The varying ability of the different areas to pay for education is indicated by the figures of assessable value per child in average attendance at elementary schools in self-contained elementary education areas. Compare, for example, Hornsey, whose assessable value per scholar is £105, Richmond, £103, and Hendon, £103, on the one hand, with East Ham, £27, Walthamstow, £24, and Edmonton, £22, on the other (L.C.C., Hunt, Appendix III, Table N, Minutes of Evidence, Part II., p. 164). In the latter areas efficient education can only be provided at the cost of heavy, or even crippling, rates. In our view, nothing short of a complete re-organisation of the present education areas on recognised local government principles will remedy the serious inequalities of the existing system. We therefore propose a plan by which it will be possible for the children of all Londoners to be given equal educational opportunities.

164. The Central Authority should fix scales of salaries for teachers, which need not necessarily be the same in all districts, or in all schools, inasmuch as the responsibilities and difficulties of the work would vary, and also, no doubt, the cost of living. There should, however, be one teaching staff and equal opportunities of development and promotion. The Central Authority should also deal with the training of teachers, and should manage the specialised institutions, but as regards the management of the elementary schools, it should only approve the staffing scale and the standard rationing of supplies, etc., undertake the inspections and examinations, and maintain the school buildings. The appointment of teachers in accordance with the staffing scale, and all the duties of management, should be the responsibility of the Local Authorities.

165. The division of other duties should depend to some extent on the status of the various local bodies, the widest powers in both elementary and higher education being accorded to the Councils of the County Boroughs, Municipal Boroughs and Boroughs.

Water Supply.

166. The direct control of the water supply of a community by elected representatives should be, and in provincial practice has been, the first service to be municipalised in the interests of public health.

167. The Metropolitan Water Board-the Water Authority for London and the surrounding districts-consists of 66 members, including 14 representatives of the London County Council, two each from the City of London and the City of Westminster, one each from the remaining 27 Metropolitan Boroughs, one each from the five County Councils of Middlesex, Essex, Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire, one each from the Conservancies of the Thames and the Lee, two from the County Borough of West Ham, one from the County Borough of East Ham, one each from four of the Sanitary Authorities in Middlesex and Essex,

and one each from seven groups of Sanitary Authorities in Essex, Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. In some cases one delegate represents eight different Sanitary Authorities. The Water Board, constituted as above, is not responsible to the various Authorities who send representatives to it.

168. The Departmental Committee who inquired into the administration of the Board in 1920 considered that the Board was too large, and recommended a considerable reduction in the number of its members. The Committee were not satisfied that the Water Board had done all that was required in order to derive full advantage from the unification effected by the Act of 1902, and they recommended the appointment of a General Manager, and made sundry other recommendations, with the object of improving the efficiency of the organisation. In our view, unless the present constitution of the Board were entirely re-organised, the mere reduction of the number of members on the Water Board would remove it still further from the direct control of the ratepayers.

169. The functions of the Metropolitan Water Board are simple at present; they involve few questions of policy. There is no such demand on the personal attention of members as is involved in the management of schools, mental hospitals and other institutions, and the chief detailed work taken over from the water companies, viz., the hearing of appeals against the annual values for water rates on properties outside London, was removed by the passing of the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act of 1907. There is now, in our view, no work performed by the Metropolitan Water Board that could not be as effectively and more economically done by a Water Committee of an elected Central Authority. The water rates and charges, for instance, would be collected along with other rates, to the manifest convenience of the ratepayers, so that a separate collecting staff would not be needed.

170. Part of the area of the Metropolitan Water Board is outside the boundary of Greater London, the area we suggest for the new Central Authority. This need cause no difficulty, since it frequently happens in the case of provincial cities that one municipality supplies as many water-consumers outside its border as it does inside. In some cases the supply is in bulk to neighbouring municipalities, and in others the supply is direct to the consumer. The Manchester Corporation supplies water in whole or in part, in bulk or directly, to nearly 50 local government areas outside the city boundaries, containing a greater population than the population of the city. The duties of the Manchester Water Committee are more complex than are the duties of the Metropolitan Water Board. If the Water Committee of the Manchester Corporation can do this work efficiently, it is evident that a Water Committee of the proposed Central Authority for London could perform the simpler functions of the Metropolitan Water Board.

171. In regard to London, Your Majesty's advisers at the time, and the Parliament which passed the Metropolis Water Act of 1902, considered it inadvisable that the London County Council should follow the provincial precedent. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Walter Long), in introducing the Bill, said it was clear that a new body had to be found which would represent the whole area, and Sir John Dorington, who was a member of the Commission which recommended the purchase of the water companies, said :

"We were obliged to put the London County Council out of court simply for the reason that it did not govern the district which was to be supplied with water, but only a portion of it."

This led Mr. Norman, in his evidence, to say :

"For this municipal service the area of the county is quite insufficient, so much so that Parliament had to make a new Authority to do it, the Metropolitan Water Board, simply and solely because the area was wrong."―(L.C.C., Norman, Q. 303.)

172. The proposed new Central Authority would not only be the governing authority for the area of the Metropolitan Water Board, but for a large area not supplied by the Board. The new Authority should be the paramount Water Authority for the whole area, but the company undertakings, if efficient and adequate, need not be interfered with, unless Parliament should. sanction their purchase. One advantage in having a Central Water Authority would be that if, in consequence of the increased population and a shortage of supply, additional sources had to be found, the Central Authority would be able to adopt a comprehensive policy and provide for the future.

