§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Bryan Davies (Enfield, North)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the Corporation of the City of London as a local government unit and to provide for its resources and functions to be divided between adjacent boroughs; and for purposes therewith.I think that hon. Members will recognise that the Corporation of the City of London has a long and distinguished history. Its charter was granted by William the Conqueror and was reinforced after the challenge to King John. One should recognise that at that time the City succeeded in winning rights in defence of the liberties of the individual against the threatened tyranny of the monarchs. It defended those rights in the seventeenth century when it firmly placed itself on the side of Parliament against the early Stuarts.Why, therefore, should a modern Parliament look at the City of London with a view to its abolition? I maintain it is because the City no longer represents the defence of democratic rights but has hardened into a bastion of privilege in our community.
Despite the fact that London has grown to 7 million inhabitants and represents a substantial proportion of the total population of the United Kingdom and a substantial proportion of its wealth, it is still represented to the outside world by a closed and privileged corporation. The Lord Mayor of London stands at the heart of a system which allows a narrow elite to dominate certain aspects of the affairs of London. That system has made absolutely no concession to modern democracy. While Parliament has been reformed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and while local government reform has proceeded over a period, the City has been passed by. Therefore, we now have a situation where the reek of the rotten borough and the smell of patronage still rises in London. The arguments of those who are hostile to reform are as invalid as those who resisted the reform of Parliament before 1832.
1422 The franchise of the City of London is based not upon rights enjoyed by its 7 million inhabitants but upon the narrow rights of 13,000 people. That in itself would be absurd enough, but of those 13,000 only 5,000 are residents of the City. The remainder qualify under the property and business qualification which was abolished in the rest of the country in 1969. Nor does the business franchise extend to the almost half-million Londoners who work in the City each day.
To be elected to the Common Council one has to be a freeman of the City. The vast majority are livery men—people represented by the great guilds. In more democratic days the great guilds of the City of London were representative of ordinary working men. That is not so now. For example, the Drapers' Guild now consists of eight banisters, 19 solicitors, 10 chartered accountants, 17 stockbrokers, six company directors, five clergymen, a university professor, 12 Army officers, nine civil servants and, of course, sundry other members of professions and business.
Moreover, not only is the franchise and the qualification to become a councillor of the Common Council restricted, but the wards themselves are historic relics. Two-thirds of the residential voters return only one-eighth of the councillors. One-third of the Common Council is elected by only 150 residents. In three wards the councillors outnumber the electorate.
Beyond the council is the important group of aldermen. Those gentlemen, unlike their counterparts in other local government areas, are elected for life. Nor is there any proposition that that privilege should be abolished. They have considerable control over entry to their own ranks, and they have discharged that power in a particularly arbitrary and reactionary way in the most recent past. Hon. Members will recall the exercise of that power in 1974, lest at that time a woman should be admitted to the ranks of aldermen. Access to the rank of alderman is more like access to the London clubs, to which the vast majority of them belong.
From the ranks of aldermen emerge the Lord Mayors—pillars of the London business establishment, although from 1423 time to time some of them display a somewhat brittle base. Their entry into office reflects considerable private funds. It is as well that they have those private funds, because it is estimated that the cost in personal terms of being Lord Mayor of London under this arrangement amounts to as much as £100,000 a year.
However, hon. Members will recognise that the City of London is not entirely bereft of resources. Its ratable value represents 10 per cent. of the GLC area. If the City had been levying rates in recent years comparable with those in Southwark and Tower Hamlets, its neighbouring but poverty-stricken boroughs, it would have produced an extra £14.3 million. It is an island of wealth in a sea of poverty, and that sea of poverty reflects the inner city blight to which many of its surrounding boroughs are inevitably subject. It is in order to aid the problems of Southwark and Bermondsey and other closely adjoining boroughs that I seek to ensure that the rateable value of the City of London is redistributed among those boroughs.
What is more, the rateable value is not the end of the City's wealth. There is also a fund called the City Cach—an unmeasured proportion of wealth, because records are apparently not available to public scrutiny or examination. That wealth is kept for good causes and charities. Of course "charities" tends to be a somewhat elastic term. It certainly includes a public school in London. Ratepayers cannot exercise control over the fund.
Finally, I come to the question of the City of London in terms of its ceremonial rôle. I believe that a more reoalistic assessment was provided by Henry V just before Agincourt when he said:
And what art thou, thou idol ceremony?What kind of god art thou…What are thy rents? what are thy comings-in?I accept that ceremony brings innocent pleasure to the citizens of London and further afield—a splash of colour in a drab world. But why should ceremony be associated only with the square mile of the City? Why should it not be associated with the elected head of London government, such as the chairman of the GLC? Should hon. Members opposite find that a difficult proposition 1424 to accept, they will be consoled by the fact that this year the chairman is a hereditary peer. At least, it might be possible, under such an arrangement, for the great dinners at which Prime Ministers and notable politicians make their speeches to the nation, often asking for self-restraint, to be addressed to a representative cross-section of London life rather than merely to representatives of finance capital.I recognise that this is not a wholly uncontentious measure. I recognise that there may be criticism on the ground that the City should remain as an anomaly—that the traditional defence of undemocratic privilege should remain. I maintain that that defence was put up 150 years ago to try to prevent democratic development in this House.
