the lines suggested by the London County Council, or suggested by other witnesses." Instead they suggested that the existing authorities in the County of London should redistribute their functions between themselves. They also proposed the creation of a statutory London and Home Counties Advisory Committee to advise the relevant minister on matters of interest to the whole area. The report suggested that transport, town planning, housing and main drainage would be the major functions that the committee would oversee, and that it would cover an area with a 25-mile radius from central london. The committee itself would be made of members nominated by the existing local authorities, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the railway companies, the London General Omnibus Company and relevant trade unions. [2]

The report recommended that steps be taken to "encourage" amalgamation of the smaller authorities that lay outside the administrative county, but within the Metropolitan Police District. They did not, however, propose any mechanism or specific mergers. Instead they anticipated that the various councils might voluntarily propose schemes to produce larger units. They suggested that this needed to be done in the near future, before development created "further difficulty". They did not consider the case for or against the creation of new county boroughs, as this issue was the subject of another royal commission under the chairmanship of the Earl of Onslow dealing with the whole of England and Wales. [2]

Equalisation area

The report recognised the great inequality in the amount paid by ratepayers of different metropolitan boroughs. When they examined the rates paid in the outlying districts of Greater London, the variations were even more marked. These inequalities were, in the commissioners' view "unjustifiable". They proposed the creation of an equalisation area whereby districts "closely united to London by business ties should become partners with London". This would comprise the County of London and the fifty-five urban areas wholly or partly within 10 miles of Charing Cross, namely: [2]

Within this area two rates would be levied: an Equalisation Rate (General) of 1 shilling and 6 pence in the pound and an Equalisation Rate (Poor) of 1 shilling in the pound. These two rates, it was estimated, would raise about 8 million pounds. The product of the general rate would be distributed among the various local authorities of the equalisation area in proportion to their day population, thereby making those who lived in outer London but worked in the centre, contribute to services in the central boroughs. The product of the poor rate was to be distributed in proportion to the night population of each poor law union: one third being distributed generally and two thirds to unions containing overcrowded areas. These were defined as areas where the population density was more than two persons per room. [2]

The commissioners noted that their scheme could be put into operation rapidly using figures already gathered, and did not involve the creation of any new local or central authorities or officers. It would also discourage excessive expenditure as there would be a uniform rate across the capital and no single local authority would benefit from a general increase. [2]

Minority reports

Hiley and Talbot

Hiley and Talbot did not sign the majority report, noting that its "suggestion merely for some kind of coordination of services through the machinery of an advisory committee seems to us altogether inadequate".

In their view the local government of the capital did need to be reorganised. They felt the area was too large to be administered by a single authority. They therefore recommended the division of Greater London into a number of authorities, "with a status approximating those of county boroughs". Certain functions would, however, be reserved to a "central authority". Examples of London-wide functions were tramways, water supply and main drainage. They did not go into detail of either the areas of the proposed boroughs nor the exact division of functions between the two tiers which they recognised would take considerable work to define. [2]

Donald and Walsh

Donald and Walsh were unable to sign either report, instead producing a 62-page document of their own. Their reasons were that they felt they could not fulfill their commission without recommending a thorough reform of local government, rather than the appointment of ad hoc advisory committees or authorities. [2]

They proposed a single central authority for the entire Greater London area (the Metropolitan Police District with slightly modified boundaries). This would replace a number of overlapping authorities including the London County Council and Metropolitan Asylums Board and would be directly elected except for one sixth of the body, who would be aldermen appointed by the authority itself. The authority would have powers over public transport, town planning, large housing schemes, main drainage, sewage disposal, higher and specialised education, water supply, hospitals, fire protection, large parks and open spaces, wholesale markets and smallholdings. A lower tier of local authorities would be formed based on existing areas: metropolitan boroughs, municipal boroughs, urban districts and rural districts, but each having equal powers and status. They would have enhanced powers, for instance taking over the duties of poor law guardians and becoming the elementary education authority for their area. [2]

Resulting legislation

The only part of the report that was acted on was in the area of public transport. Colonel Wilfrid Ashley, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport put forward proposals in July 1923 that: [15]

Legislation to put this into effect was delayed due to a confused political situation. A draft bill was prepared just before the minority Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin collapsed in January 1924 and was replaced by a Labour Government under Ramsay MacDonald. [16] By the middle of March the new government had agreed to introduce the bill, virtually unchanged, to parliament without delay. [17] The London Traffic Bill, creating a London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for a defined London Traffic Area was introduced to the United Kingdom House of Commons on 26 March. [18] The bill cleared all stages of parliament by August, and came into effect on 1 October 1924. [19] [20]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">London boroughs</span> Administrative subdivisions of Greater London

The London boroughs are the 32 local authority districts that together with the City of London make up the administrative area of Greater London, England; each is governed by a London borough council. The present London boroughs were all created at the same time as Greater London on 1 April 1965 by the London Government Act 1963 and are a type of local government district. Twelve were designated as Inner London boroughs and twenty as Outer London boroughs. The City of London, the historic centre, is a separate ceremonial county and sui generis local government district that functions quite differently from a London borough. However, the two counties together comprise the administrative area of Greater London as well as the London Region, all of which is also governed by the Greater London Authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greater London Council</span> Former local government administrative body for Greater London

