Local Government Act 1972

In Wales, the background was substantially different. The Redcliffe-Maud Commission had not considered Wales, which had been the subject of the Welsh Office proposals in the 1960s. A White Paper was published in 1967 on the subject of Wales, based on the findings of the 1962 report of the Local Government Commission for Wales. The White Paper proposed five counties, and thirty-six districts. The county boroughs of Swansea, Cardiff and Newport would be retained, but the small county borough of Merthyr Tydfil would become a district. The proposed counties were as follows[11][40]

• Dyfed – West Wales – Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire
• Glamorgan – South Wales
• Gwent – South-East Wales – Monmouthshire (also including Rhymney valley from Glamorgan)
• Gwynedd – North Wales – Anglesey, Caernarvonshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Merionethshire
• Powys – Mid Wales – Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, Breconshire

Implementation of reform in Wales was not immediate, pending decisions on the situation in England, and a new Secretary of State, George Thomas, announced changes to the proposals in November 1968. The large northern county of Gwynedd was to be split to form two counties (creating Gwynedd in the west and Clwyd in the east) with various alterations to the districts. The Redcliffe-Maud report led to a reconsideration of the plans, especially with respect to Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, and a March 1970 White Paper proposed three unitary authorities for South Wales, based on Cardiff, Swansea and Newport.[11][41][42]

After the 1970 general election, the new Conservative government published a Consultative Document in February 1971, at the same time as the English White Paper.[43] The proposals were similar to the Labour proposals of 1968, except that the county boroughs were instead two-tier districts, and that Glamorgan was to be subdivided into West Glamorgan and East Glamorgan, making 7 counties and 36 districts.[11][44]

In the Bill as introduced Glamorgan had been split into three authorities: with East Glamorgan further subdivided into a Mid Glamorgan covering the valleys and South Glamorgan. The decision to split East Glamorgan further left South Glamorgan with only two districts (one of which was the Conservative-controlled Cardiff, who had requested the split) and Mid Glamorgan one of the poorest areas in the country.[11][45] The Labour-controlled Glamorgan County Council strongly opposed this move, placing adverts in newspapers calling for Glamorgan to be saved from a "carve up", and demanding that the east/west split be retained.[46] The resulting South Glamorgan was the only Welsh county council the Conservatives ever controlled (from 1977 to 1981).

One of the effects of the Act was to confirm the area of Monmouthshire as part of Wales. Ambiguity as to the status of Monmouthshire had been introduced by legislation in the 16th and 17th centuries, and by the gradual cultural anglicisation of some eastern parts of the county. By the late 19th century the area was often treated in legislation as one with Wales, using the terminology "Wales and Monmouthshire", although it remained legally part of England.[47]

Apart from the new Glamorgan authorities, all the names of the new Welsh counties were in the Welsh language, with no English equivalent. With the exception of Clwyd (which was named after the River Clwyd) the names of the counties were taken from ancient British kingdoms. Welsh names were also used for many of the Welsh districts.[48] There were no metropolitan counties and, unlike in England, the Secretary of State could not create future metropolitan counties there under the Act.[2]

After much comment, the proposals were introduced as the Local Government Bill into Parliament soon after the start of the 1971–1972 session.

In the Commons it passed through Standing Committee D, who debated the Bill in fifty-one sittings from 25 November 1971, to 20 March 1972.

The Act abolished previous existing local government structures, and created a two-tier system of counties and districts everywhere. Some of the new counties were designated metropolitan counties, containing metropolitan boroughs instead. The allocation of functions differed between the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan areas (the so-called 'shire counties') – for example, education and social services were the responsibility of the shire counties, but in metropolitan areas was given to the districts. The distribution of powers was slightly different in Wales than in England, with libraries being a county responsibility in England—but in Wales districts could opt to become library authorities themselves. One key principle was that education authorities (non-metropolitan counties and metropolitan districts), were deemed to need a population base of 250,000 in order to be viable.

Although called two-tier, the system was really three-tier, as it retained civil parish councils, although in Wales they were renamed community councils. Within districts some inconsistency prevailed. For example, in Welwyn Hatfield District in Hertfordshire, which comprised Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and Old Welwyn, Hatfield retained a civil parish council, its 'town council' which could act alone in some matters such as town twinning, whereas Welwyn Garden City did not and therefore had no separate representation.

The Act introduced 'agency', where one local authority (usually a district) could act as an agent for another authority. For example, since road maintenance was split depending upon the type of road, both types of council had to retain engineering departments. A county council could delegate its road maintenance to the district council if it was confident that the district was competent. Some powers were specifically excluded from agency, such as education.