It could be argued that the City's contribution to the nation's wealth might be damaged. I do not think that the men of finance capital in the City are particularly persons of sentiment given to tremendous respect for privilege and historic tradition. What is more, I am not sure whether their contribution should be put on the credit or debit side of our national accounts. For example, the Hudson Institute indicated that the rôle of the City seems to have had disastrous effects on the British economy. Be that as it may, I do not think that this Bill at this time would in any way affect the rôle of the City in terms of its financial position. I leave that to the Commission under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
It is clear that the PR men and the business community have been only too forthright in their criticism of the City of London for its lethargy, stubbornness, pomposity and arrogance. A recent report has been suppressed for criticising the City of London for being representative of too many geriatrics and hard-core reactionaries who seek to sabotage progress.
If I may deal with the subject of ceremony, I believe that it should be linked to the democratic reality of life in London in the same way as the traditional ceremonies of this House are related to the active working of our democracy.
1425 It may strike the House as odd to realise that the legend of Dick Whittington rising to become Lord Mayor of London is infinitely less likely to occur today than in medieval times. I want to see the office of this first citizen of our great capital city, one of the glories of the Western world, firmly anchored in the bedrock of democracy by being an office created by the votes of 7 million Londoners. I would have regarded that as an unexceptionable sentiment, and I confidently predict that all Members of radical mind will support the introduction of this Bill.
§ 4.12 p.m.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)I wish to oppose this measure for four reasons. The first is that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has not yet made his maiden speech. Clearly he would have made the speech I am about to make it it were not such a controversial one. I am proud to stand in for him. Secondly, I oppose the Bill because it is a foolish idea. Thirdly, I oppose it because I am a Londoner and I went to the City of London School. Fourthly, I am against the Bill because I am a freeman of the City, as are the right hon. Members for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) and many others. It is a privilege that is treasured by many in the City.
My arguments are based on the following facts. First, the proposal is spiteful and politically motivated. Secondly, the proposal would substitute a politically-biased civic head of London for an internationally respected Lord Mayor who is above partisan politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have only to instance Lord Mais, a member of the Labour Party. Thirdly, I believe that the proposal would claw into the GLC or some other spendthrift Labour borough the wealth of the City and squander it, instead of the present system whereby the City pays a vast sum to the rest of London and in addition pays—without any call on the rates—for the rebuilding of structures such as the new London Bridge. That money comes out of City cash. If that job were undertaken by the Department of Transport, it would probably cost twice as much.
1426 Fourthly, the proposal would give Tammany Hall rule to the City. Fifthly, the City was examined only 15 years ago by a commission and was confirmed by a modern Parliament—not by a process undertaken centuries ago, as the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) appeared to suggest.
If it is suggested that the City does nothing for charity, I must point out that City money goes to the upkeep of Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches, Highgate Woods, West Ham Park and other public amenities, at no cost to the London ratepayers. One must seek to contrast that with the cost of the GLC parks as borne by London ratepayers. City money also maintains the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, again at no cost to rates or taxes—unlike any other music or drama school in the nation.
The cost of the mayoralty and hospitality to overseas visitors is paid for by the City, again at no cost to London ratepayers. That is quite unlike the bun-fight which ILEA has arranged tonight, at ratepayers' expense, to celebrate the abolition of grammar schools.
The GLC rate needs to be examined because the costs of the GLC are increasing and in the past few years expenditure has been three times greater than that of the City. The Greater London Council rate under Labour has increased by 235 per cent. in three years—not a record to inflict on the City.
The whole argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman is based on a phoney, fraudulent and loaded London Labour Party report, but the facts are entirely different. The City is efficient. It was the first authority to become a complete smokeless zone. The City has voluntarily built, outside London boundaries, over 2,200 dwellings to let to people on council waiting lists. The City police have halved the number of street accidents in the last nine years, even in crowded streets. What other police force can claim such a record? Furthermore, the City pays its fair share—and more—to common London services.
To sum up the reasons against the proposals, I believe that the City has been a bastion of liberty in British history. It is highly efficient in organisation and the financial world places confidence in the City's non-political stance. 1427 The Tammany Hall squalor exposed by what the GLC has done about the single homeless of London is nothing I want to see inflicted either on the rest of London or on some of the Labour boroughs which might be given the spoils.
The Greater London Council and the Labour Party should be thinking of the television programme last night and should be cringeing in dismay at their heartless inefficiency and absolute
§ arrogance in claiming any semblance of efficiency. The City should not be abolished to suit the jealous little men of the Far Left.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 198.