The Greater London Council (GLC) was the top-tier local government administrative body for Greater London from 1965 to 1986. It replaced the earlier London County Council (LCC) which had covered a much smaller area. The GLC was dissolved in 1986 by the Local Government Act 1985 and its powers were devolved to the London boroughs and other entities. A new administrative body, known as the Greater London Authority (GLA), was established in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metropolitan county</span> Type of county-level administrative division of England

Metropolitan counties are a type of county-level administrative division of England. There are six metropolitan counties, which each cover large urban areas, with populations between 1 and 3 million. They were created in 1974 and are each divided into several metropolitan districts or boroughs. Following the abolition of metropolitan county councils in 1986, metropolitan counties no longer form a part of local government in England. Most of their functions were devolved to the metropolitan boroughs, making the boroughs effectively unitary authorities; any remaining functions were taken over by joint boards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Avon (county)</span> Former non-metropolitan and ceremonial county in England

Avon was a non-metropolitan and ceremonial county in the west of England that existed between 1974 and 1996. The county was named after the River Avon, which flows through the area. It was formed from the county boroughs of Bristol and Bath, together with parts of the administrative counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counties of England</span> Englands administrative, geographical and political demarcation

The counties of England are areas used for different purposes, which include administrative, geographical, cultural and political demarcation. The term "county" is defined in several ways and can apply to similar or the same areas used by each of these demarcation structures. These different types of county each have a more formal name but are commonly referred to as just "counties". The current arrangement is the result of incremental reform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">County borough</span> Borough or city independent of county council control

County borough is a term introduced in 1889 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to refer to a borough or a city independent of county council control, similar to the unitary authorities created since the 1990s. An equivalent term used in Scotland was a county of city. They were abolished by the Local Government Act 1972 in England and Wales, but continue in use for lieutenancy and shrievalty in Northern Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland they remain in existence but have been renamed cities under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2001. The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 re-introduced the term for certain "principal areas" in Wales. Scotland did not have county boroughs but instead had counties of cities. These were abolished on 16 May 1975. All four Scottish cities of the time—Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow—were included in this category. There was an additional category of large burgh in the Scottish system, which were responsible for all services apart from police, education and fire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redcliffe-Maud Report</span> 1969 proposed English local government reorganisation

The Redcliffe-Maud Report was published in 1969 by the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, under the chairmanship of Lord Redcliffe-Maud. Although the commission's proposals were broadly accepted by the Labour government, they were set aside by the Conservative government elected in 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Local Government Act 1972</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Local Government Act 1972 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reformed local government in England and Wales on 1 April 1974. It was one of the most significant Acts of Parliament to be passed by the Heath Government of 1970–74.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metropolitan Police District</span> Police area in Police area

The Metropolitan Police District (MPD) is the police area which is policed by the Metropolitan Police Service in London. It currently consists of the Greater London region, excluding the City of London. The Metropolitan Police District was created by the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 as an ad hoc area of administration because the built-up area of London spread at the time into many parishes and counties without an established boundary. The district expanded as the built up area grew and stretched some distance into rural land. When county police forces were set up in England, those of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey did not cover the parts of the counties within the MPD, while Middlesex did not have a county force. Similarly, boroughs in the MPD that elsewhere would have been entitled to their own police force did not have them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metropolitan Water Board</span> Public utility supplying water to London 1903–1974

The Metropolitan Water Board was a municipal body formed in 1903 to manage the water supply in London, UK. The members of the board were nominated by the local authorities within its area of supply. In 1904 it took over the water supply functions from the eight private water companies which had previously supplied water to residents of London. The board oversaw a significant expansion of London's water supply infrastructure, building several new reservoirs and water treatment works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">London Government Act 1963</span> United Kingdom legislation

The London Government Act 1963 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which created Greater London and a new local government structure within it. The Act significantly reduced the number of local government districts in the area, resulting in local authorities responsible for larger areas and populations. The upper tier of local government was reformed to cover the whole of the Greater London area and with a more strategic role; and the split of functions between upper and lower tiers was recast. The Act classified the boroughs into inner and outer London groups. The City of London and its corporation were essentially unreformed by the legislation. Subsequent amendments to the Act have significantly amended the upper tier arrangements, with the Greater London Council abolished in 1986, and the Greater London Authority introduced in 2000. As of 2016, the London boroughs are more or less identical to those created in 1965, although with some enhanced powers over services such as waste management and education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">London Traffic Area</span>

The London Traffic Area was established by the London Traffic Act 1924 to regulate the increasing amount of motor traffic in the London area. The LTA was abolished in 1965 on the establishment of the Greater London Council.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Local Government Act 1958</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Local Government Act 1958 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom affecting local government in England and Wales outside London. Among its provisions it included the establishment of Local Government Commissions to review the areas and functions of local authorities, and introduced new procedures for carrying these into action.

