The World`s Greatest Metropolis - Graduate School of Public and

The World's Greatest Metropolis:
Planning and Government in Greater London
Ninth Annual Wherrelt Lecture
On Local Government
by
WILLIAM A. ROBSON
Professor of Public Administration
London School of Economics and Political Science
University of London
INSTITUTE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
1963
The World's Greatest Metropolis:
The ninth in a series of annual lectures
under the auspices of the Institute of Local
Government made possible through a grant
from the Wherrett Memorial fund of the
Pittsburgh Foundation.
Planning and Government in Greater London
The Metropolis—a World Problem
I would not myself have ventured to claim the title of the World's Great
est Metropolis for my native city. This is due to the courtesy of my hosts—but
I nevertheless think it can be justified.
For London is not only the political anil governmental capital of Britain
and the hub of the Commonwealth; it is also the scat of the superior courts of
law; a great financial, commercial and industrial center; a great port; a leading
cultural and educational center; a center of drama, music and opera; a medical
THE WHERRETT LECTURE SERIES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Stephen K. Daiicy, leadership in Local Government (1955)
Luther H. GuHck, The Coming Age of Cities (1956)
Frank C, Moore, Greater Citizen Participation in Government (1957)
Walter H. Bluchcr, 1930 Tools for i960 Problems (1958)
JcfTcr&on B. Fonlliatn, Urban Renewal in Metropolitan Context (1959)
Coleman Woodbury, Urban Studies: Some Questions of Outlook,
and Selection (1960)
Philip M. Hauscr, On the Impact of Population and Community
Changes on Local Government (1961)
Chnrlcs R. Adrian, Public Attitudes and Metropolitan
Decision Mak*"8
and scientific center; a center for newspaper, periodical and book publishing;
the headquarters of television and sound broadcasting; a center for sport and
athletics. It is the combination of all these characteristics which makes London
unique.
Yet the substance of what I have to say today derives its interest from
the fact that the problems which have arisen in London, far from being unique,
are similar to those which exist in metropolitan cities all over the world.
The huge concentrations of population, numbering millions, which today
inhabit New York and Paris, Chicago and Moscow, Tokyo and Bombay,
Buenos Aires and London, arc able to live, to earn their living, to bring up their
families, and to attain a relatively high standard of life, only because of recent
advances in science and technology. Without modern systems of water supply,
sewerage and sewage disposal, food processing and preservation, electricity,
gas or oil supplies, transportation and communication, life in the great city
would collapse in a few weeks or even days.
The growth of these huge urban concentrations of people is, then, due
to similar causes. It has also produced similar consequences in all parts of the
globe: in the communist countries no less than in those with capitalist or mixed
economies; in the less developed as well as the more developed countries; in
older and in newer societies.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
$1.75 per copy
Everywhere the metropolitan city is struggling to overcome great and
increasing difficulties in regard to planning, public transport, highways and
traffic management, housing and slum clearance, urban development and
renewal, and the more personal services such as education, health and welfare.
The typical metropolitan community has long ago overflowed the munici
pal boundaries, which have become meaningless lines on a map. The problem
of limiting its elephantine size or even restraining its growth has so far defeat
ed all efforts at control. The task of planning its development so as to provide
an environment which is at once healthy, convenient and beautiful has proved
beyond the jwwers of the most eminent town planners in all countries, mainly
owing to the high rate of growth and change and the overwhelming torrent of
motor traffic. The provision of public services at a reasonable standard is
rendered exceptionally difficult by the sheer scale of operations. Above all, the
task of welding together the teeming millions into a metropolitan community,
aware of itself and with a genuine ethos, participating actively in the public
life of the metropolis, is one which has nowhere been achieved. It is against
this background that the problems of Greater London should be seen and the
impending change of structure and policy considered.
London Government Today
The present structure of local government in Greater London is obsolete.1
The principal authority is the London County Council, administering an area
containing about 3^2 million residents. The next largest authority is the
Middlesex County Council, with a population of 2% million. There are three
county borough councils, in Croydon, East Ham and West Ham. Four large
counties, Kent, Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire, each with its own County
Council, converge on London, and their urban portions merge indistinguishably with the built-up continuum. Then there arc the second tier authorities.
