The report of the commission was published on 21 March 1923. The document in fact contained three reports; a majority report, to which a memorandum was attached and two minority reports.
Majority report The majority report was signed by Ullswater, Munro, Turton and Gray. They stated that the evidence presented did not convince them that "any greater efficiency or economy in the administration of local government services in London and the surrounding districts would be attained by any alteration of the existing system on the lines suggested by the London County Council, or suggested by other witnesses." Instead they suggested that the existing authorities in the County of London should redistribute their functions between themselves. They also proposed the creation of a statutory London and Home Counties Advisory Committee to advise the relevant minister on matters of interest to the whole area. The report suggested that transport, town planning, housing and main drainage would be the major functions that the committee would oversee, and that it would cover an area with a 25-mile radius from central london. The committee itself would be made of members nominated by the existing local authorities, the
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the railway companies, the
London General Omnibus Company and relevant trade unions. The report recommended that steps be taken to "encourage" amalgamation of the smaller authorities that lay outside the administrative county, but within the Metropolitan Police District. They did not, however, propose any mechanism or specific mergers. Instead they anticipated that the various councils might voluntarily propose schemes to produce larger units. They suggested that this needed to be done in the near future, before development created "further difficulty". They did not consider the case for or against the creation of new
county boroughs, as this issue was the subject of another
royal commission under the chairmanship of the
Earl of Onslow dealing with the whole of England and Wales.
Equalisation area The report recognised the great inequality in the amount paid by ratepayers of different metropolitan boroughs. When they examined the rates paid in the outlying districts of Greater London, the variations were even more marked. These inequalities were, in the commissioners' view "unjustifiable". They proposed the creation of an equalisation area whereby districts "closely united to London by business ties should become partners with London". This would comprise the County of London and the fifty-five urban areas wholly or partly within 10 miles of Charing Cross, namely: • The
county boroughs of
Croydon,
East Ham and
West Ham. • In
Essex: the urban districts of
Barking Town,
Chingford,
Ilford,
Leyton,
Walthamstow,
Wanstead and
Woodford. • In
Hertfordshire: the urban districts of
Barnet and
East Barnet Valley. • In
Kent: the
Municipal Borough of Bromley and the urban districts of
Beckenham,
Bexley,
Chislehurst and
Sidcup. • In
Middlesex: the municipal boroughs of
Acton,
Ealing and
Hornsey; and the
urban districts of
Brentford,
Chiswick,
Edmonton,
Enfield,
Finchley,
Friern Barnet,
Greenford,
Hampton Wick,
Hanwell,
Harrow-on-the-Hill,
Hendon,
Heston & Isleworth,
Kingsbury,
Southall-Norwood,
Southgate,
Teddington,
Tottenham,
Twickenham,
Wealdstone,
Wembley,
Willesden and
Wood Green. • In
Surrey: the municipal boroughs of
Kingston upon Thames,
Richmond and
Wimbledon; and the urban districts of
Barnes,
Beddington & Wallington,
Carshalton,
Ham,
The Maldens & Coombe,
Merton & Morden,
Mitcham,
Penge,
Surbiton and
Sutton. Within this area two rates would be levied: an Equalisation Rate (General) of 1 shilling and 6 pence in the pound and an Equalisation Rate (Poor) of 1 shilling in the pound. These two rates, it was estimated, would raise about 8 million pounds. The product of the general rate would be distributed among the various local authorities of the equalisation area in proportion to their day population, thereby making those who lived in outer London but worked in the centre, contribute to services in the central boroughs. The product of the poor rate was to be distributed in proportion to the night population of each
poor law union: one third being distributed generally and two thirds to unions containing overcrowded areas. These were defined as areas where the population density was more than two persons per room. The commissioners noted that their scheme could be put into operation rapidly using figures already gathered, and did not involve the creation of any new local or central authorities or officers. It would also discourage excessive expenditure as there would be a uniform rate across the capital and no single local authority would benefit from a general increase.
Minority reports Hiley and Talbot Hiley and Talbot did not sign the majority report, noting that its "suggestion merely for some kind of coordination of services through the machinery of an advisory committee seems to us altogether inadequate". In their view the local government of the capital did need to be reorganised. They felt the area was too large to be administered by a single authority. They therefore recommended the division of Greater London into a number of authorities, "with a status approximating those of county boroughs". Certain functions would, however, be reserved to a "central authority". Examples of London-wide functions were tramways, water supply and main drainage. They did not go into detail of either the areas of the proposed boroughs nor the exact division of functions between the two tiers which they recognised would take considerable work to define.
Donald and Walsh Donald and Walsh were unable to sign either report, instead producing a 62-page document of their own. Their reasons were that they felt they could not fulfill their commission without recommending a thorough reform of local government, rather than the appointment of
ad hoc advisory committees or authorities. They proposed a single central authority for the entire Greater London area (the Metropolitan Police District with slightly modified boundaries). This would replace a number of overlapping authorities including the London County Council and Metropolitan Asylums Board and would be directly elected except for one sixth of the body, who would be
aldermen appointed by the authority itself. The authority would have powers over public transport, town planning, large housing schemes, main drainage, sewage disposal, higher and specialised education, water supply, hospitals, fire protection, large parks and open spaces, wholesale markets and smallholdings. A lower tier of local authorities would be formed based on existing areas: metropolitan boroughs, municipal boroughs, urban districts and rural districts, but each having equal powers and status. They would have enhanced powers, for instance taking over the duties of
poor law guardians and becoming the elementary education authority for their area. ==Resulting legislation==