BRITISH LIBRARY 
OF POLITICAL AND 
ECONOMIC SCIENCE 


LONDON SCHOOL OF 
ECONOMICS AND 
POLITICAL SCIENCE 


lO,PORTUGAL STREET, 
LONDON WC2A 2HD 


Tel. 01-405 7686 


fabian tract 469 
a radical agenda for London 

chapter 
1 London's politics 1 
2 London's economy 2 
3 London's tourists 8 
4 London's transport 11 
5 London's education 16 
6 London's housing 24 
7 London's health 29 
8 London's government 36 

appendix the contributors 
40 

acknowledgement 
Thanks are due to Lord Sainsbury and to Sir Sigmund Sternberg 
whose generosity enabled us to employ a re,search assistant 
on this project. Without their help, the pamphlet might never 
have seen the light of day. 

this pamphlet, like all publications of the Fabian Society, 
represents not the collective view of the Society but only the 
views of the individuals who prepared it. The responsibility of 
the Society is limited to approving publications it issues 
as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement. 
Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, London SW1 H 9BN. 
May 1980 ISSN 0307 7535 ISBN 7163 0469 4 


1. London's politics HC 
:2 s~ 

d-b 
29 I5 J2-Q 1C12 

In May 1981, the peop'le of London goto the polls to elect a new Greater London 
Council--..Jby far ·the biggest, and 
theoretic~lly one of the most responsible, 
of the local authorities in our reorganisedlocal government structure in Britain. 
Though the 620 square miles df the GLC 
area now contain fewer than seven 
million peop'le-a drop of 1t million 
since the peak at the onset of the second 
world war-the task of running London 
effectively and efficiently is one of the 
biggest faced by any loc~l authority anywhere. 
So it will doubtless be ironic that, 
as usual in casting their votes the elec.
torate .will be expressing a view on the 
performance of the Westminster Government 
rather than on the right prescription 
for London. That may be an existing 
faot of life, but it is one that badly needs 
changing. 

London politics are not in a healthy state. 
Voter turnout is Jow; the issues are often 
muddied, seemingly designed as gimmicks 
to win support then to be abandoned. 
This is supported by the abundant 
evidence that both Labour and Tory GLCS 
have run away from the endemic problems 
that beset London~the allocation 
of council houses within and between the 
boroughs ; the management of traffic on 
the streets ; the relationship between 
health care and social services and, above 
all, the regeneration of London's declining 
economic base. 

It would be a mistake, however, to 
assume that all the prdblems raised in 
this pamphlet could be solved at GLC 
level alone. Some of ·our recommendations 
will need legislation, or !financial 
assistance from central ·government.
Some cail for a chang.jng relationship 
with the boroughs. Some, such as those 
in the field of health, involve areas .over 
which the present GLC has no. direct c~ntrol. 
Others point to a change m authontyboundaries or are aimed at the Labour 
Party itseif. Whilst attention in the 
next year will be turned towards the 
GLC, any long term strategy ~ust involve 
a greater degree o'f coopemtwn !between 
authorities. 

for over 18 months to provide a coherent 
policy ~genda {or the capital. Involving 
over 50 people, they divided themselves 
into specialist •groups to handle majorpolicy areas such as the economy, housing, 
education, health and transport. The 
chairmen of e~ch of these groups then 
met in a series of discussions to presenttheir .groups' pol'icy p<!lpers, to discuss 
them and ·to weld them into a s'ingleFabian p~mphlet. Finally, at a publicseminar held in November 1979, the 
issues and proposals were subjected to 
wide ranging discussion and sympathetic 
criticism by fellow Fabians . 

This pamphlet is the result. We commend 
it to the London Labour Party, who 
are now debating their own electoral 
manifesto, and to thinking Londoners 
everywhere-socialist and non-socia.listwho 
·care about the future of their ci-tyand the quality of London life. 

A group of Fabians have ·been meeting 


2. London's economy 
Without a sound economic base-without 
an expanding .range of good jobs 
with prospects-any pol·icy agenda for 
London wiH prove irrelevam and useless. 
This goes above all 1for a Radi·cal Agenda. 
For, necessarily, many af the proposals 
in later chapters will make calls on resources. 
London's economy will need to 
supply those resources-for the declining 
regional parts of the British economywill be unable to supply them. So the 
economy of London ha·s to he right. 

But jobs matter in themselves, too. They 
are the foundation of a good life for 
millions of adult Londoners. No amount 
of spending on remedial programmes can 
ever ·compensate the unemployed, or the 
poorly employed, for •the insult and the 
waste they suffer. So a healthy economy 
must be the first priority {or London. 

At present, it is far from healthy. True, 
there are strong and growing parts of 
it; but disturbingly, there are too many 
fast dedining parts. The decline results 
from large firms closing branch plants, 
and small firms being lost in redevelop· 
ment, a:t a f·aster rate than new or expanding 
firms have created new jobs. This 
has left vast and unsightly areas of waste 
land and buildings. Older workers who 
have lost their jobs may never secure 
similar employment again. Young people 
leaving school are reluctant to acquirethe skills that are essential to securing 
a better future. 

In devising strategies for reviving Lon· 
dan's economy, certain !facts of life must 
be faced. First, manufacturing now only 
accounts for a minority of employment 
-as low as 20 per cent in many areas. 
Hence employment policies must be 
based on a wider range df activity.
Second, large new factories are unlikelyto be set up in t'he inner areas, as most 
of the remaining firms are relatively small 
and there are not many large sites. Third, 
technological change means adapting to 
new kinds of job if the economy is not 
to fossilise. 

London's economy cannot simply be left 
to its own devices. Many areas that need 
new investment lack the conditions that 
will attract private finance !because of 

their poor accessibility and environment. 
Many of the firms on which the economyof London's ~nner areas now depend are 
too small to do much for themselves 
about ·their environment. Local government 
has a role to play in economic 
development •through its social and 
environmental programmes, and throughi'ts role as one of the largest employers 
and buyers of goods and servi·ces. 

new strategies 

The first task is ·to encourage existing 
employers to stay and improve the opportunities 
they offer. For many firms 
growth is blocked by cramped and inadequate 
premises and a shortage of sui'table 
labour; these are both areas Where local 
government can exert leverage. The GLC 
needs to ensure that l•arge employers are 
not lost to London because they cannot 
obtain resources which are potentiallyavailable. It must establish contact with 
the 100 largest employers, includingpublic concerns, and reassure them that 
action is being taken in such crucial areas 
as transport, education and housingwhich affect their competitive position. 
The biggest employers should enter into 
planning agreements at borough level, to 
expand their training opportunities and 
meet environmental objectives. In return 
the borough and the GLC would undertake 
to improve transport and other measures 
to increase the supply of labour. 

The second task is to realise London's 
full potential as a seedbed of new enterprise, 
.by providing a range of premises, 
a helping hand and easier access to publicmarkets. London's position as the major 
market, and i•ts concentrations of expertise 
and entrepreneurial people, should 
allow it to build up new industries to 
replace those it has lost. This cannot be 
left to chance; local government must 
take the lead in ensuring that the climate 
is ri·ght. London must attract employment 
in industries with expansionpotential. One example is the manufacture 
of office equipment, which already 
provides some 20,000 jobs in .the region. 
However, major changes are now afoot 
in product design of office equipment 


with techniques switching from electromechanical 
to electronic operation. This 
poses both a threat to the tradi-tional 
manufacturing base because l'argely new 
skills and manufacturing processes are 
involved but also a longer term opportunity 
which should be exploited. London 
could become a leading world centre 
for office systems knowhow and education 
around which new electronic companies 
would duster, producing all kinds 
of employment. The GLC and the boroughs 
could, for example, establish, in 
.partnership with pri·vate companies, an 
" office of -the future" and mount fuPther 
supportive policies such as increasing the 
number of ILEA courses on the use of 
office systems and establishing a university 
chair in office automation. 

The third task is to build up London's 
position as an interna·tional centre, t.rking 
full advant(llge of its his'torical and cultural 
assets. As well as international headquarters, 
London should aim to attract 
1branches of smaller operations that would 
othei1Wise locate outside Brita·in, for 
example by developing industrial parks 
to high s-tandards on some of the wastelands 
in the inner areas. lrt also means 
ensuring that an a:ppropriate range of 
office blocks and other facilities, such as 
conference rooms, are available. This wiH 
involve developing closer links between 
developers, financial institutions and local 
authori-ties. It could also mean promoting 
docklands as a location for international 
agencies with spjn-off !benefits. 

The fourth task is to increase construction 
and reha'biHta:tion programmes both 
to provide better facilities and to soak 
up the unemployed. The expansion of 
the building industry is an effective way 
of providing desperately needed employment 
for <the unskilled. The role of direct 
labour departments is vita-l; they should 
be seen as leading the industry in the 
provision of training and· progressivework methods. GLC or government funds 
should be made availalble to boroughswith acute unemployment problems to 
ensure that they can expand their direct 
labour departments and the trainingopportunities within them. The development 
of modern industrial premj.ses and 

cleaning up and face-\iifting run down 
areas should provide plenty of new work. 
This is an example of where expanded 
public spending would be fully justified 
in terms O'f the employment trainingopportunities it would generate and in 
terms of its general impact on the 
economic prospects of London's depressed 
inner areas. 

The fifth task is greatly to improve the 
ability of the least qualifi·ed to secure the 
jobs that are availa'l>le. There is little 
point in expanding the range of employment 
available if people are not equippedto take up the opportunities. In this respect, 
.the " mis-1natch " between vacancies 
and the unemployed in London is particularly 
serious. Local authorities have a 
vita-! role in bridging the ga:p between 
employers and employees, assuring employers 
that their needs are being taken 
into account in formula·ting policy in 
areas such a·s education. 

They can also help ensure that employers' 
selection procedures and internal careers 
structure are in touch with employees'needs and that employees are given better 
advice on what jobs are available. A 
major problem for the development of 
skilled labour is that many small firms 
are exempt from Training Board activity 
and are too smaU to make other arrangements. 
The " mis•match " can be eased 
by better contact with the education 
system (see chapter 5). There is also a 
need for more effective training to 
improve ·the earning ca,pacity of those 
with least advantages and without formal 
qualifications. 

The great potential for expansion in "the 
office sector" wouJd not con'tradict other 
La:bour policies for the cap•itaL This is 
because the justification for the original 
restrictive land use policies otf the 1960s 
and 1970s no longer applies : there is 
little or no growth in London's economy 
which could he directed to the "depressed 
regions", while the need to decongest 
centra:! and inner London has 
disa:ppeared. In the current economic 
climate, office developments are unlikely 
to create an inflation of land values, 
especially with careful .\and use policies. 


There is a fear that technological change 
will make new office developments redundant 
within I 0 years. Increased automation 
of work in offices should, however, 
have a limited impact on the two 
major types df firms which we wish to 
support: the small firm and the inter· 
national headquarters. These involve only 
a small proportion of routine jobs and 
they are likely to prove the least susceptible 
to technological change, in contrast 
to routine activities of major banks and 
insurance companies, most of which have 
already /been located outside London. 

Land use policies should therefore be 
greatly relaxed especia-lly in the case of 
small office redevelopment or conversion 
schemes, and where there is a named 
'tenant. In central sensitive areas, such as 
the " urban villages " of London (Covent 
Garden, Soho, Bloomsbury) care should 
be taken to restrict the amount of new 
office uses so as to maintain their unique 
social and environmental character. Suitable 
locations for new major develop-
ments-offices, conference and other 
ancillary facilities-should be defined in 
high accessibility areas such as around 
railway termini in central London, town 
centres in the boroughs, and selected 
parts in the belt immediately around 
central London, which has been mos't 
seriously affected by the decline in small 
workshop industry. This clear and selective 
policy should allow the continuation 
and improvement of the mixed employment 
and residential uses in ~his belt. 

The need, therefore, is to relax office 
controls~but in the context of a careful, 
positive land use policy. This would end 
the climate of office land scarcity and 
would help realise London's greatpotential in office based jobs. The basic 
economic land use strategy, however, 
needs supplementing by parallel action 
on other fronts. 

Housing. It is very hard for some of the 
groups who are crucial to London's 
economy to find somewhere suitable to 
live close to the centre. Yet oHen tower 
blocks could provide flats for youngsingle people and childless couples, while 
waste land could be used to build the 

kind of houses and environment that 
skiHed staff leave London to obtain. 

Transport. In the East End of London, 
it is essential to build some new roads 
and river crossings so that industry can 
operate efficiently, and to use some of 
the smaller waste sites for car parking.
At the same time, public transport must 
he improved, and some routes altered, 
to make it easier for people to get to 
work. 

Education. Greater preparation is needed 
for life and work for those who leave 
school without any further education. 
This will 'involve building 'better links 
between school and work, so that children 
can acquire the basic skills they will 
need to survive ·and so tha-t employers 
can lbe ·induced to provide beHer 
education. 

Environment. One of the worst aspectsof run down areas is the look of the 
environment with rubbish, graffiti and 
dereliction. Environmental task !forces are 
required with imaginative programmesthat put unemployed :people and land to 
good use and create confidence ·in the 
area's future. 

new agencies 

The difficulties of securing coordination 
between large organisations where com-
p'lex tasks are involved suggest that 
several new types of ·organisation should 
be set up to promote economic develop· 
ment in partnership •with the local 
authorities, community ·groups, privatebusiness and financial :institutions. 

Commercial Premises Associations. A 

ma!jor problem for small !firms 'has been 
finding suitable workspace in which to 
operate or expand. Local authorities 
should therefore sponsor the commercial 
equivalent o:f housing associations to 
ensure that small firms have a better 
chance of premises and that empty land 
and buildings are put to good use. These 
associations would be privately run and, 
like housing associa·tions, would reinvest 
their surpluses . .Local government's main 


role will be in guaranteeing rentals so 
that the bulk of 'the money can come 
from private financial institutions. It 
would be a,ppropriate to have at Jeast 
one in eaoh borough, with •the GLC 
monitoring the provision and .providing 
a central body of expertise. Most of the 
staff of the GLC's 'Industrial Centre need 
to be decentralised to >borough l·evel to 
support these initiatives. Developmentand other controls over .businesses that do 
not cause concern to others might also 
be relaxed, so increasing the supply of 
business premi•ses. 

Local Enterprise Trusts and Smai'l Enterprise 
Centres. Local ·government has a 
crucial role ·in ensuring tha,t firms that are 
too small to do everything for ·themselves 
can ·gain advice and encouragement. 
The lbest way is through backing 
independent collaborative organisationswhich aim to promote ·the interests of 
a particular area or sector -of industry.
This includes expansion of Chambers of 
Commerce and Trade Associations. These 
can, for examp>le, ·organise marketing, 
training and other services and can promote 
cooperatives and other db}ectives. 
They can draw their initial member5hip 
from both public and private >bodies and 
thus create the links .that are needed. 
Support should also >be given to settingup locally .based design and innovative 
centres to make !full use 01f London's 
technological .and design know-how, and 
generaUy .provide support to new 

businesses. 

London Development Agency. There are 
s-ome areas of waste .land, often as large 
as 10 to 25 acres, that need :inves·tment 
in a wide range of facilities •before they 
are attractive to live or rwork in. Resolution 
of many inter-agency conflicts is also 
required. Here a body is needed that 
can ·operate with the •fiexilbili1y, resources 
and time span of a New Town Development 
Corporation, but with local project 
committees, and implementing planning 
policies that have .already been 
approved. Individual boroughs .will be 
offered the opportunity of draJWing on 
the rugency's expertise and resources. 
There are also advantages in this Ag·encytaking a more strategic role. For exrumple, 

there is a danger of industrial estates in 
neighbouring boroughs competing with 
·each other. The new .body must be able 
to take into account strategi.c needs, be 
able to ·commit funds for a relJJSonable 
period df time without fear of unexpected 
cutbacks, and have the size and expertise 
to ensure influence in negotiation with 
outside bodies. It should therefore be 
run lby a Board :with either Ill majorityof GLC members or a 50 / 50 GLC / LBA split.
The majority of members should be 
experts in development. 