In the heart of the old City of London is the ancient City Corporation, which
has been well described as "a small island of obstinate mediaeval structure." It
has been unchanged for centuries and is now almost unchangeable — it would
probably fall apart at the first touch of the reformer's hand. In the County of
London there are 28 separately elected metropolitan borough councils. In the
other counties, the parts lying within Greater London contain 42 non-county
borough councils, 28 urban district councils, 3 rural districts and 6 parishes,
making a total of 117 elected local governments. In addition there are at least
16 special authorities—we call them ad hoc authorities—comprising the Metro
politan Water Board, the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan Com
missioners of Police, London Transport, four regional hospital boards (form
ing part of the National Health Service), three area gas boards, four area
electricity boards, and the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Com
mittee. I could easily add to this number but those I have mentioned will serve
to show the general trend.
We have, therefore, uj elected local governments; and if we include the
ad hoc bodies, there are 133 public authorities exercising municipal functions in
the Metropolis. I know this number compares unfavorably with the much
higher number to be found in Greater Chicago, Metropolitan New York and
11 am referring here to the Greater London area entrusted to the Royal Commission on
Local Government in Greater London. See map, "The Review Area", Appendix A.
other great cities over here. But you must not forget that we arc a small coun
try, and our output is not as high as yours.2
The principal muncipal bodies—the county councils and the county bor
ough councils—were created in 1888, the urban district councils in 1894 and
the metropolitan borough councils in 1899. So the basic organization was laid
down on the eve of the automobile age and before the growth of modern
London had taken place. It is not surprising that it is obsolete.
The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London
The genesis of reform is to be found in the 1958 Local Government Act,
which provides for the organization of local government throughout England
to be reviewed by a Local Government Commission. The task of inquiring
into the local government of the Metropolis, owing to its exceptional size and
importance, was entrusted to a Royal Commission appointed expressly for the
purpose in 1959.
The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London had
Sir Edwin Herbert as Chairman. The six other members included Sir Charles
Morris, then Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University; Paul Cadbury, head of the
chocolate manufacturing firm in Birmingham; W. J. M. Mackenzie, Professor
of Government in Manchester University; Sir John Wrigley, former DeputySecretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; William Lawson,
a leading chartered accountant; and Alice Johnston, a deputy chairman of the
National Assistance Board with experience of welfare work. Sir Edwin Herbert
is head of a leading firm of solicitors; he has considerable business interests
and has had much experience of public service both in war and peace. The
personnel of the Royal Commission was notable for its high level of ability
and its freedom from any previous commitment to London Government.
The review area assigned to the Royal Commission contained 8^ million
people, or roughly a sixth of the population of the United Kingdom. It covers
721 square miles; and the property within it which is liable to local taxation
amounts to about a third of all the property in England which is available for
that purpose. Although it is a large area, it comprises only the built-up portion
of the Metropolis, with a few minor incursions into the green belt. It would
have been better to have allocated a much larger region to the Royal Com
mission, extending as far as the South Coast and the Straits of Dover and the
Thames Estuary, because some questions relating to planning, highways, trans
port, overspill and other matters can only be dealt with in the context of an
extensive region.
The Royal Commission had no staff at its disposal beyond its secretaries;
it was therefore not able to engage in research. Nor did it have funds with
which to hire "task forces" on the American model. It had to follow the usual
2 The Royal Commission recommended that T3 local governments should be excluded
from the jurisdiction of the new system of metro|>olitan administration. The government
accepted this advice and also excluded a further 13 municipal areas lying on the fringes of
the metropolis.
5
pattern of Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees of inviting inter
ested parties to give evidence in writing and orally. This testimony often con
sisted of little more than statements of opinion by the witnesses, or o£ expres
sions about what they would like to see done.
The Greater London Group
Sir Edwin Herbert and his colleagues anticipated correctly that they would
not receive disinterested testimony from the mass of local governments that
they had invited to give evidence. They therefore attempted to obtain a more
informed view of the situation by two other methods. One was to pay informal
"off-the-record" visits to as many parts of the Metropolis as possible. They
spent 88 days visiting 79 municipal areas—an indication of the magnitude of
the task and the unflagging energy of the Commissioners. The other method
was to invite the Universities to provide evidence through the efforts of indi
vidual faculty members or groups of scholars working together. The chief
response to this request came from the London School of Economics and
Political Science, where fourteen members of the teaching staff formed the
Greater London Group. The members included political scientists, geographers,
accountants, economists, lawyers, transport experts, sociologists, and social ad
ministrators. I acted as chairman of the group. We obtained the full-time ser
vices of a small but extremely able and enthusiastic research staff.