The history of local government in England is one of gradual change and evolution since the Middle Ages. England has never possessed a formal written constitution, with the result that modern administration is based on precedent, and is derived from administrative powers granted to older systems, such as that of the shires.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Havering London Borough Council</span> London borough council

Havering London Borough Council is the local authority for the London Borough of Havering in Greater London, England. It is a London borough council, one of 32 in the United Kingdom capital of London. Havering is divided into 18 wards, each electing three councillors. Since May 2018, Havering London Borough Council has been in no overall control. It comprises 22 Havering Residents Association members, 20 Conservative Party members, 9 Labour Party members, 3 East Havering Residents' Group members and 1 Upminster and Cranham Residents Association member. The council was created by the London Government Act 1963 and replaced two local authorities: Hornchurch Urban District Council and Romford Borough Council.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hackney London Borough Council</span>

Hackney London Borough Council is the local government authority for the London Borough of Hackney, London, England, one of 32 London borough councils. The council is unusual in the United Kingdom local government system in that its executive function is controlled by a directly elected mayor of Hackney, currently Philip Glanville of the Labour Party. Hackney comprises 19 wards, each electing three councillors. Following the May 2018 election, Hackney London Borough Council consists of 52 Labour Party councillors and 5 Conservative Party councillors. The council was created by the London Government Act 1963 whereby it replaced three local authorities: Hackney Metropolitan Borough Council, Shoreditch Metropolitan Borough Council and Stoke Newington Metropolitan Borough Council.

The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London, also known as the Herbert Commission, was established in 1957 and published its report in 1960. The report made recommendations for the overhaul of the administration of the capital. They were modified and implemented by the London Government Act 1963.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regions of England</span> Highest tier of sub-national division in England

The regions, formerly known as the government office regions, are the highest tier of sub-national division in England. They were established in 1994 and follow the 1974–96 county borders. They are a continuation of the former 1940s standard regions which followed the 1889–1974 administrative county borders. Between 1994 and 2011, nine regions had partly devolved functions; they no longer fulfil this role, continuing to be used for limited statistical purposes.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) was the statutory body established under the Local Government Act 1972 to settle the boundaries, names and electoral arrangements of the non-metropolitan districts which came into existence in 1974, and for their periodic review. The stated purpose of the LGBCE was to ensure "that the whole system does not get frozen into the form which has been adopted as appropriate in the 1970s". In the event it made no major changes and was replaced in 1992 by the Local Government Commission for England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Commission on London Traffic</span> Former royal commission of the United Kingdom

The Royal Commission on London Traffic was a Royal commission established in 1903 with a remit to review and report on how transport systems should be developed for London and the surrounding area. It produced a report in eight volumes published in 1905 and made recommendations on the character, administration and routing of traffic in London.

References

  1. ↑ Young, Ken; Garside, Patricia L (1982). Metropolitan London: Politics and Urban Change 1837-1981 . London: Edward Arnold. ISBN   978-0-7131-6331-5.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "Greater London. Report of Royal Commission". The Times . 22 March 1923. p. 9.
  3. 1 2 Robson, William A (1939). The Government and Misgovernment of London. London: George Allen and Unwin. p. 294.
  4. 1 2 Saint, Andrew (1989). Politics and the people of London: the London County Council, 1889-1965. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 105–107. ISBN   978-1-85285-029-6 . Retrieved 12 September 2010.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Elaine Harrison (1995). "List of commissions and officials: 1920-1929 (nos. 175-201)". British History Online. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "No. 32497". The London Gazette . 25 October 1921. p. 8364.
  7. ↑ "London Government Anomalies. Inquiry To Open To-Day". The Times . 6 December 1921. p. 7.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 "Greater London. Royal Commission Opens, Evidence On Existing Powers". The Times . 7 December 1921. p. 5.
  9. 1 2 3 "Greater London. Case For Central Authority, Area And Powers". The Times . 14 December 1921. p. 5.
  10. ↑ Smellie, K B (1946). A History of Local Government. London: George Allen and Unwin. p.  183.
  11. ↑ "Greater London Inquiry. L.C.C. And Hospitals, The Equalization Of Rates". The Times . 1 February 1922. p. 6.
  12. ↑ "London Government. "Mud-Throwing" At Local Authorities". The Times . 27 April 1922. p. 11.
  13. ↑ "Transport Competition In London. Sir H. Maybury's Views". The Times . 7 December 1922. p. 15.
  14. ↑ Report of the Royal Commission on London Government (Cmd. 1830)
  15. ↑ "Political Notes. The Position In Ireland, London Traffic". The Times . 10 July 1923. p. 14.
  16. ↑ "London Traffic. Draft Bill Ready For Parliament. Growing Congestion". The Times . 17 January 1924. p. 9.
  17. ↑ "Political Notes. Government And Housing, London Traffic Bill". The Times . 18 March 1924. p. 14.
  18. ↑ "Parliament, London Traffic Bill". The Times . 26 March 1924. p. 7.
  19. ↑ "London Traffic Act. Delay In Appointment Of Advisory Committee". The Times . 27 August 1924. p. 7.
  20. ↑ "Traffic Congestion. New Act In Force To-Day". The Times . 1 October 1924. p. 12.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.