The new Agency would therefore enter 
into an agreement with the borough(s) 
concerned and private agencies and set 
up partnerships to develop individual 
sites. Each partnership >would have its 
own project committee and developmentteam, which would have delegated powers 
over devel·opment and access to long term 
sources of finance. A variant of the 
successful garden city fo.rmula is required, 
with surpluses reinvested in 
improved facilities or expanded development. 
The Agency would be able to sell 
completed developments to financial institutions 
and thus draJW on substantial funds 
of the pension and insurance ·companiesto regenerate the inner city areas. A key 
element should be well designed industrial 
parks. Care should be taken to create 
balanced communities with a wide choice 
of facilities, by .breaking larger areas of 
land, like the docklands, into sites that 
are small enough to .attract most types 

of developer. 

London Enterprise Board. Ways must he 
found of .funding the growth of innovative 
and expanding enterprises. At presentthere is no oflganisation capable of playing 
the role of the NEB, the Scottish and 
Welsh Development Agencies and the 
Council rfor SmaH ·Industries in Rural 
Areas rwithin •the Metropolitan conurbation. 
A body is required, involving experienced 
industrialists, to peflform functions 
of particular importance to 
London's economy. These would include 
tapping the expertise of London's research 
organisations and universities in 
new fields, such as microprocessors. The 
Board might enter into agreements with 
bodies like the NEB and private !financial 


institutions to encourage growth 1n 
specific sectors. The best way of working 
would be for it to provide guarantee'>
through the clearing banks, using either 
the powers of the Inner Urban Areas 
Act or a possible national .Joan guaranteed 
scheme if one is introduced. lt would 
also work through the ·boroughs' Industrial 
Development Officers and would 
advise the boroughs in connection with 
their planning agreements with majorlocal firms. It would focus attention on 
three areas of activity: (a) small / medium 
size firms or projects which would be 
too small for NEB involvement; (b) 
sectors of the economy which are particularly 
important for London's future 
and need extra support; and (c) assistance 
to new coopera•tive enterprises. 

Manpower Development. Adapting to 
new technology and the opportunities in 
service employment requires a massive 
increase in ·training. It also need much 
more coordination ·between schools, 
further education, vocation training and 
employers. At present, the division of 
functions lbe~ween the eduoa·tion a·uthorities 
and the Manpower Services Commission 
(Msc) inhibits thi and the 
problem is aggravated by the cutback 
in the ·training provided by large organisations. 
Respons"ibility for organisingtraining hould be reallocated to the 
education authorities. Stronger econom ic 
development department within each 
local authority hould administer employment 
services and assess what extra 
train'ing i needed to complement that 
provided by employers. In the case of 
small firms, much more assistance should 
be given to group training schemes on a 
sectoral and area basi , with the public 
sector funding the admini~trative co~t~. 

the special problem 
of docklands 


Thedockland area compri es some 5,000 
acres of land and water owned by the 
Port of London Authority and the Briti~h 
Gas Corporation, along with a thin strip 
of riverside warehou es, and some local 
authority hou ing. It form part of the 
larger Victorian industrial 'belt encircling 
the city, and uffer from the arne prob


!ems : a declining economic base and an 
ageing residential population whose skill 
are no longer relevant to London's 
changing economy. But the very scale 
of the dereliction offers a unique opportunity. 
Development here can redress the 
historic imbalance bebween the east and 
west ends, and can provide room for a 
whole range of activities to operate in 
spacious surroundings. However, little 
can happen without major publ·ic investment, 
estimated at up to £2,000 million. 
Money will have to be spent not only 
on houses, factories and .public bu'ildingsbut also on preparing the land for build


•ing. Furthermore, lit-tle private industria·! 
development can be attracted without 
overcoming the ·area's relative inaccessibility-
and this means ·bu'ilding new river 
crossings and relief roads. 
Planning has so far achieved relativelylittle •because :it has been unable to 
attract sufficient public and privatefinance and political consensus to overcome 
the basic problems. The search for 
grand solutions, !'ike trade marts and the 
Olympic Games, has diverted attention 
from the basic problems. 

The policy questions to be resolved, 
therefore, are what pattern of development 
should be sought, what level of 
public investment should be made, and 
what form of development agency should 
be used. It ·is unrealistic to rely on grand 
scale development. Rather, an incremental 
approach is needed, building on 
what already exists. Medium size sites, 
which require only limited improvementand can be adequately serviced with the 
existing infrastructure, should be developed 
first. Priority should go to a 
mixture of middle income housing for 
rent and ale plus modern ·indu trial 
estates, while essential improvements to 
infrastructure are made. Meanwhile, 
!;orne of the remaining land would lbe 
allocated to permanent recreabion uses. 
Other parts would go to a variety of 
interim uses, by leasing the land cheaply 
to various enterprises or providing low 
cost amenities through "clean up" pro-
grammes, such as grassed areas or urban 
farms. Later, these interim uses will 
give way to permanent one , in accor



dance with a flexible and real:istic land 
use strategy. The aim should be to create 
balanced communities in which the main 
needs can be satisfied without ·travelling 
far. The model should ·be that of the 
urban village. The main economic 
catalyst should be a range of premises 
for smaller firms in attractive surroundings. 


The most crucial public commibment 
required is to better transport. Some new 
roads and river crossings will be the key 
to unlocking private investment. Existing 
rai1way tracks-some abandoned but 
capable of revival-could provide a low 
cost option for achieving improved public 
transport links with central London. 
Parks, commons and playing 'fields should 
be created on the large areas of waste 
land, to proV'ide much needed amenities 
and an attractive back-drop to new 
developments. However, it would be 
wasteful 'beyond that to divert public 
resources from regenerating the adjoining 
inner areas where far more peoplelive and work. 

There is a very difficult problem of 
administration here. One reason for the 
slow progress in implementing plans is 
that loca•l authorities are clearly not able 
to make long enough commitments of 
resources, or to secure coordinated and 
swift actions through the normal committee 
system. Hence the argument for 
a new-town style urban developmentcorporation. The problems are that it 
ignores the need to relate development 
to closely related areas in the same 
boroughs; and that it is non-democratic. 
As an alternative, the •local authorities 
could work through local developmentagencies, with delegated powers and 
resources, under the umbrella of the 
London Development Agency, as proposed 
3Jbove. 

A 1ow cost incremental development 
strategy for the Docklands would have 
many advantages ·over the a:mb1itious 
plans put forward in recent years. It 
would not divert resources away from 
inner London and the East End. It would 
be possible to achieve to a large extent 
in the medium term, over say the four 

year term of a Labour administration. 
Finl!ll!y, because of the sma11er amount 
of total resources required, public authorities 
would be able to exercise fuller 
control over the 'future of Docklands, 
something virtually impossible in the 
case of strategies based on OlympicGames, trade marts and grandioseprojects. 

conclusion 

Docklands is thus an extreme version 
oif the malaise that grips many of Lon-
don's inner areas-but l!ilso of the opportunities 
that exist to remedy the problems. 
Only new public agencies with new 
powers, acting in an entrepreneurial way 

'in coordination with private enterprise,
can reverse the spiral of decline in docklands 
and throughout London's decayingVictorian city. 


·3. London's tourists 


Tourism is one of the few industries that 
has continued to •gww in London duringthe 1970s. So it merits speci·al attention 
in any Radical Agenda. l'l has ·two faces: 
a positive and a negative. On the one 
hand, it is clearly the stimulator o•f 
growth and a creator of jobs. On the 
other, it does have some nega~tive effects 
-both for native Londoners and for 
tourists themselves. It can be argued that 
the British arrd London Tourist authorities 
have been too ·concerned with 
development and expansion, rather than 
with a ba•lanced policy. This chapter tries 
to seek such a policy-with two objectives. 
First, it argues the need to develop 
the industry to produce maximum !benefit 
-for London's economy in general and 
for its beleaguered public services 'in particular. 
But secondly, it sees the need to 
do this accounta,bly-above all, with 
proper regard for the quality of .Ji'fe in 
London, the very quality that touri~ts 
seek but that, unwittingly, their presence 
may threaten. 

benefits and opportunities 

As a boom industry, London's tourism 
is far from stable. Alfter the ·golden years 
of 1977 and 1978, 1-979 saw an actual 
decrease in some particularly lucrative 
markets such as North America. But the 
opportunities sti[.J exist for a vast increase 
in young, first time visitors looking for 
hol·idays that are unplanned and, a.bove 
aU, cheap. Though they spend J:ittle 
individuaHy, collectively they spend a 
great deal. Furthermore, i'f they learn to 
like London, they will surely •come back 
at the more prosperous stages of life. 

Paral•lel to this, as American tourists 
decline, big increases are l•ikely to occur 
in visitors from South America, the 
Middle East, Australia and •from Scandinavia. 
These growing sources of tourist 
income wiH be vital if Brita,in as a whole 
is to maintain tourism as one of our 
leading export industries-accounting in 
1977 ,for nearly 18 per cent of invisible 
exports and 6 per cent of total exports. 

The income thus generated already brings 
a 'big benefit to the exchequer. Revenue 

!from VAT on tourist purchases of goods

and services was estimated as at £250 

milhon in 1977-apart from contribu


•tions to other taxes suoh as those on 
tobacco, a-lcohol and petroL But more 
specificaHy, tourism bene'fi·ts London 
through the extra revenue from rates 
on many commercia.[ premises, and from 
the extra fares income to London Trans· 
port. But one critical ll'im of policyshould be to enhance ·the public share 
o.f earnings. A modest tax on arriva•ls 
or on hotel beds is one obvious poss·ibility, 
which would be relatively cheap 
and simple to administer. A sales tax, 
levied on those goods tha:t tourists particuJ.
arly buy, would be another. Yet 
another would be a ·greater pubhc sector 
involvement in direcbly retailing tourist 
goods. In particular, the London Tourist 
Board-which already possesses some 
peak retail'ing sites-could sell a much 
wider range of goods and services, thus 
aiding the Board's finances and channel-
ling iback resources .into the development 
and marketing of London's tourism. 
Rate revenues on prime city centre retai
·ling outlets, restaurants and hotel·s 
could be levied on a more realistic 
assessment based on saleable as opposedto rentable values. And the abolition of 
the Oity of London as a separate rating 
authority, proposed elsewhere in this 
Agenda, would ensure that public 
revenues would be distributed more 
equitably. 
London's tourism is a major creator of 
emp.Joyment. Nearly 300,000 hotel and 
catering jobs are estimated to exist in 
the South East and East Anglia. Not all 
these can be directly related to tourism 
-but the British Tourist Authorityestimates that, in Britain as a whole, some 
half a mil·lion people owe their jobsdirectly or indirectly to tourism, and 
perhaps 200,000 of ·these are located in 
the South East. 

It has to be recognised, though, that not 
all these jobs are good jobs. Many have 
appalling pay and conditions, and so 
have proved unacceptable to native 
Londoner·s. Accommodation for hotel 
workers, in particular, is often a scandal. 
There is therefore an urgent need for 


public action-to guarantee minimal 
wa;ges, and through local authority licencing 
to ensure that adequate accommoda tion 
is provided. 

However, tourism al·so 1br.ings wider, less 
direct benefHs to Londoners. It brings 
them into close contact with people of 
different cultures, and is thus educative 
in an 'informal sense. It potentially 
encourages more Londoners to developtheir linguistic abilities-especially in 
schools and colleges. It is particularly 
valuable in increasing contacts and understanding 
among the younger genera·ti cn. 
These wider benefits could be enhanced 
-above a;J.l .by more intens-ive and more 
effective language tra•ining for those who 
come into close contact with visitors in 
informa1ion centres and elsewhere. 

problems and challenges 

It is no use denying that the very success 
of London's tourism has brought with it 
fairly massive problems. The most 
obv'ious is one ·that affects -tourists themselves: 
the massive congestion, espedially 
at peak periods, which helps give London 
a bad international reputation as a 
hi·gh cost, low quality tourist centre. 
Often, hotel rooms are small. old 
'fashioned, badly equipped and over 
priced. This is particularly true at the 
lower end of the market, for youngerpeople, where there is a major lack of 
accommodation. Present indications are 
that the shortage -is likely to grow. 

This is a prdblem that could be solved 
by vigorous public action. There is a 
need for hostels and cheap, perhapsmunicipally owned, campsites, particularly 
where land is readily ava-ilable. 
Existing public buildings '(such as schools 
and univers-ities in the summer vacations)
could be used to meet the demand for 
cheap, fairly basic accommodation. Not 
only could th'is make a major contribution 
to solve the problem ; it could also 
be a most useful source of revenue to 
local authorities, ILEA and the universities. 

More generally, there is an urgent need 

to develop a grading system-such as 

ha·s long been used in a~most every other 
European country-to list all London's 
hotels with fixed prices of accommodation 
and meals, which would be displayed 
in every hotel <bedroom. Coupled with 
th'is, we need a system of 'licensed private 
accommodation which could lbe used to 
meet peak demands through a central 
register in the London Tourist Board 
offices. Here again, London 'is well behind 
other European countries such a·s Germany. 
In the slightly longer run, there 
will undoubtedly be a need ,for many 
more new hotels at every level of the 
market. If existing restrictions by planning 
authorities in the centra1 ·boroughscontinue, many of these developmentswill have to .be further out. The Docklands, 
with its vast areas of available 
land close to the central tourist opportunities, 
offers a tremendous opportunity, 
though government grants to encoura;genew developments may be required. 

Another way of easing the peak pressures 
on tourist London must be the encouragement 
to tourists to visit lesser known 
attractions in the South East and even 
further alfield. But it has to he recog·
nised that first time visitors, 'in particular, 
are like'ly to continue to be drawn to the 
famous ·tourist attracrions ·of central 
London. J.t might 1be better, therefore, to 
promote more actively some of central 
London's lesser known attractions-such 
as the magnlificant Wallace Collection, 
or the Courtauld Gallery. 

In the longer run, the prdblem of the 
peak 1oad can be met only by encouraging 
other forms of tourism with a more 
even spread throughout the year. London 
can still claim to be a leading wor.J.d 
conference centre, and the new develop-
ments-at the Barbican, Broa<l Sanctuaryand Earl's Court-should make it even 
more competitive in the 1980s. But there 
will have to be even more development.
One priority is for a large hotel, able 
to accommoda•te conferences oif over 
I ,000 de'legates and incorporating full 
conference and interpreta~ion facilities. 
A Dookla·nds site, close to the city, woul<l 
be particularly appropriate. Public policy 
can help to develop the conference trade 
in different ways: offering official hospi



tal'ity to 1arge conferences and aHracting 
major international institutions to London 

a:s a 'basis 1for regular conference 
activities. 
More generally, the concentration of 
visitors has some obviously negativeimpacts for Londoners. Transport facilities 
are more crowded-though v>isitors 
are estimated to contribute around 20 
per cent o·f London Tra:n~poi't's revenue, 
much of it at off peak periods. Museums 
and other faci1iries are so overcrowded 
and overstrained that there may be too 
little •time for organ'ised school parties. 
This could be overcome by an extension 
of the time reserved for such groupson off peak days and at off peak t·imes. 

Part of the indirect strain on London 
and Londoners arises from the need of 
millions of •tourists to obtain information. 
Here much more could be done to 
develop a professional informat'ion serv
·ice. In particular, London TransportInformation Centres----where there is no 
requirement for staff :to speak any foreign 
language-are quite inadequate. Genera:
lly, information fadlities in London 
tend to be too small, too few, and to 
have too rigid hours. There is an urgentneed to improve them. 

At a more ·local level, the lack of professional 
attention to tourism can be 
seen not only in the poor standards of 
hotel accommodation, but in the deplorable 
presence of "cowboy" operators ·in 
the streets-as we'll as in the poor standards 
of cleanliness on ·the ·streets and 
in pu'blic places. Only local authorities, 
with the cooperation of the police, can 
improve the deplora!bly low standards 
which •appal so many vlisitors to London. 

