An Act to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in the metropolitan area; to assimilate certain provisions of the Local Government Act 1933 to provisions for corresponding purposes contained in the London Government Act 1939; to make an adjustment of the metropolitan police district; and for connected purposes.
The London Government Act 1963 (c. 33) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which created Greater London and a new local government structure within it. The Act significantly reduced the number of local government districts in the area, resulting in local authorities responsible for larger areas and populations. The upper tier of local government was reformed to cover the whole of the Greater London area and with a more strategic role; and the split of functions between upper and lower tiers was recast. The Act classified the boroughs into inner and outer London groups. The City of London and its corporation were essentially unreformed by the legislation. Subsequent amendments to the Act have significantly amended the upper tier arrangements, with the Greater London Council abolished in 1986, and the Greater London Authority introduced in 2000. As of 2024[update], the London boroughs are more or less identical to those created in 1965, although with some enhanced powers over services such as waste management and education.
Provisions of the act
The act set up a two-tier local government system, with powers divided between the newly formed Greater London Council (GLC), 32 new London borough councils and the existing City of London. The provisions of the act came into effect on 1 April 1965, the new councils having been elected as "shadow authorities" in 1964.
Section 1 of the act established 32 London boroughs, each of which was to be governed by an elected borough council, and was to be regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 and Local Government Act 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 51). Twelve of the boroughs, corresponding to the former County of London, were designated Inner London boroughs. The remaining twenty boroughs were designated Outer London boroughs. None of the boroughs were given names in the act.
Section 2 declared that the area comprising the areas of the London boroughs, the City and the Temples shall constitute an administrative area to be known as Greater London. An elected Greater London Council was to govern the new area.
The metropolitan borough of Lambeth and so much of the metropolitan borough of Wandsworth as lay east of Hazelbourne Road, Cavendish Road, the railway between Balham and Streatham Common stations and the railway between Streatham and Mitcham Junction stations.
The metropolitan borough of Battersea and the remainder of the metropolitan borough of Wandsworth not included in borough 9.
The borough of Ilford, the borough of Wanstead and Woodford, so much of the borough of Dagenham as lay north of Billet Road and an area in the south of the urban district of Chigwell including the Hainault Estate.
The borough of Barking except the part in Borough 17 and the borough of Dagenham except the part in Borough 14.
The county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham, so much of the borough of Barking as lay west of the River Roding and Barking Creek and the part of the metropolitan borough of Woolwich not included in Borough 6.
The boroughs of Beckenham and Bromley, the urban districts of Orpington and Penge, and so much of the urban district of Chislehurst and Sidcup as lay south of the A20 road.
As passed, the act did not include names for the new boroughs. Keith Joseph, the minister, asked local councils for suggestions as to possible names, asking that they be a single word if possible, and noting that "the best name will be the place recognised as the centre of the new borough". Double-barrelled names were to be prohibited.[1][2]
The 'Royal Borough of Charlton' was proposed for the Greenwich and Woolwich metropolitan boroughs. Lewisham and Deptford were unable to agree on whether the borough should be named Lewisham, Deptford or after the central river/stream, Ravensbourne. The councils to become part of the London Borough of Barnet suggested "Northgate" or "Northern Heights" as names. Islington and Finsbury (Borough 3) were also unable to come to a decision, with Finsbury preferring "New River" and Islington preferring Islington. Richmond and Twickenham (Borough 24) disagreed over which, if any of those names should appear in the new borough names. Suggestions for Enfield (Borough 32) included "Enfield Chase" and "Edmonton Hundred".
Nine names were without controversy and were proposed in September 1963.[3]
Wembley and Willesden (Borough 28) wished to be called "Willesden and Wembley", but was ultimately titled Brent after the River Brent.
Hammersmith (Borough 11) as Fulham and Hammersmith were unable to choose a single name, and sent a shortlist to the Minister including "Riverside" and "Olympia" (ultimately changed to Hammersmith and Fulham.)
Councillors for the metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea and Kensington were divided and opposed the loss of their two ancient parish names in combining, so the Minister for Housing and Local Government made one exception and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea came into being.
Distribution of functions
The split of functions between the new authorities were:[6]
A royal commission was appointed in 1957 under the chairmanship of Sir Edwin Herbert to consider future local government structures in Greater London. The commission delivered its report in October 1960 proposing the creation of a Greater London with 52 Greater London Boroughs.
The government considered that the boroughs should be fewer and larger so published its plan for 34 London boroughs in late 1961.[7] In the County of London this reorganised the proposed boroughs so that combinations for the present boroughs of Camden, Westminster and Islington were achieved. The Hackney borough had Shoreditch rather than the Tower Hamlets borough. Lewisham would be standalone, Deptford would combine with Camberwell and Bermondsey, and Southwark and Lambeth would unite. Eastern Wandsworth was to form a borough in itself, with western Wandsworth being paired with Battersea.