1429| Division No. 85.] | AYES | [4.16 p.m. |
| Anderson, Donald | Forrester, John | Parker, John |
| Archer, Peter | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Parry, Robert |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Ashton, Joe | George, Bruce | Phipps, Dr Colin |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Gilbert, Dr John | Radice, Giles |
| Atkinson, Norman | Ginsburg, David | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Bates, Alf | Golding, John | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Gould, Bryan | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Graham, Ted | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Grant, John (Islington C) | Roper, John |
| Buchan, Norman | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Rose, Paul B. |
| Buchanan, Richard | Hardy, Peter | Ross, Rt Hon W.(Kilmarnock) |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Harper, Joseph | Ryman, John |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Cant, R. B. | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Carmichael, Neil | Heffer, Eric S. | Selby, Harry |
| Cartwright, John | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Sillars, James |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Hunter, Adam | Silverman, Julius |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cohen, Stanley | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Small, William |
| Coleman, Donald | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Snape, Peter |
| Conlan, Bernard | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Corbett, Robin | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Cowans, Harry | Judd, Frank | Stewart, Rt Hon M.(Fulham) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Kaufman, Gerald | Stoddart, David |
| Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) | Kerr, Russell | Stott, Roger |
| Crawford, Douglas | Kinnock, Neil | Strang, Gavin |
| Cronin, John | Lamborn, Harry | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Lamond, James | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Cryer, Bob | Latham, Arthur (Paddinglon) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Lipton, Marcus | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Davies Ifor (Gower) | Litterick, Tom | Tierney, Sydney |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Loyden, Eddie | Tinn, James |
| Deakins, Eric | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Tuck, Rapheal |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Dempsey, James | McCartney, Hugh | Ward, Michael |
| Doig, peter | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Watkins, David |
| Dormand, J. D. | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Watkinson, John |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | McNamara, Kevin | Watt, Hamish |
| Dunn, James A. | Madden, Max | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Eadie, Alex | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Edge, Geoff | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Maynard, Miss John | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| English, Michael | Meacher, Michael | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Ennals, David | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Woodall, Alec |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Mendelson, John | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Moonman, Eric | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirlling) | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Noble, Mike | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Mr. Arnold Shaw and |
| Flannery, Martin | Padley, Walter | Mr. Bruce Grocott. |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Park, George | |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Bottomley, Peter |
| Alison, Michael | Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) |
| Arnold, Tom | Benyon, W. | Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Berry, Hon Anthony | Braine, Sir Bernard |
| Baker, Kenneth | Biffen, John | Brittan, Leon |
| Banks, Robert | Biggs-Davison, John | Brocklebank-Fowler, C. |
| Beith, A. J. | Blaker, Peter | Brotherton, Michael |
| Bell, Ronald | Boscawen, Hon Robert | Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Penhaligon, David |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Howell, David (Guildford) | Peyton, Rt. Hon John |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Prior, Rt Hon Francis |
| Channon, Paul | Hunt, John (Bromley) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Churchill, W. S. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Rathbone, Tim |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Johnson Smith, G. (E grinstead) | Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Cope, John | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Cormack, Patrick | Jopling, Michael | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) |
| Costain, A. P. | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) | Kimball, Marcus | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Crouch, David | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Knight, Mrs Jill | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Knox, David | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lamont, Norman | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Dunlop, John | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Dykes, Hugh | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lawrence, Ivan | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Elliott, Sir William | Lawson, Nigel | Scott, Nicholas |
| Eyre, Reginald | Le Marchant, Spencer | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Shersby, Michael |
| Farr, John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Silvester, Fred |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Loveridge, John | Sims, Roger |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Luce, Richard | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Skeet, T.H.H. |
| Forman, Nigel | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Spence, John |
| Fox, Marcus | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Sproat, Iain |
| Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) | Madel, David | Stainton, Keith |
| Freud, Clement | Marten, Neil | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Fry, Peter | Mather, Carol | Stanley, John |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Maude, Angus | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) | Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Steward, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stokes, John |
| Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Goodhart, Phillip | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mills, Peter | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Miscampbell, Norman | Tebbit, Norman |
| Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Gray, Hamish | Moate, Roger | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Grieve, Percy | Monro, Hector | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Townsend, Cyrill D. |
| Grist, Ian | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Grylls, Michael | Morgan, Geraint | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Hall, Sir John | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Wakeham, John |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Wall, Patrick |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Neave, Airey | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Hannam, John | Neubert, Michael | Wells, John |
| Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Nott, John | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Hastings, Stephen | Onslow, Cranley | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Havers, Sir Michael | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Hawkins, Paul | Page, John (Harrow West) | Yong, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Younger, Hon George |
| Hicks, Robert | Page, Richard (Workington) | |
| Hadgson, Robin | Pardoe, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Holland, Phillip | Parkinson, Cecil | Mr. Anthony Grant and |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Pattie, Geoffrey | Mr. Peter Brooke. |
| Hordern, Peter |
§ Question accordingly negatived.