Finally, i'f London's tourist indus•try is 
to grow without unbearable strains for 
all those ·who live and work in London, 
there is a need to ensure that the promoting 
and contro11'ing institutions 
develop a balanced poli·cy ·in the publ'ic 
interest. The Briti·sh Tourist Authority'smain task, as defined in the 1969 
Development of Tourism Act, is the promotion 
of British tourism. Logically, the 
Board and 'its Committees •are domlinated 

by those with an interest-often a commercial 
one-in expansion. That emphasis 
is undoubtedly right, but <there 
should also be representation of other 
interests-for 'instance, the Departmentof the Environment and other relevant 
government bodies, •conservat·ion 
and heritage groups, and independentrepresentatives. At regional or local 
levels, similarly, there should be room 
for a number oof local counoillors. 

conclusion 

Tourist expansion can play a vital role 
in reviving London's economic prospects 
at a time when its manufacturing is in 
decline. Such an expansion can bringbenefi•ts over and a:bove the purelyeconomic ones~in particular, through 
contact be~ween people of different 
cultures and backgrounds. The mO'st 
urgent need ·is to increase the amount of 
cheap basic accommodation to meet increased 
demand from young, first time 
vis'itors looking !for low cost, rela~ively 
unplanned holidays. Contacts on a 
personal level could be improved by an 
expansion of the twinning arrangements 
between London boroughs and overseas 
cities, and between individual schools 
and inst·itutes. 

At the same time, policy must ensure 
that the growth of tourism does not a·ct 
to the detriment of the public services. 
The promoting and regulating institutions 
must fully reflect a 'balance of an 
'interests. A greater share of tourist •income 
must he channelled into the puhl·ic 
purse. The wages and the work'ing and 
living standards of employees must be 
sharply >improved. Within such .a framework 
of s'afeguards and accountability, 
an expanding tourist industry can make 
an outstanding contribution to London's 
future. 


4. Londonls transport 
London's transpor-t problems are of a 
dlifferent order from those of even the 
largest other conurbations of Brita'in. Its 
commuters travel farther and at higher 
cost and its drivers suffer worse congestion 
'for longer periods than those of 
Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. 
Its system is also more complex and 
fragmented, being the responsibility of 
a whole host of different authorities : the 
GLC, the 32 boroughs and the City, five 
county councils outside London, Br·itish 
Rail, -the National Bus Company (GreenLine), the Department of Transport and 
the Metropolitan Police. This divided 
responsibility is the curse of transportin London. The chaotic conditions d 
travel ·in London-whether by rai-l, bus 
or car-are ·in no small measure due to 
the fai-lure to grasp the nettle of administrative 
reform. 

As it is, -the 'bare facts are evident to 
any travelling Londoner. London's transport 
system is a logisti·cal, economic and 
admin'istrative mess. Given the blt-ak 
economi·c reality of stagnation or worse 
for the coming decade, the realistic view 
is that things could get even worse. The 
immediate problem is to avert rapiddecline. There will be no resources for 
Large scale and ambitious 'improvements-and even if by a miracle the funds 
were ,forthcoming, they would not bring 
concrete results 'for a decade or more. 
There is a danger of calling tfor easysolutions that will fail, leading to further 
frustration and 'the collapse of electoral 
confidence. 

traffic : the policy vacuum 

The horrendous and deteriorating condition 
o'f London's traffic, marked bv 
London Transport's annual reports o.f 
increased lost bus mileage caused bycongestion, resul•ts from a failure 0f 
political nerve among London's politicians, 
.for which Labour bears no small 
responsibility. Since the GLC came ·into 
existence in 1965 with a major remit to 
act as overall transport and traffic 
authority, the Council has lurched from 
one policy expedient to another-and has 
progressively abandoned them all. First 

the road building plans were completely 
abandoned. Then 'lorry routes, which 
were to take their place, were rejected.
Then the idea of supplementary 1-icerrcing~
with special charges to enter centre 
and inner London-went ·the same way. 
Finally, a radical programme to control 
car parking was thrown out. 

None of this was a result 01f lack o'f 
policy advice. The GLC has one of the 
largest and most expert-i•f most disillusioned-
body of traffic engineers and 
planners in the world. It was because the 
politicians funked every decis-ion. Traffic 
planning in London became a matter of 
government by pressure group, in which 
every initiative was stifled because (inevitably) 
it offended someone. Between them, 
these groups (freight transport interests, 
tax·i drivers, conservationists, local 
amenity groups) have reduced traffic 
to a state of physical and poli9 paralysis. 

Yet all the time, experts have been 
reasonably agreed on a mixture t>hat 
could work-given the will. The LayfieldInquiry into the Greater London Development 
Plan stated it in great detai.J 
m ·its 1972 report. There had to be ·selective 
road construction in those parts of 
London where heavy traffic flows, especially 
environmentally disruptive lorrytraffic, demanded it. But that had to be 
balanced by a programme of tough traffic 
restraint -in the congested central and 
inner areas, especially at the busiest times 
of day. The:se two programmes could be 
linked if new road links could be used 
as cordons, beyond which traffi·c could 
only proceed on special conditions or 
on payment of ·supp•lementary charges. 

Labour in London must return to that 
sens·ible, balanced policy and take a stand 
on two main policy platforms. 

Selective road construction. Labour's 
blanket a:bandonment of the GLC roads 
programme in 1973 should be admitted 
to be the disaster it was. By faihng to 
bring relief to the decaying dockland 
and industrial districts of east and south 
London, -it exacerbated the alreadyglaring ·contrast in accessibility between 
north west and south east London and 


made almost impossible the development 
of a strategy for the regeneration of 
the latJter. While north and west London 
have excellent access to the rest of 
Britain via the new radial mot·oi"Waysand the ·connecDing North Circular, Eas•t 
London suffers from a notorious lack 
of river crossings and lfr.om grievouscongestion on main arteries such as the 
All, Al3 and A2. 

Fortunately, pressures from the riverside 
boroughs are forcing a change in these 
poJii.cies. There ·is reai hope of a consensus 
on a minimal programme, concentrated 
.on: '(a) a new river crossing 
at Barking-Thamesmead, carrying an 
extension of the North Circular R•oad 
southward from Woodford to .Jink ·With 
the A2 'in Greenwich; (b) selective improvement 
to the North Circular north 
and west of this point, to link with .the 
main national rnotorways such as the 
Ml and M4; (c) completion of the Mil 
southwards to Old Ford where ·it will 
join the already completed East Cross 
route; (d) removing the bottleneck 
between the East Cr.oss route and the 
A2 radial at Kidbrooke-Falconwood. 

In a slightly ·later stage of the pro-
gramme, the priority would be the completion 
of the Northern Docks relief 
r.oad from Canning Town to Limehouse, 
giY'ing a high quality radial route from 
the A13 into central London, and !·inking 
wi~h the East Cross route. Even later 
would come the expensive southern relief 
road, with its twin river crossings. 

All this wiU take substantial sums of 
money over a decade 'Or more. But it 
is not out of ·line with the sums of 
money that should be ava'ilruble even after 
cuts .jn the national roads programme. 

On the other hand, there are some road 
proposals which Lond·on does not need 
at any price. The main candidate for 
the axe should 1be the preposterous plan 
for an outer ring road on the edge of 
London, which wiH simply duplicate the 
brand new M25 as it !is constructed 
around London in the early 1980s and 
will decimate suburban ·communities. 
The first a1im ·of road planning .jn London 

should .be to a·id economic regenerationof its hard hit inner area:s. 

Traffic Management and Restrain·!. A 
new Lrubour GLC must firmly •grasp the 
nettle, and introduce a supplementarylicensing scheme for central and inner 
London on the lines twice considered 
but a'bandoned due to lack of poi·itical 
will. The main feature will be a supplementary 
charge to enter inner London, 
coupled with steeply increased parkingcharges and a ·control of •off-street nonresidential 
park!ing spaces to guaranteethat they are not used to subsidise car 
commuting, as now. Certain categories 
of traffic-buses, taxis, freight,
residents-would lbe wholly or part·iaHyexempt from the charges. The aim should 
be to reduce present traffic v·olume·s by 
up to one quarter, with 'inestimable 
benefits to the free flow of the rema·iningtraffi·c : essential commercial traffic as 
well as buses and taxis. 

Such a policy, however, wiH collapseunless it is ifi11mly implemented. To this 
end, the existing force of traffi•c wardens 
should be augmented and made more 
mobile, ~o 'become a traffic police force. 
Fines for parking offences should 'be 
markedly increased and should then be 
regularly updated to keep pace with 
inflation. The present absurdity-wherebyLondon's streets are clogged with 
thousands of iHegally parked vehicles, 
because the risk of a fine is minimal and 

the amount so low-must lbe ended 
immediately and for good. Traffic pol·icing 
and wardening must be better integrated 
•with traffic p1anning-whi·ch suggests 
a new relationship between the 
GLC and the Metropol1itan Police, to 
which we return in the final chapter. 

improving public transport 

London's transport system, once the envy 
of the rest of the world, is now in a 
sorry state. Its stations and trains are 
often •outworn, ·its services unreliable to 
the point of being non-existent and its 
fare levels are among the highest ~n 
Europe. Visitors lfrom abroad are shocked 
by it; Bnitons in Europe are appa.Jled to 


reahse how !far their system has faHen 
behind those of their close neighbours. 
At the root of this malaise is money.
London, and British cities generaHy, subsidise 
their public transport systems to 
a muoh smaller extent than do other 
European cities. H we want a better 
public transport system like theirs, we 
shaH have to put money into it like 
them. As a first step, the proceeds from 
supplementary licensing should go into 
revenue subsidy f.or London Transport.
This above aU should go to a·id London's 
aii'ing bus servi·ce. Later, there will be 
an urgent need to invest in new buses, 
trains and refurbished stations. 

Such improvements must be a much 
higher priority for investment than 
entirely new routes. W1ith one possibleexception, a declining London dots not 
need to spend vast amounts of money 
on brand new tube lines. The possibleexception is the highly controversial 
Jubilee line extension from CharingCross, under the city and the dock:lands, 
to Thamesmead. On the one hand, 
Department of Transport economists say 
that •its social rate of return .is zero or 
worse. On the other, its advocates saythat it would boost the local economy, 
improve morale, greatly enhance the 
qull'lity of life <for east Londoners-and, 
as a prestige project, help encourageBritish industry and boost the proS'pectfor British construction of new metro 
systems for cities abroad. 

Maybe, however, it is possible to have 
one's cake and eat it. The Jubilee line 
extension would be astronomicaHy expensive-£
300 million was a recent estimate----<
because .it would tunnel under the 
Thames five times. It would be possible 
to provide much of the same service 
by a much more modest scheme that 
made maximal use of ex·isting investment: 
the Waterloo and City line from 
Waterloo to the Bank, the abandoned 
rights of way north of the river from 
Shadwell to Millwall, the East London 
line under the Thames and British Rail's 
North Kent ·loop through Greenwich 
and Woolw.ich, plus the pedestrianThames tunnels at those two latter 
points. With a few short stretches of 

new connecting line, this could provide 
parallel, linked systems north and south 
of the Thames, quickly and cheaply. 

A La!bour GLC should set in train an 
immediate investigation of this alternative, 
which-together w.ith the minimal 
road package outlined above--would 
provide the 'basis of infrastructure vital 
for the regeneration of the docklands. 
The two would go towards remedyingthe historic distortion, whereby west 
London got the lion's share of investment 
and east London very Joittle. 

But east London cannot olaim all the 
investment-great as 'its needs are. Tube 
sta"tions need refurbishing in central and 
inner west London and new trains are 
needed to replace ageing ones. The bus 
system needs modern garaging and maintenance 
facilities, togebher with radio 
monitoring and control. All these are 
urgent and overdue needs. 

publ,ic transport coordination 

London's transport system is the responsib.
ility of some forty conflicting and 
overlapJ?ing authorities, which do not 
even have identical boundaries !(see map).
A first es·sential for a La~bour GLC should 
be to give London a unified transportauthor·ity, on the lines of German and 
French cities and now of Britain's provincial 
conurbations. This authoritywould: (a) take over responsibility not 
only for London Transport but also for 

a:H British Rail services running entirely 
within the extended Greater London 
areas (see 'below) ; (b) assume overall 
responsibility for physical integration of 
these serv.ices by development of interchanges 
and through running; (c) develop 
a plan for integration of aU fares and 
fare coilection over aH its services; (d) 
have a statutory place on the new Poli•ce 
Author·ity, di·scussed in the final chapter. 
An immediate and welcome result ·of 
this change would be the developmentof new services to improve connections 
across London. To take only two 
examples, the Farringdon-Ludgate Hill 
link could be reopened to give through 


runn•ing :between north west and south 
east London; and the North Kent tra:ins 
could be integrated into a ldW cost 
Jubilee line extension. 

However, such a new authority presupposes 
a rev.jsion of London's rbounbaries. 
Both London Transport and 
British Rail's inner suburban trains south 
df the river operate over an area wider 
than that Qf the GLc-though around 
most of t!he perimeter, the difference is 
generally no greater than uwo or three 
miles. Such an extension of London's 
boundaries would :be perfectly rational 
since it would take in phys·ically contiguous 
areas and parts df the green belt, 
putting London's ·boundaries where they 
ought to be: ri·ght in the middle Olf the 
green belt and :beyond the inner commuting 
area {see chapter 8). 

back to the resource 
problem

It is clear that even this modest pro-
gramme is going to s·train London's 
resources to the utmost. Even management 
and restraint, let alone the capital 
investment priorjties, are ·going to require 
substantial amounts df money. Supplementary 
l•icensing, plus parking charges, 
could generate substantial revenues which 
could then be diverted to the support of 
public transport. But beyond that, a 
Labour GLC is going to have to make 
the insistent point that London has fallen 
badly behind ·in the allocation of government 
support for transport, and that the 
anomaly needs rectifying forthwith. 

London Transport fares 

We have stated above that we need to 
decongest the streets of London. Freight 
can only be removed by better roads. 
Passenger traffic, however, should be 
attracted from cars to the public transport 
system. Largely, this shift in preference 
will come from :improvedservices, particularly ·in those parts of 
London reliant on buses. Partly, however, 
a low fares policy can be used to 
move passengers 1from their cars to public 
transport. The sub!>idy to reduce fares 

thus needs increasing and fares then held 
down to attract more users. However, 
for four major reasons, the call for free 
fares should lbe rejected. 

I. Any fiat fare policy (free or ·otherwi·se)
will, in London, redistribute resources 
largely from those jn poor areas tQ those 
in the richer parts of London. The inner 
areas are the most deprived. A fiat 
fare policy •would, however, make ·residents 
here have to pay the same for their 
(short) journeys as the commuters from 
Amersham, Watford ·or Harrow. We do 
not cons·ider such redistribution socialist. 
2. V•isitors, whether from outside London 
or from abroad, would be heavily subsidised 
by the re!>idents ·Of London. 
3. So long as the administrative splitbetween Briti·sh Rail and London Transport 
remains, a free fare po.Jicy on the 
latter could not work without distortion 
of the present distribution of passenger 
transport. As many ·commuters arrive byBritish Rail than are carried by London 
Transport, making it difficult to justify 
a massive subsidy to one but not the 
other type o'f traveller. Whether passengers 
would leap off trains as theyentered the London Transport area to 
take advantage of free fares remains to 
be seen but is certainly a possibility. 
4. Most important of all, however, is 
the question of what sort of service we 
want to give London's passengers. Above 
we have stressed the need for fairlymassive investment in the public transport 
system. To a1locate at least £600 
mill<ion each year to subsidising free 
fares will, almost inevitably, mean that 
Iittle remains to •improve services. But 
it is the servjce that must be our pri·orityfor resources. Half hour waits for buses ; 
routes finishing at 10 p.m.; uncertain 
weekend services-these are what leave 
the non ·car owner so much worse off. 
These are what makes the car owner 
take to his car rather than risk delays 
and inconvenience. A La!bour GLC must 
put its priority-and thus its resources 
-towards a better, cleaner, more regular 
and more relia;ble service. 

15 


0 GREAT ER LONDONAREA . COUNCIL 
METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA 
LONDON T . 
EXECUTIVERANSPORTAREA . 
~====~==~10~~~=--, 10 20ml. 
20 km. 
LONDON AREAS 

5. London's education 
Education in London faces many challenges 
and opportunities over rhe next 
decade. Overshadowing all the problems 
is the deliberate attack on publ-ic spending 
tby the Tory government, an attack 
which can only weaken the ability of 
those in education to provide the improving 
service which parents expect. Provision 
is already inadequate in many 
outer London boroughs and spending 
cuts, coupled with the assisted placesscheme which will cream off brighterpupils into independent schools, can onlymean a decline in standards in both inner 
and outer London. 

