§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform London government by abolishing the Corporation of the City of London as a local government unit and to provide for its resources and functions to be transferred to one or more adjacent boroughs; and for related purposes.In two days, the people of London will have their opportunity to vote in the forthcoming GLC elections. In that process, the residents of the City of London will be able to play their full and democratic part. But next year, when the people of London have their chance to vote in the local elections for the London borough councils, that democratic process will be denied to the people living in the City of London because each year the City of London will go through a different process of selecting its own form of local government. The intention of the Bill is to give the City of London the same type of democratic local government which the rest of the country has had for many years.There is every reason why the City of London should conform to the rest of the country. The City of London has responsibilities for planning, housing, highways, refuse, social services, public health and all the other things which are the essence of local government. I am quite certain that the officers who work for the corporation of the City of London do a first class job.
However, the proposed Bill is about democracy. It is about doing away with patronage and privilege and having democratic local government. The Court of Common Council, which governs the City of London, consists of a Lord Mayor, 24 alderman and 138 Common Council men. The Lord Mayor is nominated by the livery voters of the City Guilds, such as fishmongers and coachmakers, masons and even skinners, although any connection with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is purely coincidental.
The Lord Mayor is then elected by the Court of Aldermen, the aldermen themselves being elected for life if approved by the Lord Mayor and the existing aldermen—a filter, the like of which if applied to this House would have kept many of us out for ever. Indeed, given the set-up in the City of London, it can only be said that a latter-day Dick Whittington would never have made it to becoming Lord Mayor, and would have done much better to have stayed in Tower Hamlets, or perhaps Lambeth.
The Common Council men of the City of London are elected in 25 wards. There are 14,000 electors, of whom only 5,000 are residents. The vast majority—about 9,000—are on the voting lists of the City of London because they own or rent business premises. Indeed, in 22 of the 25 wards there are more non-resident than resident electors, and in only three of the wards do the residents outnumber the non-residents.
There is an enormous disparity in the size of the wards. The largest ward has 3,791 electors. That is a ward called Farringdon Without. The smallest ward, Candlewick, has 40 electors.
There are fewer than 100 electors in six wards. There are fewer than 10 residents on the voting list in five wards, 20 and there are fewer than 100 residents on the voting list in 19 wards. Women hardly feature at all in the voting lists of many of the wards in the City of London. I checked two of the wards. In Bassishaw there are four women on the voting list, and in the Candlewick ward there are only two women on the voting list.
To become a Common Council man, a candidate must be a Freeman of the City of London as well as being on the voting list, must own freehold or leasehold land in the City, or must have lived in the City in the previous 12 months. There are three ways of becoming a Freeman of the City of London. It can be done by servitude, which is a form of apprenticeship; it can be done by patrimony—in other words, to be the son or daughter of a Freeman; or it can be achieved by redemption or purchase.
In 1960 the Royal Commission on local government in Greater London looked into the question of the City of London and said in its conclusions:
If we were to be strictly logical we should recommend the amalgamation of the City and Westminster. But logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them.That is why to this day the City of London has had a different and undemocratic form of local government. Royal Commissions are not always right, and in this case I believe that it was just plain wrong.A submission to the Royal Commission, prepared by the Corporation of London in 1958, says:
In the national interest, Parliament has made provision for the preservation of ancient buildings, works of art, manuscripts and other things of historical importance. It would seem at least as important that ancient institutions should be preserved, particularly where they have been moulded by the centuries to serve modern needs. Parliament itself, no less than the Corporation of London, is an example of such an institution.But even Parliament has modernised itself far more than the City of London, and at least the modernisation of Parliament is still a burning issue, certainly in the Labour Party. However, the City of London has hardly modernised itself at all. The argument used in that submission is the argument for protecting privilege and patronage over the ages.The City of London is extremely rich. It has a high rateable value. If it were to be merged with adjoining boroughs there would be greater benefits to people who are not as affluent as many of those on the voting lists of the City of London. Furthermore, there is the question of what is called the City's cash, a sum of money not obtained through the rates which is disbursed by the corporation of the City of London and which ought to be available for the benefit of the people of London as a whole and not just for a small minority of them or a small part of London.
Indeed, it is clear that the City of London is well behind the times. It has a business and property vote, although it has been abolished in the rest of the country. It has aldermen, even though they have been abolished elsewhere. It has an undemocratic system of elections at a time when the rest of the country has become democratic in its local government.
The question of how the City of London should be split up between the adjoining boroughs is best left to the Committee stage of the proposed Bill. At this stage my inclinations are that it ought to merge with the borough of Tower Hamlets. However, several hon. Members representing constituencies in adjoining boroughs have already approached me and have made their pitch for the City of London to be merged with their local authority areas.
21 I am not a philistine. I hope that some of the ceremonial functions of the City will be retained under the new structure. I hope that there will be the ceremony of the Lord Mayor: it attracts the tourists; it is good for the balance of payments, I am not against it.
