There are many and various ways of calculating levels of deprivation, and many ward and local authority league tables. But one of the most authoritative is the “super output area” index of multiple deprivation, and in the 2004 league table three of the 10 most deprived councils are adjacent to the cities of London and Westminster.

Hackney topped the table, with Tower Hamlets in second and Islington fourth. Southwark and Lambeth were also at 12th and 13th respectively. Nearby Newham and Haringey are also 6th and 10th, though by comparison Westminster came 33rd and the City of London was 227th.

The historic reasons for this juxtaposition are understandable. The powerhouse of the country needs lots of support from workers in much lower-paid jobs, and new arrivals in London whether from elsewhere in England or the UK, or from other countries, often gravitate first to the middle of the city in search of fame, fortune or something else. Then gradually as individuals, families or communities become more affluent they move out further, to the suburbs first and later to the country. The pattern of migration has long been thus. And all the time the powers that be intervene to one extent or another, attempting to alleviate poverty and mitigate inequality on the doorsteps of the two great cities at the heart of our capital.

But much of this sort of work has traditionally been done by others too. In this group, the City of London Corporation, the historic livery companies of the city, and many of the city’s great companies have played a great part. Recently at the Glazier’s Hall by our beautiful Southwark cathedral, I looked in at an event hosted by Southwark Volunteers in Action, celebrating a scheme through which employees of major companies volunteer in Southwark. This was founded in 1999 by Barclays Bank and Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and now counts Accenture, American Express Share People, Deutsche Bank, EDS Energy, Ernst and Young, MORI and NOP World as well as King’s College London among its participants.

The City Corporation has built very good and popular council housing which it still owns and manages very well in adjacent boroughs like mine. And a few years ago it contributed £2 million to the joint venture of the new city academy secondary school in Bermondsey, which is now in its second year and will move into its specially built new buildings this summer. This provides places for the handful of secondary school pupils from the City of London, but also for about 150 each year from Bermondsey and neighbouring areas in north Southwark.

Then there are two of the most famous City of London charities – the Bridge House Estates and the City Parochial – which contribute regularly to many schemes in boroughs like mine, helping to restore buildings and parks or provide facilities for young, old, sick and disabled people, and those from disadvantagedminorities including locally based refugees and asylum-seekers.

And there are partnerships set up with local, regional and central government support – like the Cross River Partnership and the Pool of London Partnership – which not only include the two London city councils, but also other city-based corporate partners too. They all help, are much appreciated and do good work.

The big question, however, remains. How do we do better at bridging the wealth gap and the growing financial divide? I often describe my constituency as a tale of two cities – and it is. Cheek by jowl the rich and even richer live and work next to the poor and even poorer. And the gap is sadly widening not narrowing, under Labour governments just as under Conservatives. Some people in the City of London have Christmas bonuses several times the total annual salary of other constituents of mine. And the trend has not apparently improved.

I am old fashioned enough to believe in progressive taxation and the redistribution of wealth. I am not ashamed of presiding over a party which has a policy commitment for the richest one per cent of earners to pay more income tax. And I support a limit on second and third homes until we have provided enough first homes at affordable prices for those who need them.

The wealth created by the City of London is to be applauded and encouraged. Long may it remain the world’s greatest financial and service centre. But the City and all who live and work there must always be challenged to go on sharing better and more effectively the wealth which they have the privilege and good fortune to make.