The dramatic decline m pupil numbers, 
which is just sta·rt-ing to influence planning 
-in the secondary sector, has 'been 
described as a problem. We consider it 
an opportunity. It is only just beingrealised that (a) the quality of educational 
provision is a major factor when 
people are considering mov·ing to the 
suburbs or to a new town, and (b)
schools can contribute to the process of 
inner city regeneration. 

the comprehensive principle 

There are certain assumpt-ions whi·ch 
underlie this chapter, the chief being 
our behef in the comprehensive system. 
In Inner London the system has 
only been .truly comprehensive since 1977 
and there are still some antediluvian 
outer boroughs such as Enfield and 
Kingston where selective education continues. 
The comprehensive system is, 
however, under attack from the present 
government in the spurious guise of 
"parental choice". It should not be 
necessary to repeat that i·t is impossible 
to have a truly comprehensive systemco-existing with any form of selection, 
whether by academic ability or by ability 
to pay. On this latter point, the partyhas been irresolute for far too long. We 
must end the private sector as soon as 
possible and we should start by ending 
charitable status (now being further 
encouraged by the Tories) by refu ing 
to allow local education authoriries (LEAs) 
to pay for children to attend privateschool and by ceasing to give grants for 

higher education to those who have been 
educated privately. 

Some of the attacks on comprehensiveschools have come from those who wish 
to see the coo.penitive, humanistic values 
of the comprehensive replaced with 
values based on privilege and competition. 
Others have come from those who 
believe that the old grammar schools 
offered the only .way out of the workingclass for the bright boy or girl, conveniently 
forgetting that the chance was 
only given to 20 per cent at most, those 
singled out by the notoriously imprecise 
11 + exam. And some criticism has 
come from those who have equated size 
with " comprehensive " and assumed that 
large schools are necessarily bad. No 
doubt some large schools are ; but so 
are some small ones. Recent research 
by Michael Rutter (Fifteen Thousand 
Hours, Open Books, 1979) showed that 
school size was not among those factors 
which led some schools to be more 
successful than others. The problem with 
combatting a·M of the negative views is 
that we have never really sold the idea 
with passion and commitment. We have 
been forced on to the defensive all tJhe 
time. But, even more importantly, we 
have not moved the debate on to what 
actually goes on within the schools, how 
they should be organised and how 
changes in the curriculum should be 
brought about. There is an unfortunate 
tendency to think that if the structures 
are right, the processes will be also. We 
believe that it is time, while vigorously 
defending the comprehensive principle, 
to advance the argument one stagefurther. The parents of London rightly 
expect a great deal from the education 
system. We must be frank about the 
failings of the system at the same time 
as putting forward our ideas for the 
future. Only by explaining them and byconsulting with the consumers will we 
be able to achieve our plans. 

structure 

There has recently been a call from some 
Tory boroughs within ILEA for them to 
break away and run their own education. 


We ·would oppose any attempts to break 
up ILEA, not least because it acts in a 
redistributive way. It would .be impossilble 
fo.r poorer boroughs to provide the 
facilities and oppo·rtunities at presentavailable through ILEA. Many important 
resources, such as specialist teacher 
centres, could not rbe provided economically 
by one borough. ILEA may be too 
remote in its dealings with the publicbut it has made progress by making 
people more ruware of ~he divisional 
structure and by liaising more effectively 
with borough councils. 

ILEA is its present size ·because of 
the way the old LCC was structured, and 
it was understandable that many "outer" 
boroughs resisted any suggestion of 
''handing over" education to ILEA. Manyof these 'boroughs are much wealthier 
than some inner boroughs ; even thoughthey may have a lower rate base theyhave many fewer social problems. Their 
education provision, however, is not 
always of a high standard when it comes 
to spending on resources-En·field beinga notably mean au~hority. It is also difficult 
for outer boroughs to provide the 
sort of central resources which ILEA has. 

On the 'basis of redistribution, it could 
be argued that all GLC boroughs should 
come into ILEA. This would create manyproblems, however, not least that !!here 
would thave to be devolvement of manydecisions to local level if people were not 
to feel totally estranged from their 
education authority. Power would of 
course reside where the financial decisions 
were ma·de, at the centre. 

An alternative proposal to create four 
"mini ILEAs" in North, South, East and 
West London might be possible, but it is 
not at all clear that those in East and 
South London would be able to match 
the resources elsewhere (depending to 
some extent, on where the boundary lines 
are drawn). We conclude therefore that 
outer London boroughs should be en: 
couraged to cooperate over provision of 
resources, amongst themselves or with 
ILEA, to achieve better standa!'ds. ILEA 
works well as presently constituted and 
we would not wish to ·see any smaller 

authority running education in Inner 
London. If there are to be any changes, 
they must be concerned with political 
arrangements and could include the 
outer boroughs. 

falling rolls 

--=--:-~

The problem of declining school rolls is 
well known in Inner London; it will 
affect the outer ·boroughs in the next five 
years, although to a lesser extent. In the 
fLEA area, numbers in primary schools 
wiJI decline from 148,000 in 1979 to 
I19,000 in 1984 (a drop of nearly 20 percent) and in secondary schools from 
169,000 in 1979 to 128,000 in 1984 (adrop of 24 per cent). 

The inner city initiatives will have only a 
marginal effect on such figures, but will 
be crucial in other ways. The pr01blemof regeuerating tJhe inner city is intertwined 
with improving education in that 
area. 1'.1any parents cite education as one 
of the reasons (after housing) fo.r leaving 
the inner city. Without the skilled 
working class and middle class children, 
inner city schoofs will be unlikely to be 
ruble to function effectively. Michael 
Rutter's research suggests that a balanced 
inteJiectual ability is more important to 
the success of a school than a balanced 
social mix. It would be difficult to 
achieve this balanced intellectual intake, 
dependent as it is upon cultural and 
economic background of pupils, without 
a · reasonaibly mixed population from 
which to "draw. This is where the inner 
city·programmes will be crucial in stopping 
the flight of the unskiJied. 

Rutter's survey of 12 Inner London 
sohools 'showed that schools with this 
balanced intellectual intake achieved 
most for all their pup•ils, across the 
ability range. ILEA. aims at this intake 
with its •banding scheme, but some other 
LEAs do not even aim at such a balance. 
Tihe ending of banding would make it 
much harder to continue multi-ethnic 
schools (or, rather, avoid mono-ethnic 
schools). We recommend that, in dealingwith fa1Iing roll's, the 'Principle of a balanced 
intellectual ·intake, to achieve a truly 


comprehensive system, be paramounthowever this is achieved .in practice. 

Legislation is needed, along the lines of 
the Bill proposed by the last Labour 
government, to enable I.;EAS to set maximum 
numbers for admission to a sohool 
in order to cope with the problems of 
running down some schools. However, the 
problem of voluntary schools will remain 
and there is a real danger that these wiH 
develop into white, middle class "ghettoschools." There is neither political nor 
educational control over such schools. 
LEAs are not legally responsible for 
education in Voluntary Aided secondary 
schools, even though their revenue needs 
are met by them, and 85 per cent of 
their capital expenditure is met by central 
government. We therefore Tecommend 
that the articles of government of voluntary 
schools he changed to give LEAs, the 
Church and others one third each of the 
seats on governing bodies. 

Falling rolls will mean having to close 
some school. This problem may be acute 
in the secondary sector because, although 
a sohool can .function reasonably well in 
the first three yea·rs with any 'balanced 
intake, at 4th and 5th year level a reasonable 
number of pupils is necessa.ry to 
provide a .realistic choice of course 
options. Some contraction of the fairly 
wide curriculum may have to occur but 
while the dual exam system persists there 
will have to be reasonaJble numbers to 
provide via~ble groups at both GCE and 
CSE levels. We recommend that 150 is a 
necessary minimum in a year to providesuch •groups and this means five form 
ent·rv sdhools, having a size of about 750 
pUipils in the first five yeaTs. Such schools 
would not be vast or impersonal ; manyschools are roughly this size today. 

The criteria for deciding which schools 
shall close should be: (a) the standard 
of accommodation ; (b) the wishes of the 
parents in the area ; (c) ~he geographicaldistribution of schools ; (d) the educational 
quality-not just measured byexam success but by other measures such 
as rates of truancy, staff turnover, vanda-
lism and the contribution of the 
s c h o o 1 to the local community. 

There is a danger in imagining that every 
case rwiH 'be easily judged by suoh a list. 
Clearly it will not, and morale in anyschool projected to close is likely to dropconsiderably. We favour ama-lgamationof schools wherever possi1ble because this 
means two or more closing and then 
re-opening as a new school. 

Sixth form provision will also ·be affected 
by falling rolls. But we emphasise the 
contri•bution a sixth form can make to 
a school, not only in attracting staff of 
hi•gh calibre but also in terms of the 
beneficial impact that senio-r pupils can 
have on the younger ones. The problemwill mainly occur with those following 
A level courses rather than the so called 
"new sixth" following one year courses. 
Five is a reasona~ble minimum size for a 
teaohing group .and solutions such as 
cooperation !between schools will not 1be 
enough to ensure that minority subjects, 
such as music or second languages, will 
be avai·laJble. Sixth form centres as set upby ILEA in Islington and Tower Hamlets 
are successful and should be expanded. 
Pupils and staff Temain on the roll of 
tlheir parent school but meet in a common 
centre ifor minority subjects. Where 
numbers do not permit even this solution, 
unified 16 to 19 provision will play an 
increa:singly important role. 

One of the factors which has caused 
instaJbility in schools has been the rapid 
turnover of staff. Schools in London 
thus tend to be staffed •by t!he young and 
the old; middle aged teachers have 
moved out of London after a few years. 
Falling rolls will mean fewer opportunities 
for promotion, lbut unless schools 
and LEAs develop personnel strategiesand continue to provide in-service training 
they will find llhat they will continue 
to Iose experienced staff. 

governors 

There is a real need to enl•arge and en-
enhance the role of school •governors-onthe general ·curriculum and on appointments. 
CLPS should set up Schools Committees, 
responsible to GMCS, compri•sing 
Labour members of ·governing bodies and 


people interested in education. This 
would be a forum for debate on education 
and would make nominations for 
new g·overnors to the GMC. 

As to the composition of governing 
bodies, several important changesshould take place: (a) In Outer Lon· 
don, parent and teacher representatives 
should be allowed. There should 
be 2 or 3 of each, dependi•ng on the 
size of the school. (b) The head 
teacher should be an ex officio member 
with .full voting r.ights. (c) There should 
be some community representation, but 
this should be limited to specific interests 
~trade union, industry and further and 
higher education representatives. (d)
Despite the problems of minor status, 
two sixth form representatives (elected 
by the sixth form) should be given full 
governor status. (e) The chairman of the 
governors &hould continue to be elected 
by all the governors, but should he an 
LEA representative. (In ILEA, not necessarily 
a member of the authority.) ~f) In 
voluntary schools, the Church representation 
should be decreased to one 
third. LEA representatives shouLd use 
thek influence to curtail discrimination 
on religious g.rounds, sucfu as in the 
appointment of staff. (g) There should 
be one or two representatives of the non-
teaching staff of the school. (h) The 
election of the parents' representativesshould be by postal baHot since meetings 
are often poorly attended. 

We would see a governing body alongvhese lines as more truly representingall those 'With a legitimate interest in 
the ·running of the school, while makingit possrble to achieve the sort of changesoutlined elsewhere in this chapter. The 
effectiveness of such a body will depend 
on the knowledge and commitment of 
its members ; hence the importance of the 
recommendations about the Laboui' Party. 

multicultural education 

There is akeady a substantial body of 
ev.idence that many children firom some 
ethnic minority communities in our 
educational institutions under-achieve 

and I or undergo considerruble strain in 
their sea:rch for .an identity within society. 
With the virtual end of primary immigration, 
increasing numbers of those 
affected will be British born. Given 
traditional patterns of greater social 
mobility with increasing length of settlement, 
we should hope to see second and 
third generation immigrants in largernumbers in .outer London boroughs. 

Together these factors have considerable 
implications for aU London education 
authorities over the next ten years. 

A number of useful initiatives have been 
taken by ILEA ; but this ·is not true of 
a:ll the outer boroughs. The minimum 
objective of all LEAs mmt be that no 
child or adult in any of their institutions 
should be inhibited by language difficu~
ties or by a culturally hostile educational 
environment from benefiting fully 
from what those institutions offer. SpecificaHy, 
LEAs need to look at the following 
areas. 

1. The existing school structure. Internal 
organisaNons both reflect and affect the 
ethos orf a school. Each school should 
have a clear, staJted policy on multiracial 
education which is reflected in the 
way the school is organised. Rigidstreaming, for example, conditions the 
expectations of teachers and pupils aJ•ike 
and makes under-achievement a self-fulfilling 
prophecy. 
2. Pre-school education. In many areas 
not enough ·is done to ensure that those 
children most in need Cboth socially <lind 
educationally) have priority of access to 
\limited pre-school provision. Children in 
need because of their ethnic origin must, 
if necessary, be sought out and given the 
social and linguist skills which will help 
them to ·benefit fully from education 
from the age of five. An authority'spolicies to overcome racial disadvantages 
and promote multi-racial education must 
also be reflected in support services to 
chiJ.dminders and playgroups. 
3. Language provision. In •addition to providing 
<l!dequate English tuition for those 
whose mother tongue is not English, 

LEAs should assist those whose mobher 
tongue is other than " standard " English.
They should evolve pol·icies on what 
additional assistance they require, and 
consider whether this variant can be used 
to enrich the mainstream of the Englishcurriculum. 

Consideration must be given to mother 
tongue teaching in response to the 
wishes of the minorities and in the lightof experience of pilot schemes. 

4. Educational personnel. In many educational 
establishments, minorities a:re onlyemployed at the most menial levels. 
LEAs should recognise the influence of 
educational personnel on pupils' developing 
self-image. They need to establish 
alternative methods of atJtaining necessary 
standa:rds for entry into teachingand ancillary activ.ivies. They should 
scrutinise the admissions policies of their 
teacher training institutions and encourage 
students f•rom ethnic minorities into 
teacher training. Existing personnel must 
be left in no doubt a.bout the authority's 
commitment to eradicate racial disadvantage 
in education and must be givenopportunities for in-service training as 
well as access to materials which wiU 
help them to develop the necessary sensitivities 
and the ability fully to exploitthe opportunities offered by the multiracial 
classroom. 
5. Curriculum/materials. LEAs should recognise 
'both the damage to the self-image 
of minority ohiadren of culrturally biased 
curricula and materials-from historybooks extololing the glories of Empire to 
the total absence of black faces in reading 
schemes-and the scope of educational 
enrichment for all children of curricula 
and materia.ls which .reflect the 
culrtural diversity of British society. 
Such policies will need to be devised and 
llssessed in consultation with the minorities 
involved. This is not asking for 
special treatment : as a general principle. 
schools should be much more prepared 
to go out into the community they serve 
and •initiate a dialogue. However, 
specialist educational expertise is also 
necessary to evolve, implement and 

monitor these policies, and this will call 
for the esta.blishment of a:dvisory posts in 
multicultural education. 

By consuLting with the minorities and byutilising the expertise of its advisers, an 
LEA will be able to look beyond •its 
schools provision to other areas where 
authorities can foster equa.Jity of opportunity 
and good race relations. These 
range f.rom ensuring that governingbodi·es refteot the ethnic composition of 
the community, to meeting the needs of 
minority communities in the areas of 
youth, careers and adult education 
provision. 

special education 

The significance of the recommendations 
of the Warnock Report has •been generally 
overlooked. It does not recommend 
the integration of handicapped children 
in ordinary schools. It proposes the 
aboliNon of the present categories of 
handicap and their replacement by a 
definition of a child's educaotiona•l needs 
by, in effect, a prescription of the helpneeded 'by the child. The raison d' etre of 
the school should be to dispense that 
prescription. 

The prio.rity of LEAs must be to ensure 
that all teachers in special education, 
including those running remedial education 
in ordinary schools, are specificallyqualified. At the same time, the very 
great -progress made 'by ILEA in improving 
the diagnostic assessment and advisoryservices should be continued. ILEA 
alrea.dy has a superb range of purposebuilt and equipped special schools. 
Scarce resources can therefore be concentrarted 
on improving the skills of the 
various staff involved in helping children 
wibh special needs. 