Essentially, the Bill is against privilege. I ask the House to support it in order to give the City of London the same form of democratic government which many years ago we gave the people of other parts of the country.
§ Mr. Tony Durant (Reading, North)I rise to oppose the motion on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) who, because of his position in the House, is unable to speak. I have no interest in the matter. I am not a stockbroker and I do not have any financial interests in the City so I can speak honestly and openly.
There are four good reasons why the motion should be opposed. First, it is a blatant political move prior to the GLC elections on Thursday. Secondly, the need to reform the City of London has not yet been proved, as a number of commissions have stated. Thirdly, the importance of the City of London to the nation and to the world is beyond comprehension. It is most important to Britain. Fourthly, reform of local government is not always a success, as many of us have felt for some time.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) made a blatant speech prior to the GLC elections. The last time that the matter was raised in March 1977—once again prior to the GLC elections—by Mr. Bryan Davies, who then represented Enfield, North. It was raised in 1965 by the former Member for Putney Mr. Hugh Jenkins, who is now in another place. Both gentlemen lost their seats. Perhaps that is a lesson of which the hon. Gentleman should be careful.
As is commonly known, the City occupies an important part of our constitution. It is an important square mile which houses financial, industrial and commercial centres of the world. It is important to us all. It is a unique place with high integrity, skills and expertise. It earns millions of pounds for Britain. The world watches and studies its actions. Its history goes back 2,000 years to Roman times. Its first main charter was granted by William the Conqueror. It was a port and a commercial centre for Britain for many years. Parliament granted it powers to elect its mayor and Magna Carta confirmed its separate identity.
The City of London has always been a defender of individual rights. It took into its care the five Members of Parliament who were attacked by the King when he entered the Chamber many hundreds of years ago. In the reign of George III when the House rejected John Wilkes as a Member of Parliament because he attacked the monarchy, the City of London made him its mayor three times in a row. It certainly looks after the rights of its citizens. The City has grown in importance. It employs 540,000. I admit that only 4,000 live in the City, but 540,000 work there. The City is important to them.
This matter has been examined many times. An inquiry in 1887 suggested that the City took over the surrounding areas—that would be an interesting position. An inquiry in 1854 decided to leave the City of London alone. There have been many inquiries since the war. Lord Reading, one of my distinguished predecessors in my constituency, chaired a committee considering the matter in 1945, which 22 found the terms of reference too narrow. A Royal Commission was established, as the hon. Member for Battersea, South mentioned, which looked at the whole of Greater London. It recommended leaving the Corporation of London as it was because of its unique character. It is important to Britain.
The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman is that the City of London is undemocratic. Its traditions are long and well-established. I sometimes question whether it does not work better than many of the things that we do in this place. We do not always make a success of what we do in the Chamber. The City looks at itself democratically and is trying to extend the franchise. It accepts that the number of resident electors is small, and that it must recognise the large numbers who work there and who need a voice in that important city.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the City's wealth. It provides one-eighth of the GLC's budget and 21 per cent. of ILEA's money, which is a credit to the City. It requires for its administration only £55 million. If the hon. Gentleman wants to break up the City and give it to the neighbouring boroughs he should remember that they are heavily in debt, especially in the north, east and south. There would have to be an almost immediate rate increse which would act as a deterrent to industry and business in the City. They would have to consider moving elsewhere. Rates have a bearing on where people work, as is shown in South Yorkshire and other places where businesses have been moving out because of high rates.
It is in the interests of the nation to maintain the City Corporation. It costs nothing. It raises money to pay for the pageantry mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It supports the City schools, it runs Billingsgate and Smithfield and it spends £1 million a year on open spaces, especially in Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches. It maintains the four bridges into the City. Would the hon. Gentleman's borough care to take on the maintenance of those bridges? It runs the Guildhall School of Music, reputable establishment. It built the Barbican.
The Opposition often criticise the City corporation, but however, it is interesting to note that the Labour Front Bench seldom speaks on the matter. When the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) carried out his' organic development—or whatever he called it—during the last Government he never mentioned the City of London. Two former Labour Prime Ministers have accepted the freedom of the City—Lord Attlee and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). They both accepted it gladly and were honoured to take their place among the other Freemen.
The motion is a political move, which happens regularly before GLC elections. It should be thrown out. Reform of local government since the war has not been a great success. I say that as someone not keen on the legislation put through by my party. Tampering with local government has never been a success since the war, and the motion would make the matter worse. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this mean little measure.
§ Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a Freeman of the City of London, I wonder whether you could give me guidance. I gather that I am not alone in that position. As the 23 proposed Bill would abolish the rights and privileges of Freemen of the City, is it proper that Freemen on either side of the House should vote on the matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerBefore I answer that point, I should tell the House that I am a member of the ancient order of blacksmiths in the City of London—and I am very proud of that. I am a Freeman of the City of London. I do not intend to vote—at least, I do not expect that I shall be called upon to vote. I do not see any direct pecuniary interest for any hon. Member. Whether to vote is a matter of judgment for each hon. Member.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 236.