Outside the former County of London, the outer London boroughs were to be:
Chigwell (north of the Roding – that is, Loughton and Buckhurst Hill)/Chingford/Leyton/Walthamstow/Wanstead and Woodford
Chigwell (south of the Roding)/Ilford
Hornchurch (part)/Romford
Barking/Dagenham/Hornchurch (Rainham and South Hornchurch wards)
Caterham and Warlingham/Coulsdon and Purley/Croydon
Banstead/Beddington and Wallington/Carshalton/Epsom and Ewell/Sutton and Cheam
Merton and Morden/Mitcham/Wimbledon
Esher/Kingston/Malden and Coombe/Surbiton/Walton and Weybridge
Barnes/Richmond/Twickenham
Brentford and Chiswick/Feltham/Heston and Isleworth/Staines/Sunbury
Hayes and Harlington/Ruislip-Northwood/Uxbridge/Yiewsley and West Drayton
Acton/Ealing/Southall
Wembley/Willesden
Harrow
Barnet/Finchley/Hendon
East Barnet/Enfield (part)/Friern Barnet/Hornsey/Southgate/Wood Green
Cheshunt/Edmonton/Enfield (part)/Tottenham
The Minister of Housing and Local Government announced, on their request, that five urban districts (Cheshunt, Chigwell, Esher, Staines and Sunbury) were to be excluded from Greater London on 18 May 1961, having earlier confirmed the widely expected exclusion of Banstead, Caterham and Warlingham and Walton and Weybridge.
Requests from the councils of Romford, Barnet, Carshalton, Coulsdon and Purley, Feltham, Yiewsley and West Drayton to be removed from the area were turned down. Additionally, the department decided that the "northern part of the borough of Epsom and Ewell definitely forms part of Greater London and must be included".[8] Epsom and Ewell would ultimately be excluded from the area in its entirety.
The slightly amended form was laid before Parliament for substantive debates from November 1962 until April 1963.[10] This proposed the eventually settled 32 more empowered boroughs forming a new administrative county.
Support
Ministerial proponents of the Bill advanced its smooth passage summarising the Royal Commission's Report:
One of those basic strands is that London Government must reflect the physical fact that Greater London is a single city with a recognisable existence of its own: it is a living organism with its heart, its limbs and its lungs. The Surrey [-proposed] Plan does not recognise this important basic fact.
Secondly, the Government regard it as vital that the functions that need to be exercised over the whole of Greater London should be in the hands of a body with real positive powers. In no other way can such a Government be effective.[11]
— Earl Jellicoe, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Housing, (Con)
...but [in] ordinary human speech, how is it that such people can be so appalled at acknowledging that they live in what is the greatest capital city in the world?
...
It would be ludicrous for the Government to go to this extent to try to reorganise metropolitan government for the next half century and boggle at including in it the whole of the metropolitan continuous built-up area.[12]
— Sir Keith Joseph, (Con), Minister of Housing and Local Government
I invite hon. Members on both sides to agree that, whatever may have been the merits of saying that the area of the L.C.C. was London in 1848, it is idle to say in 1962 that the frontiers are the same now. Plainly, in the more than 70 years since the L.C.C. came into existence, the whole pattern of London has been transformed.[13]
— Charles Curran, (Con, Uxbridge, Middlesex moved into London under this Bill)
Opposition
The leaders and all members of the Opposition in both houses saw the Bill as being partisan, opposed London's re-casting and celebrated its predecessor:
...you mean to go through with this execution of the London County Council because they have been so successful and they have been so strongly supported for 28 years by the electorate.[11]
...we believe that it is a party political Bill. We have been told that it is "politics in the raw". It certainly is. If London County Council can be destroyed for political reasons, so can the City of London Common Council.[13]
— John Parker, Lab, Dagenham, Essex, moved into London under this Bill
Five Conservative MPs (for North-West Croydon, South Croydon, Carshalton, Wimbledon and East Surrey) sympathised with a petition from 20,000 to 30,000 people from Croydon and two hillside semi-rural towns not to join London. Former Labour Home Secretary James Chuter Ede, a retired Surrey magistrate and county councillor, co-led the opposition in Committee, having met residents who were all "resolutely and determinedly opposed to the Bill." He was instrumental in getting his own area, Epsom and Ewell, completely excluded. Charles Doughty, MP for East Surrey (including Coulsdon and Purley), prophesied that "A shotgun marriage of the kind proposed in the Bill between Coulsdon, Purley and [the Borough of] Croydon can never be successful...The affinities of Coulsdon and Purley go south, not to the north and east. This is a very bad part of the Bill."[13] The Bill passed, and the boundaries including this fusion, have lasted since 1 April 1965.
The Local Government Act 1985 abolished the Greater London Council and transferred its functions to the London borough councils, joint arrangements and to central government. The Inner London Education Authority continued to exist as a directly elected authority.
Education Reform Act 1988
The Education Reform Act 1988 abolished the Inner London Education Authority and made the inner London boroughs education authorities.