The Warnock Report estimated that at 
least 1 in 5 children at some time in 
their career need special educational help 
either in ordinary or special schools. In 
Inner London that •propo!1bion can be as 
high as 3 in 5. Therefore inservice 
training of teachers in ordinary schools 
must enable at least teachers in every 


school to improve thei'r skills in identifying 
and deal,ing with special needs. The 
standard of education for o1der handi


• 
capped children (for example by integration 
of inspectorrutes in diV'isionai teams) 
must also be improved and nurseryeducation for handicapped provided. 
the under fives 

The years between birth and five are the 
most format,ive in a person's Me. Good 
educational and social prepa-ration then 
is invaluaJble if the child is to gain maximum 
benefit from primary and 1ater 
schooling. A child who c·an enter the 
reception class of infant school already 
accustomed to separation from parents, 
and the too~s of learning (crayons, paper, 
books) will move ealfiier and more easily 
to the 'acquisition of the formal skills 
necessary to educational development. 

Such preparation is important for all 
children, but particulady for uhose whose 
home circumstances are less fortunate. 
Where the space, money and adult time 
and attention aWllila:ble to a small child 
are minimal, his physical, intellectual 
and emotional development is delayed.
Worse, permanent damage can 'result 
from a combination of misfortune com


mon in London--'poverty, lack of love 
and attention, physical or mental handicap 
or a~buse. Public provision of preschool 
care and educJttion can mitigatesuch disadV'antages and ensure that all 
children have the best possible start in 
their school and social life. 

Clearly, the provision of nursery schooling 
is central to this preparation. An 
children need access to programmesaimed at developing their powers of 
reasoning, bheir skill in communkation 
and their understanding of quanti-ty and 
form. 

Suoh provision is fa:r from universallyavai-lable -and what is on offer is the most 
threatened aspect of any education 
budget, at a time of 'restl'iction on public 
expenditure, since local authori·ties a·re 
not -required by law to provide it. We 
therefore recommend a statutory ohange, 

obliging LEAs to provide nursery education 
for all children aged 3-5 wishing to 
make use of it. 

However, nursery education representsonly one need of young children. &hool 
days are much shorter than mos-t working 
days, and school holidays longerthan those granted by most employers.
Thus the young children of some wo-rking 
parents require ca·re beyond what is 
provided by nursery schools. Children 
under three years old are anyway too 
small to benefit from formal nurseryeducation but, if their parents work, they 
need care :from day centres, play-groups 
or childminders working in thei'r own 
homes. Addi-bionally some parents want 
provision which permits their own 
involvement in the care and development 
of theilr ahildren. 

To provide a network to cater for the 
multiple requirements of young children 
and their families lilt loca-l level a single 
tea:m of officers from social services, 
health and education departments and 
from voluntary oPganisations shouJd be 
esta·blished to devise and execute a plan 
for eaoh area. 

All children over three years old should 
have -access to nursery sohuoling, either 
through attendance at nursery class for 
some part of each day i'rrespective of 
their care for the rest of the time, or 
through the presence in the playgroup or 
day centre they attend of nurseryteachers working wibh other staff. 

TPaining opportunities should be made 
available to aH t!hose working with young 
chi,ldren, including playgroup leaders, 
childminders, day centre staff and 
parents. Salaries and conditions of service 
for all such workers, includingnursery teachers, should be harmonised. 
The cost to pCilrents of various kinds of 
pro-vision should not vary ·widelv 
(ideally all should be free) with each 
child placed in a way most suited to his 
need, not to his parents' ability to pay. 

Such a programme, recognising 'llhe 
impo·rtance of the integration of health, 
educat·ion .and care in a young child's 


early .development, would eliminate any 
notion of competition !between those promoting 
them. It couM demonstrate the 
capacity of our society to recognise its 
responsibilities to young children and 
their famillies, while maximising the <benefits 
to be derived from later education. 

schools and preparationfor working life 

Because of the influences of the 
universities and tJhe assumptions, backg
·rounds and traditions of teachers, the 
modern curriculum does not adequatelyequip pupils with all they need to have 
a genuine choice of career. •(fhis 'is not 
to say that standards are falling-merelythat some of the standards are n()IWinappropriate). In an industrial society,
pupils need a high level of literacy and 
numeracy, a familiarity with science and, 
increasingly, technology, and of the 
social and organisational consequences of 
changes in technology. School curricula 
do not reflect these priorities sufficiently. 

Given that the needs of employers va:ry 
widely and that with technologica:lchange there will be a greater emphasis 
on re-training through life, it is unrealistic 
to expect schools to meet the 
demands of all employers, even if this 
could be done without ha,rming the other 
objectives. The approach should therefore 
be to develop general verbal, 
numerica.] and soci,a:J skills. There are 
opportunities to develop courses with 
vocational emphasis, however, and, 
because of their rest•ricted background. 
teachers need to take outside advice and 
help. Where courses are devised with 
vocational emphasis. employers should be 
involved in course planning. 

Courses for the " new sixth " (thoseremaining at school but not following tlhe 
traditional path of A level) should be 
devised in close colla!boration with employers 
and tra:de unions. Those Wlho gointo the new sixth leave school too old 
to take apprenticeships and may. wit!hout 
specific training, have less to offer when 
they seek employment courses. Link 
courses between schools and further 
education colleges and work experience 

provide understanding of work. But 
frequently the experience is of one type 
of work and does not educate for choice. 
A taste of a variety of types of work 
and skills should be provided by such 
programmes. 

" Careers " education may be carried out 
throughout the curriculum, for ex•ample, 
in socia<l education, or in English in the 
development of communication skills. 
The ·role of the careers teacher is crucial 
in being a co-ordinator in such a broad 
approach to careers and employment. But 
if a careers teacher is to influence his 
colleagues, he must both be trained and 
m a senior and powerful position. 

A new post of Careers Adviser/Curriou-
Jum Co-ordinator should be estrublished 
at senior teacher level. In this way,
" feedback " from industry, the civil service 
and other employers could lbe 
ma,tohed against the departmentalinterests in a school. The LE~s. througlhtheir Ca·reers Inspectors, could offer 
advice .and direction to the Co-ordinators 
to ensure that some uniformitydeveloped and that the work of the DES 
inspectorate was properly considered. 

Physical resources (sudh as careers 
rooms, with well displayed information 
and facilit·ies for interviews with Career 
Officers) should also be provided. These 
teachers will also need time from teaching 
to ope11rute effectively and to liaise 
with the careers service. 

post school provis'ion 

Most sdhool leavers go directly into 
employment and do not then receive any 
further education, not e¥en day release. 
Initi·atives, whlich would require tJhe commitment 
of FE facilities and consideraJble 
work with employers by FE teachers and 
careers officers, are needed to developvocational preparation for this groop. 

If falling school mlls permit careers ~ 
officers to develop the careers service 
there are three areas which require urgent 
attention: {'1) developing services to 
employers by (a) improV'ing vacancy 


handling systems and co-ordinating them 
throughout London, (b) developing advisory 
services to employers in recruitment 
and employment of young people ; 

(2) developing advisory services to young 
people, partly lby 1he implementation of 
the vocational preparation programmes ; 
(3) developing vocational guidance for 
all. This is a service available on only a 
limited basis and also provided commercially 
or, for some, through agencies of 
the MSC. This leaves many people not 
adequately provided for. The case for 
developing an all-age service based on 
careers services of LEAs is : (a) vocational 
change continues for many people into 
mid and late 20s and often beyond ; (b) 
change wiJ.l tend to increase with the 
effect of technological progress ; (c) as 
continuing education develops there will 
be a greater need for •guidance and counselling 
beyond ~he scope of present provision. 
The role of careers officers should be 
seen here as counselling. In view of technological 
changes, workers will increasingly 
need counselJing in life styles in 
Wlhich employment is an integral part. 
T1raining, both initial and in-service, of 
careers officers should recognise these 
demands. 

conclusion 

We have highlighted the need for changes 
in the cu11riculum and in the structure of 
the school to enable the preparation for 
life to be more adapted to the needs of 
modern society. We also recognise the 
need for continuing guidance after the 
end of formal education-the man or 
woman retiring after 40 years with the 
same firm or even in the same t~ade is 
going to become increasingly rare. All 
this, of course, requi•res the commitment 
of resources, but the results in terms of 
of human satisfaction wiJI be immeasurable. 



6. London's housing 
London continues to have very acute 
housing pwblerns, as bad as those found 
anyw:here in the country. Some are 
familia•r : poor conditions in private 
rented housing, the continuing shortage 
of homes overall, home!essness. Others, 
however, are less famiJi.ar: the growing 
problem of ~ld and newer purpose built 
council housing which does not provide 
a satis.factory living environment (a problem 
worsened by accelerated economic 
decline in inner London) ; the growingdissatisfaction of council tenants with 
management services w:hich, even if they 
are not actually deteriorating, have certainly 
failed to meet the expectations of 
tenants ; and uhe sharply worsened problems 
of access to housing, especially for 
the young and rn~bile. Labour's policies 
must adapt to t:hese changing problems. 

Council housing, owner occupation and 
co-operative and democratically controlled, 
socially owned housing all have 
a role to play in a socialist society. The 
precise balance between tenures in any 
area is a matter for local decision, provided 
there is no shortage of housing in 
any tenure (as there is at present in the 
rented sector). 

The fundamental organisationa.J and 
financial ·features are, however, matters of 
national •policy. llhe Labour Party 
nationaUy does not have a coherent 
policy on these matters. All sections of 
the movement have acquiesced in the 
continuation of gravely unfai·r financial 
arrangements which have left council 
tenants and poorer owner occupiers at a 
disadvanta•ge compared with owners on 
middle and higher incomes. They have 
acquiesced in declining conditions on 
many council estates and the building of 
poor qua•lity homes with inadequate 
thou~h given to the design and management 
of the surrounding environment. 

Through a lack of attention to what 
tenants have been saying, the Labour 
Party's vision of first class housing for 
all has now too often faded into a bitter 
reality of decay and alienation which 
threatens to destroy the party's claim to 
speak for working people and to weaken 
the credibility of public intervention. 

In many parts of London, the decay of 
the housing stock and the worsening of 
the living environment, in both public 
and private sectors, play a vital role in 
accelerating economic decline. We believe 
that LaJbour's housing policies must contribute 
to economic revival. The whole 
relationship between housing and employment 
must be taken more seriouslythan it has been in the past. 

new building 

Much has been made by the Tory GLC 
of the apparent reduction in the excess 
of households over dwellings in London. 
They have used 11his to argue that there 
is no longer a housing shortage. They are 
wrong. In the first place, the London 
boroughs' own housing investment pro· 
gramme forecasts point to very different 
conclusions. Even in 1986, there will stiH 
be a short~ge on these figures. New 
registrations on London borough waiting 
lists reached record levels in 1978/79.
Moreover, problems of sharing, overcrowding, 
sUJbstandard dwel.lings and 
homelessness remain very serious. 

More importantly, it is common sense 
that new building should continue Wlhilst 
unmet needs rema in and where suitable 
sites are avai•lable. The rubstantial shortage 
of housing in London , particularly 
to rent, can only be met by local 
autho-rity action. Provision by the outer 
boroughs is crucial in this respect and , 
whiJe shortages of land severely constrain 
the total bui·lding possible. existing 
programmes must be substantiaJiy increased. 
As a minimum, a La:bour GLC 
should restore new building to its 
1976 /77 level. 

This increase in bui•lding must not be 
made at the expense of a good livingenvironment. Far more attention must 
be paid to the design of estates. Tenant 
participation in design briefs and on 
major planning applications should be 
encouraged. High densities, whether high 
or low rise, must be avoided. In the distribution 
of available resources, higherpriority must be given to investment in 
the q u a 1· i t y of the environment. 


The shortage of public sector housing to 
rent has been a,ggravated by the ToryGLc·s policies. Not only have the Tories 
cut the OLe's building programme ; 
~hey have also been selling existing and 
newly completed homes on a large scale. 
Total starts of council houses in London 
have faNen drastically from 24,190 in 
1976 to 7,500 in 1979. The LClJbour Party 
must aim to make good the loss of homes 
to rent both by building and by acquisition 
from the private sector. In particularit must strive to restore the choice of 
attractive dwellings. 

rehabil,itation 

Figures from the National Housing and 
Dwelling Survey show the extent of the 
problems in the private sector (rented or 
owned). Given the relative fai•lure of area 
action (HAAS and GIAS), there must •be a 
commitment to ·di1rect acti·on throughmunicipalisation or social ownership by 
accepta,ble housing associations which 
work closely with local communities. 
Improvement by owner occupiers should 
be encouraged by easy access to mortgages 
and grants. The GLC should urge 
that "red-lining " of areas for mortgagesis not a.Jiowed to occur. 

purpose built council estates 

There is another problem of growingsignificance. There is almost an unwritten 
assumption tJhat aiJJ purpose bui.Jt public 
sector housing is of good standClJrd and 
in good condition. But, like aH housing, 
it ages and what was considered an 
acceptable standard when built is often 
no longer so. A substantial proportion of 
the stock now requires modernisation to 
meet currently accepta~ble standards. The 
problem goes deeper than this, because 
even properties built in the 1960s, whilst 
providing perfectly adequate housing, are 
in an unsatisfactory environment. Too 
many tenants simply want to get out. 
Families in high rise flats are the obvious 
examples, but tenants in many other 
modern estates with high density and 
large communa•l areas also feel insecure 
and dissatisfied. Local authorities' own 

Jetting policies, if they create a concentration 
of disa·dvantage, can contribute 
to a situation where some estates are 
positively avoided by potential tenants. 

London has a wholly disproportionate 
share of the national pwblem of hard-tolet 
council dwellings. With 16 per cent of 
the population, it has 40 per cent of the 
national total of hard-to-•let dwellings! 
08,000 out of 230,000. These appaJ1ing 
problems cannot but hasten London's 
continuin•g economic decline: unless 
there is an attractive living environment, 
then both workers and employers will 
move elsewhere when possi•ble. 

A massive programme of improvements 
to council estates, with an emphasis on 
environmenta•l improvements, must be 
launched along the lines o.f the LaJbour 
Party Policy Statement, A New Deal for 
Council Tenants. The remedies for these 
problems will depend on the particular 
estate involved, but will include reducing 
communal areas, incorporating communal 
parts as private gardens, bringing 
greater security to communal areas byproviding entry-iphones, and reducing the 
child density of some estates throughaltered letting policies. 

access and mobility 

People's ability to move to a new job in 
a new location is essential in a changing 
economy. Moreover, freedom to move is 
desirClJble in itself. Owners are reasonably 
well able to move ; tenants are in a far 
worse position. 

In the council sector, a La•bour GLC must 
commit itself to a vastly expanded inter-
borough nominations saheme in order to 
increase mobi·lity. In 1978, the GLC moved 
on•ly 3,256 families from inner London 
to outer London, as compared with 6,246 
in 1976. Council house sales and bhe 
Tories rubandonment of building in outer 
London will reduce this further. 

The inter-,borough nomination scheme 
(IBNS) must be built up, to at least 10,000 
per annum. Moreover, movement opportunities 
should be spread much more 


evenly. This means into outer London. 
The only outer boroughs receiving suJbstantial 
numbers of families in 1978 
were Greenwich and Enfield. 

Once there is an adequate IBNS, permanently 
safeguarded by statute, there 
is no reason to oppose the transfer of 
management of GLC estates to the 
boroughs. The major obstacle to transfer 
wi11 then be that much <Yf the GLC housing 
stock is of poor quality which needs 
improvement. Putting that right should 
be a major issue for the GLC. It must not 
try to avoid its housing responsibilities. 

In the private sector, the declining availability 
of rented housing has created 
severe problems of access, especia!Jy for 
the young and mobile. The continued 
liberalisation of council lettings policy is 
part of the answer to these problems. 
But the Labour Party must also commit 
itself to supporting the rapid build up of 
co-operative and democratically controlled 
housing associations. 