Parks and Open Spaces.

173. The administration of commons, parks, and open spaces should be divided between the Central and the Local Authorities, the larger open spaces now in existence, or which may be acquired, being maintained by the central body, especially where they run into more than one local area. This is apparently the principle underlying the system which exists at present. The London County Council have contributed large sums for the acquisition of parks and open spaces beyond their own borders, and maintain them. They have also contributed to the purchase of parks and open spaces which are maintained by other Local Authorities. The Corporation of the City of London maintain very large open spaces which lie far beyond the present boundaries of municipal London, including Burnham Beeches and Epping Forest. Some of the larger open spaces in Outer London were acquired by the Corporation out of the proceeds of the Grain Duty, which was levied (until 1902) in respect of all grain entering the Port of London. These open spaces are now maintained out of the revenues of the City Corporation. It should, we think, be optional for the Corporation to transfer the management of these open spaces to the Central Authority if they so desire.

Wholesale Markets.

174. We agree with our colleagues that no administrative difficulties exist with regard to wholesale markets in the Greater London area, but the question which we think that the Commission were required to consider is the inadequacy of existing markets to meet the needs of seven and a half million people. This shortage is mainly due to the fact that no Authority exists responsible for the whole area. This was the conclusion come to by the Departmental Committee on the Wholesale Food Markets of London, who, in their First Report in 1920 (Cmd. 634), state :

"We desire to draw attention to the fact that the functions of the wholesale food markets of London are not limited to the area controlled by any existing Local Authority. The produce coming into these markets is distributed over an area extending far beyond the London limits, and prices ruling in the London markets have a direct influence on those of the other inland food markets of the kingdom.

We are of opinion that the London wholesale market problem should be dealt with as a whole, and in this connection would point out that there is at present no one Authority which has, so far as Greater London is concerned, power to create new markets or to improve, remove or coordinate those now in existence."

175. The Committee, in their further Reports, emphasised the need of a Wholesale Market Authority for Greater London, in order (1) to improve the transport of market produce-(“We are of opinion that the difficulties indicated by this evidence afford a further reason for a Central Market Authority "); (2) to arrange for sales by auction at the docks of imported fruit and vegetables; (3) to license porters-("We are of opinion that all porters should be licensed by the Market Authority and paid at standard rates "); and (4) to license salesmen, who should be paid according to a scale of commission sanctioned by the Authority (Cmd. 1341).

66

176. The Committee were of opinion that it was only through a Market Authority for Greater London that existing markets could be improved, new markets established, and means found to quicken and cheapen the distribution of food throughout the whole area. The Committee condemned Covent Garden Market as being altogether inadequate to the necessities of the trade," while the buildings were obsolete and inconvenient. The Committee found that accommodation at other markets was also condemned as being inadequate. They stated that Brentford Market affords a valuable example of the successful establishment of a local wholesale market.

177 In view of the importance of the markets belonging to the City Corporation, and considering the good record of their management, we are of opinion that the Corporation should be largely represented on the Markets Committee of the proposed Central Authority, with which they should co-operate. At the same time, it may be remembered that, relying on an ancient Charter, the City Corporation have opposed the establishment of

new wholesale markets within seven miles of the City, even in cases where the market may have been demanded in the public. interest.

Conservancies of the Thames and the Lee.

178. Two ad hoc Authorities are responsible for the Conservancies of the Thames and the Lee. Londoners as water consumers contribute 75 per cent. of the expenditure of the Thames Conservancy Board and a large proportion of the expenditure of the Lee Conservancy Board, and an InterDepartmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Health is now inquiring into the constitution, powers, duties, and sources of revenue of both Boards.

179. Although Local Authorities are represented on both Boards, they have not the same control as if the Boards were transformed into Committees of a directly elected Council. The London County Council, in a report on the Lee Conservancy Board, upon which it has two representatives, says :

"No information is available as to the amount of expenditure estimated to be necessary to put and maintain the river Lee in good condition. There are numerous complaints about the impurity of the Lee, and Local Authorities along its course prosecute each other for causing pollution."

66

66

,,

180. The two Conservancy Boards have the unique privilege among local bodies of payment of members, called fees in the case of the Lee Conservancy Board, and “ expenses of attending meetings and of views" in the case of the Thames Conservancy Board.

181. The problem of the Lee Conservancy is simple, as the waterway is wholly within the area of the proposed new Authority. The present Board should be abolished and their duties transferred to a Committee of the Authority. It has been recognised that it is only through a Central Authority that the continued evils arising from the state of the River Lee can be removed. In a report on the flooding of the Lee Valley made. to the Local Government Board by Mr. P. M. Crosthwaite, M. Inst. C.E., on 30th June, 1919, the first paragraph read as follows:

"The first step that seems desirable, if any improvement of the valley is to be effected, or indeed if conditions are to be prevented from becoming very much worse, is the constitution of one Central Authority who shall control the whole watershed as regards flooding. Such body, if constituted, should have complete control of the watercourses of the valley and of the banks, and no embankments should be constructed without their consent. They should also have charge of the sluices to ensure their proper use, so that when necessary water may be run off before floods have reached their full height."

182. The Thames Conservancy controls the River Thames from its source in Wiltshire to Teddington. Its functions could be transferred to the new Authority and administered by a Committee upon which the outside districts would be represented.

41402

G