London's New Order
By ELISABETH STOCKWELL* THE London Government Bill has just had its second reading in the House of Commons. As the early debate foreshadows, it will have a stormy passage before reaching the Statute Book. We shall yet see as bitter controversy and political passion as that aroused by any Bill since the war. This may seem an exaggeration when the pub- 1k at large are hardly aware of the Bill and when probably not more than two or three thousand in- dividuals in each of the existing twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs and in the fringe coun- ties are vitally concerned about it. But politically the Labour Party has gazed upon the report of the Herbert Commission as a thinly-veiled politi- cal device by a Conservative Government to abolish a Socialist stronghold, the London County Council, while some Conservatives can- not wholly hide their glee at the prospect of the disappearance of what they regard as a monument to bureaucracy, extravagance and general inefficiency. The truth is somewhat different.
The public cannot be blamed for their lack of interest. In London there has been increasing confusion since 1834—the last time, before the appointment of the Herbert Commission, that any body was asked to survey the whole London scene and make recommendations for its proper government. There has thus grown, like Topsy, a vast population of 9,000,000 people who are required to vote, year by year, for two local authorities, neither with sole responsibility for their well-being, and both bedeviled by national issues and ministerial regulation. A separate body, for which they do not vote, is responsible for water supply, and there are advisory bodies too many to set out. It is worth reading the report of the Herbert Commission for its statement on the Alice-like nature of present traffic management responsibilities alone. As the report says, 'the present machinery is so con- fused that it is difficult even to put down on paper a description of what it is.'
The Government should be congratulated on a determined and sustained effort to bring order out of chaos. The report of the Royal Com- mission must be regarded as a milestone in the science and development of local govern- ment by and for the people, with its review of the present situation and its marshalling of broad principles for the future. (As an aside, it is worth a comment on its exemp- lary use of the British tongue, its extraordinary readability and historical perspective.) With a few exceptions, the Bill has retained the ad- mirable principles set forth. In spite of what has been said in the House this week, the prin- ciples of two-tier government, borough and county, have not been breached; all that has hap- pened is a reallocation of areas and redistribution of functions.There will still be a central authority at County Hall, not the Frankenstein predicted by Mr. Willey, but a logical and clearly defined central body to carry out the large, impersonal Miss Stockwell is chairman of the Housing Committee of Chelsea Borough Council. services common to Greater London; and there will still be boroughs. The boroughs will be bigger in order to operate the personal and human ser- vices to the individual such as health and child welfare. Both authorities will thus have functions much more suitable to their size than at present. What, then, is there to criticise?
In translating the recommendations of the Commission into the Bill two important mistakes stand out. The Royal Commission rightly sug- gested a Boundary Commission, as they felt unable, without evidence from such a body, to make recommendations as to the exact boroughs to be set up. They were helpful and had a shot at it to show their line of thought. Yet their proposals have been largely repeated in the Bill. There has been no Boundary Com- mission; arbitrary groupings have been set up with only superficial inquiry by the Minister's servants in the person of four town clerks of provincial boroughs, in spite of some vigor- ous protest and requests for impartial and judicial review. This has left a somewhat sour impression of unseemly haste and the feeling that the Government, in its anxiety to get the Bill through the present session, is only paying lip service to its avowed principles of common interests and common communications. We are in danger of losing the one opportunity in a hundred years (and probably for another hund- red) to carve really viable and effective boroughs out of Greater London. For instance, in Chelsea we are to be amalgamated with Ken- sington, producing a long, thin borough stretch- ing from north to south while our local com- munications run from east to west. We are in- clined to be sceptical about our community of interest with, say, Holland Park, and anyway, how do we get there?
The second major mistake is that the Govern- ment has retained too many of the over- riding powers it now holds: for example, the traffic regulations for Greater London. Ad- mittedly, in the case of trunk roads– if there were any—affecting the economic life of the country there is a case for Whitehall overlord- 'Six years he's off crusading—and what does he bring back? —Algebra!'
ship. But where it is a matter of transferring trunk road traffic to local roads, disrupting the social life of the community, the problem is to hold the balance between social and economic good. Here, the Minister of Transport will re- main both prosecutor and judge, while the Greater London Authority would be a more im- partial arbitrator. Another anomaly is in the field of planning, where government departments, themselves developers, will still not be required to consult the planning authority. If the Minister of Health decided to build three hospitals in Chelsea, or the War Minister a barracks, he need consult nobody—neither the Greater London Council, the planning authority for the develop- ment plan, nor the borough council, the planning authority within it. This is one of the main causes of affront to local feeling.
One of the subsidiary aims of the Government is to raise the calibre of local councillors, assum- ing that they will be attracted by greater respon- sibility and less frustration. One wonders if this will be so. A maximum of sixty councillors and ten aldermen, to be calculated on population, is to be permitted for each borough. Our own representatives in Chelsea will be reduced on this basis from forty-two to fifteen. With added corn' mittees, it will be difficult for the work to be done as a free-time occupation. Indeed the opposition are already pressing for the payment of GLA councillors. For years London has flourished because of men and women who have been voted on to 'its councils from all walks of life, local in the real sense of intimaa with their locality, and from a variety of dailY occupations which keep them in touch. Those who come forward for election to the new much enlarged boroughs may well be only those with means not to do a full day's work, or who will have to claim expenses for time lost and Wile suffer the great disadvantage of knowing little of a large part of their borough. This is a. retrograde step which will encourage the pro- fessional politician and London government maY well miss the councillor who can now get LIP and say with common sense and homely lan- guage, 'Aren't we all being bloody silly?'
And what of the public? They will probablY notice little difference. 'They' will no doubt continue to fail to sweep their streets, t° collect their refuse with proper regularity, t° house their growing families, and to shoW any sort of taste or imagination over such things as lamp posts however 'they' rnaY be rearranged and reorganised. Most heinous, and probably the only really deeply recognised crime, they will continue to mulct the ratepayers of a large and ever-growing sum in rates year by year. How much has so far received scant attention and is anybody's guess, encouraging the view that the Bill has been too hastily 13111‘ moted. It is too superficial to argue that because of greater efficiency the cost must be less. We must hope that this is so and the responsibility of the public in seeing that efficiency is greater will be large. At least theY should have a better idea of who is spending their money, which may lead to a voting average better than the 32.3 per cent, of last May's local government elections and a greater interest ill local affairs which will be a healthy stimulant to their elected representatives.
Previous page