A mixture of tenures is essential in all 
parts of London. In outer London the 
need is for more council housing, to 
spring the "housing trap" identified by 
the Lambeth Inner Area Study. Tenants 
in inner London need the freedom to 
move to rented housing in outer London ; 
most are simply not in a position to buy. 
In inner London, economic revival 
demands the development of alternatives 
to council housing. Whilst an aggressivepolicy of acquisition and council building 
is necessary in outer London and outside 
London, ~he near monopoly <Yf housingin some inner areas by the public sector 
poses its own problems of choice ; more 
should be done to encourage owner 
occupation in such areas and to promoteother socially owned alternatives to the 
private rented sector, such as housingassociations. There is also a place for 
some equity sharing, community leasehold 
and co-operative housing schemes. 

housing management 

The Labour Party must recognise that 
many (and in some areas most) council 

tenants have become extremely unhappy 
with the state of council housing management 
Therefore, it is essential that the 
party undertakes a more positive commitment 
to better management practices 
throughout London. This will involve 
action in a number of areas. 

Consideration should be given to involving 
some tenants directly in management. 
In improving some hig!h rise blocks, for 
exMnple, communal areas have been 
made defensible and secure by the introduction 
of door porter systems. For that 
type of development, the caretakingcould be done on a part time basis by 
tenants of the esta~. These tenants 
should be paid the rate for the job and 
have proper conditions of service. The 
main probllems in establishing this form 
of more practical localised management 
are staff attitudes and local authorities' 
own fears of the reactions of publicsector unions. Improved training of staff 
and discussions with public sector union 
are essential. 

Mobility throughout the public sector 
should be encouraged. For the majority 
of tenants, a statutory right of transfer 
would have far more meaning and relevance 
than any statutory right to 
buy. As a minimum, there should be a 
quota for transfers, for example a stipulated 
percentage of lettings should be 
given to people who want to move home. 
The Labour Party must ensure that 
council tenants have a greater freedom 
of choice over where they live. 

More investment in improving existing 
public sector housing stock is essential. 
Transfer requests are often an 
indication of an estate with a deteriorating 
environment and neglected fabric. 
Trhis means that lettings are only made to 
those a~bsolutely desperate for a home. 
However, the more fundamental problem 
is not in modernising the homes themselves, 
but in ensuring that the environment 
of estate living is satisfactory. 

The Lambeth Inner Area Study underlined 
the importance of the maintenance 
and development of communities in local 
authority housing, which can only be 


aohieved if lettings take into account the 
desire to he near .relatives and if children 
are given a ri~ht to be rehoused. Suah a 
policy conflicts with the traditional and 
still highly relevant " needs " criteria of 
rehousing, but this change of emphasisshould lbe accepted so that broader 
management problems are minimised. 

If a management service is to meet 
tenants' aspirations, it is sensible to 
encourage tenant involvement. Already, 
progress has lbeen made by a number of 
local ·author~ties in developing co-operative 
management. 'I'his concept should be 
developed £urther and .greater independence 
given to co-operatives on purposebuilt council estates. 

Tenant participation ought to be extended 
and is likely to have ·the best prospectof success amongst smaUer groups, perhC~
Jps involving the division of some 
larger estates for this purpose. The role 
of local authorities should be to identify!Jhe conditions in which participation is 
most likely to •work, and work towards 
them, ·rather than attempting to impose 
a ri·gid formula of participation throughout 
an area. 'I'he advantages of participation 
can only be fully realised WJhere •!Jhe 
commitment of tenants exists, not where 
the scheme is ,j.mposed from above. 

Not only s h o u 1d encouragementbe .given to tenants' associations, with 
grants being given •by looal authorities 
to he1p them run their affairs 
efficiently, 1but they should be consulted 
and their views taken into account 
before decisions affecting uhem are im{Ylemented. 
Whilst tenants will have an 
interest in major issues of housing policy,
the most important and immediatelyrelevant issues for ~hem are those that 
affect their own home or estate. Anyform of consultation should ensure that 
proposals which affect their estate are 
presented to tenants before deoisions are 
finaHy taken by the housing authority. 

For tenants, there is another area where 
considerable problems occur. This is ~n 
repairs. Whilst for most tenants repai.rs 
can be done quickly, there is a continuing 
su:bstantial 
ll .residue of complMnts 

against most housing authorities that 
repairs do not get done either quickly or 
correctly. Attempting to get action can 
be frustrating or even impossible. 

llhroughout London, housing authorities 
have many thousands of properties, aH 
dea:lt with from central departments with 
some delegation to their area offices. 
Even these area offices deal with management 
~ssues for severa-l thousand 
tenants. There is no housing authoritythat has maintenance ·directly under t!he 
control of local management. At best 
they work alongside, with overaill control 
being exercised at the most senior [evelswithin departments of housing. The 
result is long .Jines of communication 
betJween tenants through area offices, 
sometimes on to tihe centre, tJhen 
back down through the maintenance 
departments (very often in buildingdepartments sepa.rate from the housingdepartments) to the person who does the 
repair. The otbjec~ve of housing management 
should be to give a responsiveservice to tenants and expect in return 
that tenants meet their obJ.igations. This 
can happen only if decision making and 
control over resources is moved closer 
to the tenants and their problems. The 
person deaLing with tenants must have 
the power to ensure that the repair getsdone. 

This suggests a need for a majorchange in the organisation of housingdepartments throughout London. There 
must be de-centralisation: not merely to 
a·rea offices •but down to estate management 
level, with co-ordination undertaken 
centrally. The ma·in problem rfor 
Labour local authorities has not been 
any Jack of w,illingness to vote monies 
to improve their housing managementservice, particula·rly to •get repairs done 
quickly and effectively, hut the failure 
of the system to deliver. That is what 
must be changed. 

coordination of housing 
strategy 

A strategy for housing in London must 
have .four main elements: to establish 
what housing is •required within London 


and where it is .required ; to ensure its 
provision ; to give access to pubhc sector 
housing on equal terms for all Londone~ 
and to ensure that Vhose who need •to 
move from one part of London to 
another can do so. 

The GLC alone cannot decide a strategichousing plan. H the GLC produces a plan, 
it cannot implement ~t without the 
agreement of the London ·boroughs, as 
it is the boroughs which provide the 
majority of pulbl·ic sector housing in 
London. The olllly successfu•l str;ategicplan wiU be one in which general agreement 
is reached between the boroughsand the GLC on these 4 bro•ad elements 
and on the level of expenditure. If the 
plan ~s then ma·de binding on all parties, 
and monitored 1by a joint commi.ttee of 
the GLC and the boroughs, then there 
could be a basis for a successful strategy 
for London. That joint committee shoul·d 
reflect, in its representation, the fact that 
the London boroughs undertake more 
housing activity than Vhe GLC. 

Such arrangements should be made 
statutory: the history of attempts to 
secure a strategic hou~n·g plan in the 
a~bsence of •legislation proves ~his beyond 
argument. 

In running its own programmes, a 
Labour GLC should not act simply as a 
33rd London borough. It should use its 
position to highlight ~he difference in 
standards operated ·by various housingand to point out those areas of housing 
provis·ion which are lacking within tlhe 
capital. It should take the lead in 
developing London's housing strategyand. concentrate primar-ily on this, interven 
mg ·directly only to make up for 
deficiencies in local action or resources. 


7. London's health 
By " Radica~ Agenda ", we mean a 
redirection of pol·icy which will challenge 
~raditiona:l assumotions aJbout tJhe 
methods of providing health care, whilst 
asser.ting the importance of traditional 
goals. A Radical Agenda which focuses 
on an improvement in the qualityof and access to health services for the 
people of London will take as ~ts starting 
point the originail objective of the 
NHS in the 1946 Act : " ~he pr:omotion 
. . . of a comprehensive hea[·th service 
designed to secure improvement (a) in 
tlhe physical and mental health of tlhe 
people . . . and Qb) in the prevention, 
diagnosis and treatment of i-Nness, and 
fo.r that purpose to provide or secure the 
effective pr-ovision of services." 

T'his can ·be defined more closely thus: 
"We •believe that the NHS should encourage 
and assist in·dividuals to remain 
heai•Vhy ; provide equality of entitlement 
to health services ; provide a broa:d 
range of services at a high standard ; 
provide equaJity of access to these 
serv.ices ; provide a service f•ree at the 
time of use ; satisfy the .reasonaJble 
expectations of its users ; remain a 
national service responsible to local 
needs " (Royal Commission on the 
National Health Service). 

The Royal Commission admits that 
" some of these objec~ves lack precision 
and some are controversial . . . some 
are unattainable, tbut that does not make 
them less important as objectives." It is 
also possitble that some of them may be 
incompat·itble with others but they nevertheless 
.provide a framework on wlhich 
to hang specific proposaJs Which shocld 
improve the broad .range of services, the 
balance between pr~mary care, community 
services and ho·spital care, and 
produce a national service which can 
respond to local needs. 

the special needs of 'London 

In London, the a.rea most in need of a 
radicaJl ll!pproaoh ·is prima•ry care. It is 
difficult to discuss this without draw~ng 
a:ttention to the va:st inequalities which 
exist throughout the four regions which 

include London, with the worst problems 
concentrated in the inner city areas 
where a declining population and a far 
from suitatble living and workingenvi·ronment combine to make manypractices unattractive for the young, a1ble 
and ambitious GPS. The link tbetJween 
a deo1ine ·in the quaJity of primary care 
and bhe unattractiveness of the inner city 
generally becomes even more importantif one accepts ~he necessity of General 
Praotitioners living as close to their 
practices as possible. 

11he Roya1 Commission drew attention 
to the ev·idence of pr•imary health care 
difficulties in inner cities and how this 
applied in London. 31 per cent of GPs in 
London were single handed compa·red 
with 16 per cent in .the ·rest of England.
They were also disproportionately old 
and had smaller Jists than their counterparts 
elsewhere : 35 per cent of London 
practices had less ~han 2,000 patients, 
while the national fi·gure •was 20 per cent. 

The increasing tendency of many inner 
city areas to include a disproportionatenumber of both " .problern " and 
weaJlthy inhaJbitants has particular impJ.ications 
for tlhe healbh services. The .fact 
that the population a:lso ten.ds to rbe 
exceptionally mobile creates further 
pr01bJems. In the words of a study on 
Health and the Single Homeless carried 
out in Earls Court, "The right way into 
the hea:lth service ·is through the GP. For 
those with no fixed aJbode, .getting a GP 
service is very difficult . . . The method 
of paying GPs assumes that everyonemoving to a new area will register !before 
they are ill. This does not apply to transients-
they are unlitkely to registerbefore they are ill-they may not lbe 
staying" (Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster 
South CHC). Moreover, there is 
a proWem whioh the inc·reases in information 
services and means of access proposed 
•below cannot fully cure. Manyof uhe transients may have ar.Pived tin 
London with the irutention of ac!tieving 
more independence and the .traditional 
family type relationship with a GP maybe a symlbol of the type of institution 
that they are try'ing .to a avoid. The 
Royal Commiss-ion saw such evidence in 


a Liveropoo'l survey (Royal Commission 
on the NHS). 

Whatever the reason, registration is a 
problem m many a·reas. A study carried 
O'Ut ~n the Kensington, Chelsea and 
Sou~h Westminster area found that only70 per cenrt of those questioned were 
registered wi~h the NHS although a 
further 15 per cent were registeredprivately (The Family Doctor in Central 
London, Kensington, Chelsea and West-
min ter South CHC). Even the 85 per 
cen-t figure looks ·rather low when ~t is 
remembered tha.t the sample was taken 
exclusively f.rom those on the electoral 
register-that is, the most st~ble section 
of Vhe populart.ion. In an area where 
some 20 per cent of tJhe illlhabitants have 
been known to move in the periodbetween the ·register being compiled and 
its coming into force six months later, 
the actual figure af those wi,thout cover 
is liruble to be higher than that in the 
sample. 

A further problem is that in some partaf London~for example, Kensingtonand Ohelsea-while there is sta1listicaHy 
no hortage of GPS, it is verydifficult to find a doctor with whom to 
register at all. This is where the inner 
city ·loses out through having a relatively 
large affluent 5ector of the population. 
as well as a relatively large deprived 
one, side by side. The problem is 
pa·rtioula·rly acute for elderly patientsattempbing to .register, although the Ken sington, 
Ohelsea and South Westmin&ter 
survey suggested that senior citizens do 
not use the service significantly more 
frequently than other groups. The lists 
of doctors availaJble from the FPC give 
no indication of a doctor's wi-llingness 
to take new patients, no-r his particular 
interests ; one of the main reasons for 
the problem of access to li ts is the alternative 
attraction of private practice for 
doctor . A common system is to acceptonly 1,000 NilS patients and then pursue 
other medical activities, such as privatepatient , occupational hea1lilh services and 
work for 'insurance companies. Thus new 
doctors cannot be brought into the 
neighbourhood, 'for in tance ·in a health 
entre. as it i technically over doctored. 

At the same time, w:hil&t such lucrative 
alternatives ex·ist, it will clearly ·be difficult 
to -per5uade well trained and 
ambitious London doctors to take full 
NHS roBs. 

the private sector 

The exis-tence of the private sector has 
other unfortunate effects on the NHS and 
on its .personnel. The Wellington Hospital, 
for example, could absorb over 
200 nurses who have been trained at the 
expense of the NHS, which itself is forced 
to compete ·in adverse circumstances for 
these and other ancillary workers. 

Similarly, the number of firms in 
London which use pr-ivate health care 
as an inducement to recruit (sen,ior and 
not so senior) 5taff is a factor ·in decreasing 
a111d diluting health provision in the 
public seotor. The influence of privatemedicine in the hea•lth service cannot be 
assessed -in economic terms only. 

access to services 

Competition for personnel and the extent 
of solo practice mean that it is extremelydifficult to implement the policy of moving 
the emjYhasis in the health service 
from a secondaryI institutional /hospital 
base •to one of a p!"imary/community/
genera•! practitioner nature in the inner 
city. This trend has particular application 
in London where, despite the poor 
levels of primary care, numbers of 
hospital beds have remained relativelysatisfactory. Hospital faci]iities in London 
have .traditionally been used as a substitute 
for community services, particularly 
where tJhe GP and his ability to proVIi,
de a 24 hO'Ur service 'have been 
questioned. Thus the problem of access 
to orimary care has considerable implications 
for policy at all levels. The studyof GP in Camden showed that singlehanded GPs " did less opreven,tative work. 
stitched fewer cuts, referred fewer 
oa~ients to hospital, undertook fewer 
home visits. arranged less domiciliary 
care, had less contact with other professionals 
and were Jess aware of other 


facil·ities than GPs in larger practices ". 
Onher organ,isational problems which 
affect access are surgery times and 
methods of making appointments. In one 
area of London, almost one third of 
practices was found not to have a surgery 
a'fter 5.30 pm, while manyemployers were unsympathetic to their 
employees taking time off to attend a 
surgery. There is a need for fiex~bility 
here as with methods of making appointments. 
On the whole, a mixture of priorappointments and a walk-in system 
seems <to maX'imise patient sabisfaction. 

A telephone answering service and an 
after-hour service a·re obviously important 
; 'but although docto.rs are obligedunder their NHS contracts to prov.ide tlhe 
latter, several' telephone calls are sometimes 
necessary to loca<te it, often lin 
areas where pUJblic telephones a·re heavily 
vandal·ised. 

Thus much of the debate over the GP 
service in London has !been concerned 
not merely with its organisation hut witih 
its quaLity. A study in Hackney showed 
that a<lmost 68 per cent of GPs had graduated 
over 20 years before, with 27.9 
per cent (compared with a nationa:l average 
of I 4.4 per cent) being over 60 years 
old (GPs in City and Hackney District, 
City and Hackney CHC). The Camden 
study showed ~hat elderly doctors were 
" less aware of availa:ble facilities, had 
less contact with other professionals,
attended fewer meetings and did less preventative 
work than the younger ones." 