25| Division No. 167 | 3.49 pm |
| AYES | |
| Anderson, Donald | Graham, Ted |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Grant, George (Morpeth) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) |
| Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Haynes, Frank |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Bradley, Tom | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) |
| Buchan, Norman | Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) |
| Campbell, Ian | Home Robertson, John |
| Carmichael, Neil | Homewood, William |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Horam, John |
| Cartwright, John | Huckfield, Les |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Cohen, Stanley | Janner, Hon Greville |
| Coleman, Donald | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | John, Brynmor |
| Cook, Robin F. | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Cowans, Harry | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Craigen, J. M. | Kerr, Russell |
| Cryer, Bob | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Kinnock, Neil |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) | Lambie, David |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lamond, James |
| Davidson, Arthur | Leighton, Ronald |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Deakins, Eric | Lyon, Alexander (York) |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Dixon, Donald | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Dobson, Frank | McKelvey, William |
| Dormand, Jack | McNamara, Kevin |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Magee, Bryan |
| Dubs, Alfred | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) | Meacher, Michael |
| English, Michael | Mikardo, Ian |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Field, Frank | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) |
| Flannery, Martin | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Morton, George |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Forrester, John | Newens, Stanley |
| Foster, Derek | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Foulkes, George | O'Neill, Martin |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Golding, John | Penhaligon, David |
| Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Prescott, John | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Richardson, Jo | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | Tilley, John |
| Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) | Tinn, James |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Torney, Tom |
| Robertson, George | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
| Rooker, J. W. | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Roper, John | Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster) |
| Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Weetch, Ken |
| Sandelson, Neville | Welsh, Michael |
| Sheerman, Barry | White, Frank R. |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon R. | White, J. (G'gow Pollok) |
| Short, Mrs Renée | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Silverman, Julius | Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Winnick, David |
| Spearing, Nigel | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Spriggs, Leslie | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Stallard, A. W. | |
| Stoddart, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stott, Roger | Mr. Reg Race and |
| Strang, Gavin | Mr. Clive Soley. |
| Straw, Jack |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Alison, Michael | Dover, Denshore |
| Arnold, Tom | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Durant, Tony |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E) | Dykes, Hugh |
| Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone,) | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Banks, Robert | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Eggar, Tim |
| Beith, A. J. | Elliott, Sir William |
| Bendall, Vivian | Eyre, Reginald |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Fairgrieve, Russell |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Fell, Anthony |
| Best, Keith | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Fisher, Sir Nigel |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) |
| Blackburn, John | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles |
| Blaker, Peter | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Body, Richard | Forman, Nigel |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Fox, Marcus |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Freud, Clement |
| Bowden, Andrew | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Bright, Graham | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Brinton, Tim | Goodhart, Philip |
| Brittan, Leon | Goodhew, Victor |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Brotherton, Michael | Gorst, John |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Gow, Ian |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Gray, Hamish |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) |
| Buck, Antony | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
| Budgen, Nick | Grist, Ian |
| Burden, Sir Frederick | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Butcher, John | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hannam, John |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hastings, Stephen |
| Churchill, W. S. | Hawkins, Paul |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hawksley, Warren |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Henderson, Barry |
| Cockeram, Eric | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Cope, John | Holland, Philip (Carlton) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hooson, Tom |
| Corrie, John | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Critchley, Julian | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Hurd, Hon Douglas | Kilfedder, James A. |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Kimball, Marcus |
| Jessel, Toby | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Lamont, Norman | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Lang, Ian | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Latham, Michael | Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Rossi, Hugh |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Rost, Peter |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. |
| Loveridge, John | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| MacGregor, John | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| MacKay, John (Argyll) | Shersby, Michael |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Silvester, Fred |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Sims, Roger |
| Marland, Paul | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Marlow, Tony | Smith, Dudley |
| Marten, Neil (Banbury) | Speller, Tony |
| Mates, Michael | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Mather, Carol | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mawby, Ray | Stanley, John |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Steen, Anthony |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Stevens, Martin |
| Mellor, David | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Stokes, John |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Mills, Peter (West Devon) | Tapsell, Peter |
| Moate, Roger | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Molyneaux, James | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Monro, Hector | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Thompson, Donald |
| Moore, John | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton S) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Trippier, David |
| Murphy, Christopher | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Myles, David | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Neale, Gerrard | Viggers, Peter |
| Needham, Richard | Waddington, David |
| Nelson, Anthony | Wainwright, R.(Colne V) |
| Neubert, Michael | Wakeham, John |
| Newton, Tony | Walker, B. (Perth) |
| Onslow, Cranley | Waller, Gary |
| Osborn, John | Walters, Dennis |
| Page, John (Harrow, West) | Ward, John |
| Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Watson, John |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Pawsey, James | Wheeler, John |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Pollock, Alexander | Wickenden, Keith |
| Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) | Wilkinson, John |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
| Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Rathbone, Tim | |
| Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Mr. Bob Dunn and |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Mr. John Heddle. |
§ Question accordingly negativated.