The Greater London Group submitted a long memorandum of evidence
supported by an appendix containing a vast amount of detailed factual data
which the Group's investigations had brought to light. The Herbert Com
mission paid a generous tribute to the Group's efforts in their report.8
In their written evidence the Greater London Group analyzed the reasons
which had made the existing structure obsolete. They proposed that the func
tions relating to the whole Metropolis should be entrusted to a new, directlyelected body, called the Greater London Council. This would supersede all the
existing counties and county boroughs. Local services would be carried out by
an enlarged and strengthened series of second tier authorities. Two schemes
were put forward for the Herbert Commission's consideration. Scheme A
proposed the creation of 25 London boroughs with populations in the 250,000500,000 range. Scheme B proposed that the primary units should consist of
half-a-dozcn metropolitan counties, whose areas would radiate from the center,
with populations between 1 and 1.7 million.
3 "We cannot overemphasize our debt to this research work, which relieved us of the
necessity of ourselves commissioning much research work we should otherwise have hid to
undertake. The general body of fact established by these researchers would, we think, be
The Report of the Royal Commission
We may turn now to the Report itself. This is a brilliantly written docu
ment which was largely the work of the Chairman. It is lucid, pungent and
bold. It expresses the conviction that local government is good in itself if it is
well adapted to the environment and the conditions in which it operates. The
Commission felt, however, that the present structure is not only failing to
achieve many essential aims but "is not conducive to the health of representa
tive government."4
After examining in detail the shortcomings of the present system as they
affect the principal services, the Report indicated four possible types of solution:
(1) action by the central government for some of the larger functions, (2) more
ad hoc\ery—by which I mean a further proliferation of single purpose author
ities operating in special districts, (3) joint boards or committees composed of
existing units of local government, (4) a local authority of wider scope than
any then existing. The Commission voiced the possible alternatives in chal
lenging terms: "The choice before local government in Greater London is, in
truth, to abdicate in favor of central government, or to reform so as to be
equipped to deal with present-day problems."r> They came down firmly on the
side of reform.
The Herbert Commission advocated two major propositions. One was
that a directly-elected Greater London Council should be set up to be responsi
ble for services which must be planned and administered by a single body for
the whole Metropolis. The other was that everything else should be entrusted
to the second-tier local authorities (in future to be called London boroughs)
which should be enlarged and strengthened to enable them to discharge effect
ively greatly increased responsibilities/'
These propositions are derived from the evidence (especially Scheme A)
of the Greater London Group. They represent a logical extension of the system
which has been operating in the County of London during the present century.
The Greater London Council is an enlarged successor to the London County
Council, with some functions added and others removed. The London borough
councils are the successors to the metropolitan borough councils, with much
greater resources, powers and responsibilities. Both tiers arc required to per
form tasks which no one contemplated in 1888 or 1899, in a gigantic Metrop
olis whose area and population no one foresaw at that time.
These two propositions form the basis of the current reforms of London
Government. Although they sound rational and obvious, they involve the dis
appearance, amalgamation or division of many existing local governments.
This has resulted in fierce political opposition from many different quarters.
The county councils which would be abolished or lose substantial parts of
their population, taxable resources and territory; the county borough councils
accepted with perhaps differing shades of emphasis by alt students in the field, and in our
opinion die authors have brought together a body of opinion which neither we nor any subse
quent students of London Government can afford to ignore." Report of the Royal Commission
4 Ibid, par. 189.
6 Ibid, par. 707.
on Local Government in Greater London, Cmnd. 1164/1960, H.M.S.O., par. 189.
G See map, "Proposals for Reorganization", Appendix A.
which would be demoted to non-county borough status; the London Labour
Party, which has been in power in the London County Council for 29 years,
and the Parliamentary Labour Party, the teachers, the doctors, the architects,
the social workers—all had their reasons for denouncing in loud and intemper
ate tones the reformer who would lay a sacrilegious hand on the Utopian per
fection of an obsolete structure of London government.