This wi!ll affect some parts of the service 
more than others. For instance, attempts 
to ensure proper aJbomion facilities can 
haPdly be helped by high numbers of 
older GPS. In Hackney, only 35 per cent 
of aJbortions were carried out on the 
NHS and only 31 per cent of GPS, when 
questioned by the CHC, felt that properfacilities existed. Falling school rolls 
mi•ght lead to a decline in the School 
Health Service if steps a·re not -taken to 
ensure that standa·rds are maintained. On 
the other hand, the proportion of elderlypeople in the inner city is increasing ; 
and there is alrea~dy a shortage of geriatric 
beds, whidh makes the <inadequacies 

of primary care fnr the elderly more 
eviden~. Other problems, such as 
alcoholism and drug a'buse, will always 
be present in the centre of the " big city." 

health centres 

Many of bhese problems would he 
alleviated by the development of health 
centres, and the Royal Commission 
makes a clear recommendation that tlllis 
should 1be done. The Repo!11: states that 
" good practice premises are a vital 
incentive to staff of higth quality to work 
where they a:re most needed " and refers 
to the recent DHSS advice urging heaith 
authorities to give pr•iority <to buildinghealth centres in deprived localities and 
specifically encouraging such building, 
even where there is no assurance that 
loca1l GPs will staff •them. Further, .the 
Royal Commission ·firmly recommends 
a ·depa!11:ure from the private independent 
contractor status of .the GP. In order to 
attract young doctors to health centres, 
local authorities " should experimentwith offering salaried appointments and 
reduced hst sizes." 

The two main obstacles to the development 
of health centres are resource 
allocation and administrative procedures. 
A commitment to the improvement of 
primary ca·re in the inner city will mean 
convincing .the authorities that healtJh 
centres are the best solution. The storyof the Polygon Health Centre scheme in 
Somers Town, Camden, is an exampleof how a vital project can take many 
years to be agreed upon by the various 
authorities involved. This project was 
already under discussion as long ago as 
1974, and t!he borough councH a;t no 
time has doubted the need for a health 
centre in this deprived area (CamdenBorough Social Services Committee 
Agenda, 12 'September 1979). The RHA 
still hopes to solve the problem byencouraging present GPs to improve their 
accommodation, but wh'f!e they admit 
that there is a good case for "speculative 
" centres ·in deprived areas with highbuilding costs where it is difficult for 
GPs to improve ·1Jheir own premises, tJhe 
RHA is not convinced that Somers Town 


is the best place for such a centre compared 
with other areas such as New'ham 
and Haringey. At the same time, the 
scheme has to compete for scarce 
resources with other capital prioritiessuoh as the improvement of the Whrittington 
Hospital. In view of tJhe pointmade earlier a.bout the traditional role 
of hospitals providing some primary care 
in their Aocident and Emergency and 
Out-patients Departments, it is perhapssurprising that only two CYf the teachinghospitals CSt Thomas' and Guys) !;lave 
profess·ional departments of general practice 
with demonstration health centres 
attached to them. 

The Royal Commission think that 
" the teaching hospi,tals !in the inner city 
areas have tJhe responsibility, whioh they 
have not always shouldered, to foster 
and ·improve the quality of primary care 
services in their surrounding areas." 

Den)'ling the teaching hospita-ls resources 
might well lead <to too great a retraction 
before any significant steps have been 
taken to improve primary ca,re 1n other 
ways. While London does not have a 
shortage of buildings for health services, 
they are not 'necessarily used in the most 
appropriate way. Rather than close down 
smaUer hospitals, it should be possible 
to use their buildings as a communitymedicine resource. 

resource allocation 

London has to face the serious dilemma 
imposed by the findings of the Resource 
AUocation Working Party (RAWP). A 
radical approach cannot be against redistribution 
as such, but it is reasonaJble to 
take issue with some of the methods 
employed by RAWP in assessing the needs 
of those areas which were the subject of 
the last Lrubour government's Inner CityWihite Paper arguing for the maintenance 
of resources of adl kinds in the inner city. 

There can be no argument as to whether 
a more equitable distribution of health 
care throughout the country is of higherpriority than the 1best possible healtJh ca·re 
for London and the Home Counties. 
Therefore we must assume that London 

will need to accept that in some functional 
areas and some geographical areas 
its share of resources wiN go down. The 
challenge is to mitigate t:he undesirable 
consequences that will arise from this. 

administration 

When he reorganised the NHS, Sir Keith 
Joseph deliberately avoided ,the creation 
of a RHA for London. Instead we have 
four radial RHAS taking in much of the 
surrounding countryside. The extremes 
of eaoh of the four regions have nothing 
in common and t:here is no communityidentity for any of them. There are too 
many layers of administration : the complexities 
at each 'level have meant that 
the NHS is subject to virtually no democratic 
control and tJhose for whom the 
serv:ice is intended, the patients, have 
little if any influence. Not only is a structure 
with five levels (DHSS, RHA, AHA, DMT, 
service provider) unnecessarily remote 
but the basic units of administratlion at 
tJhe various levels do not correspond with 
any of the locail communities. The 
extremes of each Region have nothingin common and it woul<l be a rare 
adm.inistrator who would have the 
brea,dth of experience to have responsibility 
for community hea>Jth services in 
localities as different as Hackney and 
Essex. SimiJa,rly, vhere w:iH be few people 
qual-ified to serve on the RHA able to 
take more than a fairly narrow sectional 
view. This meallJS that each RHA is continually 
faced with an endless strugglefor resources between its constituent 
parts w.ithout there being any common 
basis for mutual understanding between 
the parts. 

The nature of the ex1stmg RHAs makes 
them very difficult to manage, administer 
and control. The problem is perhapsm'lde worse by the lack of democratic 
involvement and accountability. RHAS are 
not democratically elected, nor do their 
members even contain a majority of 
elected (or non-elected) local representatives. 
This is also true of AHAS. The 
Secretary CYf State makes most of the 
appointments to RHAS but with little understanding 
of local problems and issue . 


There a•re similar problems at AHA and 
District level. llhe geographical boundaries 
of these are rarely co-terminous 
with those of the •local authorities, presurnaJbly 
for the arne reasons that 
applied at RHA level. Efforts are made to 
ensure that the NHS Community Health 
Services and the rlocai authority social 
services in a particuila·r locality work 
closely together. However, liaison is only 
achieved by a series of joint meetings aJt 
member and officer level-s. It is doUibtful 
whether this is the moot efficient way of 
ensuring close co-operation. It is pwbably 
essentiral that, i•f the health services 
and Iocal social services are to continue 
to be divided in this way, there should 
be provision for the appointment of a 
liaison officer at a fa.i'fly senior level 
whose sole responsibility would be to 
elhSure effective co-operation. A few 
local aubhoroities already have such a 
person. 

A more fundamental approach would 
require examination of Vhe a-dministration 
of the health service in London to 
see whether the goals of re-o11ganisationhave tbeen achieved at local .Jevel. The 
shift in empha-sis from a hospital based 
service to one based on communi•ty care 
would imply that local authorities, as tJhe 
representatives of the locai commun·ities, 
wou.Jd take over many, if not all, fue 
functions of the health services. lit has 
been suggested rhat a more sensible 
arrangement for London would be a 
Greater London Reg'-ional Hea:ltlh 
Authority, respon&tble for regional planning, 
for ensuring that specialist medical 
services only ·requi•red on a regional basis 
are prov·ided, and for support services 
such as ambulances. This would tbring 
these mliitters under the direct control of 
democratically elected GLC members. It 
would also alllow some revenue to support 
regional se!'Vices to be mised •Jirom 
the ratepayers to supplement central 
government funds from Vhe DHSS. 

Th·e crucia11 pmblem with a Greater 
London Regional Health A-uthority is not 
just -its enormous size, but what would 
happen to the surrounding counties. 
Hospitruls are steadily being developed in 
these counties. As they open, economies 

have to be found in inner London which 
is losing population to provide for t:Jhe 
hospitals in the out:lying counties which 
are gaining population. This is one 
rea.son why the sectoral divi-sion of 
London makes sense. Some compromise 
must therefore be found that will make 
the existing Thames RHAs more ·responsive 
to local need-s. An increase in the 
number of representatives of loca•l 
authorities on eacJh RHA might help. 

The abolition of AHAS and the handing 
over of their functions to the London 
boroughs wou1d a!rlow the CommunityHealth Services to be planned in conjunction 
with the community care and 
socia:l services work of the boroughs.
Again the option would exist for councils 
to ·raise extra revenue if bhey wished to 
improve the quality of any service. It 
may 'be that some London bo·roughs are 
too small to 'be viliible as health district-s 
but tJhe RoyatJ Commission supported the 
simplification of -the NHS administrative 
structure rby the removal of one of the 
tiers. Although it did not accept that 
coterminos-ity of boundaries is essentiarl 
for effective collatbo•ration between health 
and social .services, it admitted that in 
London " problems arise through the 
lack of coterminosity which affect-s 12 
out o.f 16 London AHAs." 

Reorganisation of the NHS was intended 
to solve the problem posed by the tripartite 
structure of tlhe service. In London, 
the .same problems stirll exist, s~mply 
because of the historica•l accident of the 
uneven distrilbution of hospitals. Not 
every District has a District General 
Hospital, yet some Districts have two. 
Thus the effective boundaries for the 
hospital services and for the communityhealth services administered by an AHA 
or a District may not be tlhe same. If the 
boroughs ·were to tacke responsitbil•ity for 
hospi•tal.s, a move would have to he made 
towards the concept of every boroughhaving its own local •general hospital.
llhis might provide the opportunity for 
closer links to be forged between 
primary and econdary medioarl care, but 
tJhere would be consideraJble objections 
on the grounds thtrut it would be merely 
a return to the old system of municipal 


hospit.rls of the thirties. There are too 
many acute hospital beds in London in 
view of the rapidly declining population(see London Medical Education-a New 
Framework, The Flowers Report, February 
1980). It would be wasteful for 
every borough to try to make itself fully 
equipped in the main non-regionalspecialities. 

The point was made earlier about the 
role of teaching hospitais in primary 
care ; the presence of a teaching hospital 
often means that the other services in 
that area are starved of funds and t;hat 
hospital~ ·in surrounding dis~ricts suffer. 
One solution might be to treat all 
hospitais as teaching hospitals and allocate 
students at random to any of the 
general hospitals for their clinical practice. 
There would of course be consider-
a~blle problems to overcome with such a 
system, not -least the legitimate interests 
of the existing teaching hospitals. 

Another problem which would have to 
·be tackled is that hospitai catchment 
areas have little or no relationship to 
borough boundaries. It might have to be 
considered whether or not patients could 
continue to choose to which hospitalthey might go for particular treatment. 
If there is unlimited freedom of choice, 
some ho~pita-l•s inevita1bly become over 
subscribed. This has implications for 
resource allocation: if no extra central 
resources are availaJble Vhis strains the 
budget of the autJhori.ties ·with over 
sulbscribed hospitals or forces them to 
run down their community hea-lth servi
·ces, as happens to some extent already : 
if extra central resources are provided, it 
is difficult to determine the appropriatelevel of .resource transfer necessary and 
the least mobile patients end up with a 
poorly funded "sink" •service. This ·is 
particularly relevent to the teachinghospita•ls. These are providing a nation1al 
service and it is doubtf'llll whether this is 

recognised in their funding. 

Depriving patients of the right to choose 
which hospital they go to would be a 
severe restriction of freedom, particularly 
in London where individual consultants 
develop speciai interests , in any case, it 

is ultimately the GP rather than the 
patient who makes the choice. Thus 
something has to be done to overcome 
the competition for resources between 
the hospitals and the primary care sector. 
One possibility would be the earmarking 
of money for primary care in inner city 
areas. 

conclusion 

A Radical Agenda for London should 
not be seen as an attempt to make the 
problems of London seem more important 
than ·those of other equa.!Jly necessitous 
areas. It should concentrate on 
those resource questions anrd administrative 
features which 1by an act of politicalwill could .raise tJhe qua·lity of London's 
heal•llh services to the benefit of all those 
who use and provide .the service. The 
main ·items of such an Agenda would 
be: 

1. The objectives of the NHS Act 1946 
should be re-emphasised in the context 
of London's healtih pwblems. 
2. The building of health centres shouild 
be a priority to improve the qua·lity of 
primary care. 
3. Since the main opposition to health 
centres comes from the Family Practitioner 
Committee, the •recommendation 
of the Royal Commission that these 
should be rubolished and their function 
handed over to the AHAS should be 
implemented. T<his would not solve the 
problem that the •reason for the opposition 
is the genuine objections of a highproportion of individual practitioners. 
1'his issue wiJ.I have to be faced on 1a 
national basi•s. 
4. The independent contractor status of 
the GP wiiH have to be reconsidered and 
salaried appointments made the rule in 
new health centres, if not in general. 
5. Some small hospita·l 'buildings might 
be rehabilitated as health centres with 
day surgery .faciJi,ties. Teaching hospitals 
shouLd be encourruged to forge stronger 
links with p rim a r y care services. 

6. Whilst agreeing with the basic principle 
of re-a)l)ocation of resources (·as 
recommended by RAWP), centra•) government 
must be made aware of the need 
to give inner city areas extra resources 
to improve primary care. Special moneyshould be earmarked for primary oare in 
such areas. 
7. The four RHA-s whioh include London 
should be made more representative of 
the -regions for whioh they are responsi,
ble; their membership should have a 
majority of elected representati'Ves o.f 
local authorities. 
8. The London boroughs would be 
responsi·ble for some .primary hea.Jth 
ca.re, suoh as tl}e provision of health 
centres and the services which were their 
province before 1974 ; al.bhough theyshoUIId have strong links with the teaching 
hospitals (for instance, the attachment 
of medica:l students during part of 
their braining), ovevall administration 
and funding for the these hospitals would 
remain bhe responsi>bility of the DHSS. 
11his would take into account the nationwide 
role of the London teachinghospi.tals. 
9. There should be a body whose 
responsibility would be to bring together 
aH the London Joint Consultative Committees, 
so that policies on heailth and 
social services provision can be considered 
together, in an effort to provide 
a concept of tota•l patient care. 
10. The development of private hospitals 
and clinics in London should be 
restricted. 

8. London's government 
In previous cha,ptei'S of this Ra,dical 
Agenda, more ,than once, London's governmenta<
l arrangements have rbeen q_Qestioned 
and criticised, and alternative 
sohemes suggested. In particular : 

* for transport, a new unified authori,ty 
is needed to devise a common fares structure 
and an integrated physica1 system ; 
* for housing, similarly, there was a 
oaU for a new housing strategic agreement 
between the GLC and the boroughs 
to be drawn up and monitored by a 
joint board with statutory powers of 
coordination ;
* for health, again there was dis·cuss,ion 
aJbout a new Greater London Regiona•l 
Health Authority, respons~ble for 
regional planning, specialist services and 
ambulances ; plus the transfer of the 
powers of AHAs back to the London 
boroughs, where they could be planned 
in conjunction with social services and 
community ca·re. However, the idea of a 
Grearter London Authority, it was suggested, 
foundered on the declining population 
of ~he GLC area and the rapidincrease beyond it, necessitating ,reaNocation 
of resources over a muoh wider area. 
Behind these particulrar suggestions, 
though, there is a widesprea,d feelingthat the London government reform of 
1963-65 has not produced the effective 
division of powers that many hoped for. 

The GLC in particular is seen as an 
inflated rbureaucracy with few rea!! 
powers, una:ble to pursue its strategic 
remit beoause it lacks the capacity to 
execute or to enforce. Its failure as a 
strategic housing authority provides perhrups 
the most glaring example : the 
outer boroughs have always been able 
to beat off attempts to achieve a more 
vigorous policy by spinning out procedures, 
negotiations rand bureaucratic 
delays, until the next change of control 
at County Hall. On traffic and transport, 
too, the GLC has proved a disappointment 
: one policy has followed another 
at bewildering speed, but none has been 
pursued for very long or even resolutely 
or successfully implemented. 

Underlying Vhese rfailures is a basic contradiction 
in the GLc's position: it can 
never play a true strategic rooe unless it 
commands resources to allocate to the 
boroughs~but that is the central government's 
jealously guarded privilege. Thus, 
between the upper mil<lstone of central 
government control of money and the 
nether millstone of the boroughs' command 
over the .front line provision of 
services, the GLC remains a shadowy,
even ir.relevant, authority. 

should the GL:C be ·abolished? 