The London Government Bill
The MacMilian Government issued a White Paper7 setting out their pro
posals for reorganization after obtaining the comments of more than 100 local
authorities on the Herbert Report. The Government accepted the basic prin
ciples laid down by the Commission but differed from the Report on certain
questions. The most important was the size and number of the London bor
oughs. The Herbert Report proposed, provisionally, 52 London boroughs with
populations lying between 100,000 and 150,000. The Government thought
these too small and indicated a preference for 34 boroughs with populations of
181,000-361,000. After detailed inquiries carried out by four town clerks the
final decision on this point was to have 32 boroughs with a population range
of 170,000-340,000.
The London Government Bill was opposed almost line by line by the
Labour Opposition in each House of Parliament, but it enacted the basic
changes with relatively few modifications. The Greater London Council will
consist of 100 directly-elected councillors and 16 or 17 aldermen elected by the
Council. It will be a smaller body than the London County Council, which
has a membership of 147. Unpaid service continues and this will have a serious
effect in excluding many people from serving on the Council. Each of the
London borough councils will have a maximum of 60 councillors and 10 alder
men. There arc at present 2,995 councillors in the Greater London area. The
Bill reduces the total number to 1,920.
The Greater London Council is required to make a general development
plan for the whole area which "shall lay down considerations of general policy
with respect to the use of land in the various parts of Greater London, includ
ing in particular guidance as to the future road system." This will be the
master plan. Each London borough is thereafter to make a development plan
for its own area embodying the relevant features of the Metropolitan plan.
The Greater London Council will also be responsible for providing and
administering overspill housing; sewage and sewage disposal plant; fire bri
gades and fire protection; the ambulance service; garbage disposal (but not
collection); water supply (this will require another Bill and the abolition of
the Metropolitan Water board); traffic management; metropolitan highways;
information and research; and education within that part of its area at present
coming under the jurisdiction of the London County Council—to be called in
future Inner London. The Council will continue to own and operate recre
ational facilities or institutions provided for the benefit of the entire Metrop
olis, like the Royal Festival Hall or Hampstead Heath.
i London Government. Government Proposals for Reorganisation. Cmnd 1562/1961.
H.M.S.O.
8
The London borough councils will take charge of housing; the whole
range of welfare services; certain aspects of mental health; public libraries; pri
mary and secondary education except in the Inner London area; cemeteries
and crematoria; and a great variety of regulatory services. The Greater London
Council is authorized to engage in major development or urban renewal or
housing projects, either with the consent of the London boroughs concerned,
or with the permission of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
These are the principal features of the new organization of London Gov
ernment. The elections for the new Councils will be held in April and May
1964.
Education presented the most difficult problem. The Herbert Commission
proposed a division of functions between the Greater London Council and the
London boroughs which would have given most of the power and responsi
bility to the former body and introduced an arrangement closely resembling
the much criticized and disliked system of delegation which prevails in other
counties. At present the London County Council is solely responsible for edu
cation in the County of London and the Minister of Education was unwilling
to break up the unified administration and transfer the service to London
borough councils. The latter will replace the existing metropolitan borough
councils, which have not had any experience of education. So a transitional
arrangement has been laid down for a five year period. During this trial period
the Greater London Council will run the schools in Inner London, while in
outer Greater London the London borough councils will take over the educa
tion service. The Greater London Council will exercise its education powers
through an Inner London Education Committee composed of the councillors
representing that area on the Greater London Council, together with one
representative of each of the Inner London Borough Councils. At the end of
five years the Minister of Education will reconsider the whole question in the
light of experience.
The new set-up will be an immense advance on the present position and
should result in great improvements in the government and planning of the
Metropolis. For the first time the main problems of the Metropolis will be
examined and dealt with by a comprehensive authority. Furthermore, we
shall at last have a second tier of strong local councils which should be able
to fulfill the tasks of a local character. For the first time, again, a logical dis
tinction has been drawn between the functions requiring a metropolitan-wide
authority and those which can be administered by the local councils. As the
White Paper remarked, London has suffered in the past from "too great a
proliferation of not very strong authorities. The aim should now be to create
units which, while retaining their local character, arc well equipped to provide
a fully adequate standard of local services."
Weaknesses of the London Government Bill
There are, however, a number of shortcomings and defects in the new
set-up. I have already mentioned one of them, namely, the inadequate size of
the area. A second one is that no provision is made for the payment of coun9