11his logic leads to the conclusion ~hat 
the GLC in its present form is irrelevant 
and should he abolished. Since it cannot 
perform well those services that have to 
be administered, these should he transfepred 
to the boroughs. The remainingtechnical services, which it performs weB 
hut which ~he public do not notice (such 
as sewers or fire engines), could equallywell be administered •by a Greater 
London Federation representing the 
boroughs, and pePhaps some other 
interests. Such a forum could a•lso work 
to coordinate other services, such as 
housing, where inter-horough problemsexist. 

However, such a federal! GLC would fail 
in some important respects. T<here is an 
important group of London problemsthat run across borough boundaries and 
even across the whole of London (suoh 
as major plr.tnning developments, roads 
or housing allocation) but that are 
explicitly political. If these problems 
were left to be resolved by boroughrepresentatives, ~here is an obvious risk 
that they would never be resolved at all. 
In other words, a federail GLC could 
replicate the worst fuults of the present 
system, in even more extreme form. 

should the GL;C become a 
pure strategic authority _2_ _ 

If a federal solution is ruled out, an 
alternative would be to trim the GLC bymaking it a purely strategic authority, 
responsible for drawing up a strategic 


Yl 

plan and then for enforcing it by financial 
allocations to the 'boroughs along 
the lines of Sir Frank Marshall's 1978 
plan for London. Unless this ·radical step 
were taken, a purely strategic authority 
would lbe even more of an irrelevance 
than now. Yet even if ~entral government 
were to agree to it, the fact ·would 
remain that (failing a complete review 
of local government finance and the 
development of new sources of local 
revenue, whioh 'WaS found •impracticable 
by the Layfield Commission in 1977) the 
monies would sti!IJ. have to come from 
Whitehall, which would still want to control 
thei·r disposition. The Jubilee line 
extension through Doclclands, Which both 
a LCllbour and a Conservative GLC have 
backed strongly but which has been 
turned down .for support by :both 
L<llbour and Conservative governments, is 
a prime eXJample. 

It is difficult to conceive of central government 
handing over these crucial 
powers to the GLC, ·which many ministers 
and civi·l servants .believe to be too muoh 
at the mercy of vOilatile political shifts. So 
this solution does not look practicaJbleeither. 

should the Gt;C be· a 
regional authority? 

There is one way in which it might work. 
That is to make the GLC a regionalauthority as pa.rt of a fundamental 
.reorganisation of local government and 
of central-local government relations in 
Britain. Now that the curious notion of 
organic change is presumaJbly dead and 
buried, the Laibour Party might want to 
return to such a solution. In it, England 
would be divided into a number of 
regions, probaJbly sma•liler and more 
numerous than the present standard 
regions. This would especially be the 
case in the South East, 1w:hich is by far 
the biggest of the present regions with 
some one third of the population of 
England on aJbout one sixth of the area. 
The South East might have its present 
bounda•ries cut back, losing for instance 
northern Buckingharnshire to the South 
Midlands and .the Southampton-Portsmouth 
area to a Wessex authority. 

The critical question, however, is still 
how big the .resulting authority might 
·be. The appropTiate unit would almost 
certainly stretch welil beyond the present 
GLC ·boundaries, to include the commuter 
field up to distances of 30 miles or even 
40 miles .from London. Not only would 
such an a·rea still 1be disproportionately 
large, with up to 13 to 14 million people 
(one qua.rter of the UK's population) ; it 
would aJ!so be liable to Conservative 
domination for aU or most of the time, 
since the additional Labour areas 
(Slough, Thurrock) would be overwhelmed 
by the Tory stockibroker 
suburbs. It might however just be possible 
to consider a London region that 
took in the green .belt and a narrow ringof towns just outside it (suoh as Watford 
and Slough) since this would most closely 
correspond to the true extent of London's 
intensive commuting field. 

Such authorities would take powers,
including financial ones, from centraJ! as 
well as the present local government.
They would represent a form of real 
devolution to the English regions. Theywould need to have their own powers of 
taxation, -raising once again all the prob.
Jems that were considered by the Lay-
field Commission on Local Government 
Finance without a solution being found. 

If nevertheless they could gain independent 
income from a local income or sa·les 
tax or other sources, they might be giventhe responsibility of allocating this 
revenue to local boroughs or districts, as 
advocated in Sir Frank Marshall's Plan 
.for London. 

Clearly, such an independent London 
authority would be better placed to per.
form a strategic role :in respect of housing, 
health and transport than the present 
GLC. It cou:ld •be made coterminous with 
the London Transport area, while the 
Metropolitan Police district could be 
enlarged to correspond to it. So the proposal 
has many advanta;ges. The majorquestion is whether-here as elsewhere 
in the country-'-the Labour Party now 
has the political courage to grasp such a 
ndicai solution to the problems of local 
government, despite the obvious counter 


pressures that would come from existing

•local La~bour machines. 11hough it would 
·be possible to initiate a London reform 
on its own without the rest of ~he country, 
it would not he desirable and it 
would create great problems in practice, 
not least that taxation systems would 
differ as beliween London and the rest of 
Britain. 
a strengthened GLC 

Whether or not the GLC becomes a 
regional authority, the last poss~bility 
would 1be to make it more of a real 
executive authority with powers of its 
own. This is the solution ·that the Ra~dical 
Agenda group fiavours on balance, because 
we feel that there are a number of 
important London wide jobs with a 
politicai content, that are not being well 
done and that need doing. The most 
important of these are: 

* to allocate resources to the boroughs 
-in accordance with corporate plans for 
Greater London as a whole and :for the 
individual boroughs. The GLC would 
receive a block sum ifor Rate SupportGrant within London and would allocate 
this to the boroughs. In addition, the 
GLC could levy a Sales or Tourist Tax, 
which again would •be allooated to the 
borough. We have als•o considered 
whether the GLC could pe!1form the same 
role in allocating resources to the new 
District Health Authorities, thus performing 
the function of a Regional Health 
Authority; but we have regretfully concluded 
that, at the present time, this 
would present too many practicaldifficulties. 
* to provide the ·central core of a London 
Strategic Housing Committe'(! that 
would gmpple with London's housingproblems as a whole, and that could issue 
binding directives on the boroughs~
which would have adequate .representation 
on the Committee ; 
* to assume the role of a true TransportAuthority for London, similar to those 
in other major conurbations. This 
autJhority would be aJble to fix fares and 
coordinate fare structures across the 
whole GLC area, including British Rail as 
well as London Tnnsport. It would progressively 
reach agreement with British 
Rail to take over the latter's purely intra-
London inner sulburban services, as is 
now done in many German and some 
British cities. This in turn would permit 
physical integration of the systems and 

•wotl!ld eliminate wasteful duplication ; 
* to assume a shared role in the overall 
management of the MetropolitanPolice. The present system, wherebyexclusive control is exeroi'sed by the 
Home Secretary, is an historical anomaly 
dating from the foundation •of the Force 
in 1829 when there was not effective local 
government for London. Now, with in-
crea·sing problems of maintaining public 
order and with increas.jng demands for 
more effective local accountability, it 
would be ~n the best interests of the 
police themselves-as •well as in the 
interests of good local democracy-togive London a proper share in the running 
of its own police :force. We therefore 
propose the creati·on olf a new 
Metropolitan Police Authority. This 
would lbe a modj.fication, to suit London's 
special circumstances, of the Police 
Authorities that are ndw responsible for 
police forces everywhere in the country 
outside London. ·In the London case, it 
would lbe Chaired, ex officio, by the 
Home Secretary. It would contain 
selected London MPS as well as a number 
of GLC councillors. It should also desira-
bly have a number of distinguished co-
opted members, chosen by the Home 
Office Select Committee on the ·basis of 
special expertise-including judicial,
criminolo·gical, tra·ffic and communityservices. This change, we are sure, would 
build up needed confidence ibeliween 
London's local communities and the 
police, would give the police a better 
backing when difficult decisions need 
taking and would create a 1better integration 
between the GLc's responsi•bility for 
traffic planning and the police responsibility 
for enforcement. 
* undoubtedly most controversial, the 
assumption of direct control of the area 
of the City of London. The City is now 

a grotesque anomaly in British local 
government. With a minute a.rea and 
population but immense resources, it is 
extraordinarily rich and powerful but is 
subject to few democratic checks and 
balances-as tJhe recent scandal over the 
election of aldermen made only too 
plain. Yet the City is aiso one of the 
oldest and 'best established local government 
units of England ; to break it up, 
and distr~bute its a·rea among the neigh'
bouring boroughs, would be both cumbrous 
and destructive o.f old and honourruble 
traditions. A GLC run City could, on 
the other hand, maintain traditional 
functions and ceremonies, and indeed the 
GLC chairman (an annually elected officer) 
could become Lord Mayor ex officio. 
The City's rev~nues would then passdi·recHy to the GLC, giving it a greatlystrengthened .financial position. This 
could even 1be enhanced if the OLe's 
direct role were extended over the entire 
ten square mile central area-though this 
would excite strong protests from the 
authorities that now cover this area, 
such as Westminster, Camden, Islington, 
Southwark and Lambeth. 

A strengthened GLC, wibh new responsibilities 
for health, housing, traffic, police 
and the City of London, would .represent 
the best solution for the needs of London, 
giving a new lease of life to the GLC 
itself, reviving the idea of the strategicauthority, coupling it with real executive 
1powers, while leaving the boroughs 
with the prima·ry job of delivering the 
front Jine personal services. We commend 
it to the London Lll!bour Party,
and to ~he voters of London, as the 
centrepiece of ou.r Radica,l Agenda for 
London. 


appendix: the contributors 


the editor 


Peter Hall is Professor of Geogmphy at 
Reading University. He is a frequentcontributor to New Society and other 
journals and the author of Europe 2000. 
He was the editor o{ Labour's New 
Frontiers and df the Fabian pamphletsTowards a Radical Agenda 1(1972) and 
The Structure of Higher Education. His 
latest book is on Great Planning Disasters. 
Peter Hall is a member of the Fabian 
Executive, a past Chairman of the Society 
and Ohairman of its Arts, Science & 
Environment Committee. 

John ltirkland 

Owing to the help given by Lord Sainsbury 
and Sir Sigmund Sternberg, John 
Kirkland worked .full time on this project 
during a placement from Brune! 
University. It was his energy which kept 
the groups going and brought their work 
together. He had a hand in the research 
for all the (:hapters and in a considerable 
amount of the final drrufting. A member 
of :the Y{)ung Fabian Executive, John 
Kirkland is an active member of the 
Society, has been a resear(:h assistant to 
Giles Radice MP and is currently completing 
his degree at Brune!. 

the groups 

Employment. This chapter was written 
mainly by Haris Martinos •and Nick Falk 
with assis~ance !from Andrew Mcintosh, 
Steve Hoier and Ohris Bromley. 

Tourism. This chapter wa·s written byMike Parker and John Kirkland. 

Transport. The main contributors to this 
were Jim Daly, Peter Hall and Dianne 
Hayter, with assistance tfrom Andrew 
Mcintosh and ·others. 

Education. Ian Wilson edited this chapter 
drawing on work !from a group comprising 
Richard Austin, Ashley BramaU, 
Mair Garside, Marion Gerrard, Leon 
Kreitzman, Anne Page and Richard 
1Wininog. 

Housing. The authors of this were James 
Goudie, Donald Hoodless and Ja<:k 
Linden with advice from John Mills. 

Health. John Carrier wrote this chapter 
drawing on comments and suggestionsmade by Brian Abel-Smith, Tessa Blackstone, 
Toby Harris, Tessa Jowell and 
David Townsend. 

Government. Written tby ·Peter Hall, this 
chapter draws on ideas from the group's 
conveners (Haris Martinos and Nick 
Falk, Mike .Parker, Jim Daly, Ian Wilson, 
James Goudie and John Carrier) and 
from Stephen Hatch and Malcolm Noble. 

'f.he editor would also like to thank 
Dianne Hayter, Bill Bush, David Candler, 
Sir Reg Goodwin, !Mary Goudie and 
Elizabeth Young for ideas and assistance 
during the preparation df the pamphlet. 


recent fabian pamphlets 


research series 


331 Chris Ralph333 Nicholas Bosanquet 
334 Carl Wilms Wright335 Vincent CaJble 
336 Christopher Parsons 
337 Robin Cook, Dan Smith 
338 Alan Fox 
339 Peter Archer 
340 Deepak La! 
341 Tom Sheriff 
342 David Scott Bell 
343 J. Goode, D. Roy, A. Sedgewick344 A Fa-bian group 

tracts 

438 Anthony Crosland 
448 Lisanne Radice 
451 Dianne Hayter453 Nicholas Falk 
455 David Watkins 
457 Tom Crowe, John H. Jones 
458 Robert Taylor460 Wal·ter Jaehnig461 A Fabian Group462 Bryan Gould and others 
463 Austin Mitchell 
464 Giles Radice 
465 Peter Scott 
466 C. Pond, L. Burghes, B. Smith 
467 Trevor Barnes 
468 Evan Luard 

young fabian pamphlets 

The picket and the law -----wpEconomic strategy : a new social contract 75pTransnational corporations 75pImport controls: the case against 70pFinance for development or survival ? 75pWhat future in NATO? 75pSocialism and shop floor power 60pThe role of the law officers 75pPoverty, power and prejudice 75pA deindustrialised Britain ? 60pEurocommunism 80pEnergy policy : a reappraisal 80pCan tenants run housing ? _2Qp 

Sooial demooracy in Europe 55p
Reforming the House of Commons 50p
The labour party : crisis and prospects 60p
Think small : enterprise and the economy 75p 
Industrial common ownership 65-p
The computer and society 50p
Labour and the social contract 65p
Family service for mentally handicapped 60p
Creating a caring community 65p
The politics of monetarism 60p
Can Labour win again ? 75p
Community socialism 65p
What future for higher education ? 70p
Taxing wealth inequalities 65p
Open up ! 65-p
Socialism at the grass roots ~p 


37 David R. Allan Socialising the company 50p42 Martin Smith Gypsies : where now ? 40p44 Melvyn Westlake World poverty : the growing conflict 70p45 Geoff Ha:rris A wider Europe 50p46 David Elliott The Lucas Aerospace workers' campaign 60p47 Tom Schuller Education through life 65p48 Mark Swift A regional policy for Europe 70p 

books 

R. H. S. Crossman anu others New Fabian Essays cased £1.75 
Brian Abel-Smith and others Socialism and affluence paper £0.60 
Peter Townsend and others The fifth social service paper £2.50 
George Cunningham (ed) Britain and the world in the 1970s cased £3.00 

a radical agenda for London 

In May 1981, 'Labour should regain control of the GLC. This should be the 
opportunity for !Labour boroughs and the GLC (and, after the next election, 
a Labour government) to begin to make London a better place to live in. 
The Fabians who have written this pamphlet believe socialism has a real 
meaning for the capital and they outline a programme of realistic policies 
for the city. 

Employment is, of course, the most important both in providing personal 
incomes and the public revenue for an expanding range of services. The 
groups' policies also cover tourism, transport education, housing, health 
and the government of London itself. 

The Radical Agenda gives policy makers in the 1GLC, the boroughs, on health 
authorities and on public bodies a strategy for the improvement of London. 

fabian society 

The Fabian Society exists to further socialist education and research. It Is 
affiliated to the Labour Party, both nationally and locally, and embraces all 
shades of socialist opinion within its ranks -left, right and centre. 
Since 1884 the Fabian Society has enrolled thoughtful socialists who are 
prepared to discuss the essential questions of democratic socialism and 
relate them to practical plans for building socialism in a changing world. 
Beyond this the Society has no collective policy. It puts forward no resolutions 
of a political character. The Society's members are active in their 
Labour parties, trade unions and co-operatives. They are representative 
of the labour movement, practical people concerned to study and discuss 
problems that matter. 

The Society is organised nationally and locally. The national Society. 
directed by an elected Executive Committee, publishes pamphlets and 
holds schools and conferences of many kinds. Local Societies-there are 
one hundred of them-are self governing and arr. lively centres of discussion 
and also undertake research. 

May 1980 

Cover design by Dick Leadbetter Printed by 1Civic Press Limited (TU) • 
Civic Street, Glasgow G4 9RH ISBN 7163 0469 4 ISSN 0307 7535