The Act abolished various historic relics such as aldermen. The office previously known as sheriff was retitled high sheriff.[49] Many existing boroughs that were too small to constitute a district, but too large to constitute a civil parish, were given charter trustees.

Most provisions of the Act came into force at midnight on 1 April 1974. Elections to the new councils had already been held, in 1973, and the new authorities were already up and running as 'shadow authorities', following the example set by the London Government Act 1963.

The Act specified the composition and names of the English and Welsh counties, and the composition of the metropolitan and Welsh districts. It did not specify any names of districts, nor indeed the borders of the non-metropolitan districts in England – these were specified by Statutory Instrument after the passing of the Act. A Boundary Commission, provided for in the Act, had already begun work on dividing England into districts whilst the Bill was still going through Parliament.[50][51][52][53]

In England there were 45 counties and 296 districts, in Wales there were 8 and 37. Six of the English counties were designated as metropolitan counties. The new English counties were based clearly on the traditional ones, albeit with several substantial changes.[54] The 13 historic counties of Wales, however, were abandoned entirely for administrative purposes, and 8 new ones instituted.

The Act substituted the new counties "for counties of any other description" for purposes of law.[55] This realigned the boundaries of ceremonial and judicial counties used for lieutenancy, custodes rotulorum, shrievalty, commissions of the peace and magistrates' courts to the metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties.[54][56] The Act also extended the rights of the Duchy of Lancaster to appoint Lord-Lieutenants for the shrunken Lancashire along with all of Greater Manchester and Merseyside.[57]

In England before the passing of the Act there had been 1086 rural and urban districts (including non-county boroughs) and 79 county boroughs. The number of districts was reduced about fourfold. Most of the new districts were groups of the whole areas of former districts, although 64 rural districts were split between new districts, and there were eleven urban districts or boroughs which saw their territory split between new districts: Teesside County Borough, Whitley Bay Municipal Borough, Ashton-in-Makerfield Urban District, Billinge and Winstanley Urban District, Golborne Urban District, Lakes Urban District, Queensbury and Shelf Urban District, Ramsbottom Urban District, Seaton Valley Urban District, Thurrock Urban District, and Turton Urban District.[58]

Map

England
Northumberland Tyne and Wear † County Durham Cleveland North Yorkshire Cumbria Lancashire Merseyside † Greater Manchester † West Yorkshire † South Yorkshire † Humberside Lincolnshire Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Cheshire Shropshire Staffordshire West Midlands † Warwickshire Leicestershire Northamptonshire Cambridgeshire Norfolk Suffolk Essex Hertfordshire Bedfordshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire Gloucestershire Hereford and Worcester Avon Wiltshire Berkshire Greater London * Kent East Sussex West Sussex Surrey Hampshire Isle of Wight Dorset Somerset Devon Cornwall
Wales
Gwent South Glamorgan Mid Glamorgan West Glamorgan Dyfed Powys Gwynedd Clwyd
† metropolitan county * 'administrative area' created in earlier legislation

Elections to the new authorities were held on three different Thursdays in 1973. Each new county and district was divided into electoral divisions, known as wards in the districts. For county councils, each electoral division elected one member; for metropolitan district councils, each ward elected three members; and wards in non-metropolitan districts could elect a varying number of members. There was not sufficient time to conduct a full warding arrangement so a temporary system was used: in some county councils electoral divisions elected multiple councillors.[11]

County councils were set on a four-year cycle of elections of all members, and the next elections were in 1977. Metropolitan district councils elected one councillor for each seat in the three other years, starting in 1975. Non-metropolitan districts had a general election again in 1976, and could subsequently either conduct elections of the whole council or by-thirds.[11][37] Schedule 3 provided that for each metropolitan ward, the councillor for who obtained the fewest votes in the 1973 election would retire in 1975, the next fewest in 1976, and the others in 1978, setting up the cycle. If equal numbers of votes were obtained, or ward elections in 1973 had been uncontested, the decision would be made by lot.

Health care and water supply / sanitation were assigned to new, separate, non-elected authorities.

The remaining functions previously exercised by local authorities were distributed broadly as follows:[37][59]

In many areas both authorities had some powers, and certain Welsh districts were allowed greater powers by the Secretary of State.

The system established by the Act was the object of some criticism. One major controversy was the failure to reform local government finance. Having lost office at the general election of February 1974, Graham Page, the minister who had piloted the Act through Parliament, condemned the existing system of rates and grants. His successor as Minister for the Environment, Tony Crosland said that he would be re-examining the rates system, while the Association of Metropolitan Authorities sought the establishment of a royal commission to consider the matter.[60][61]

The two-tier structure established was also seen as problematic. In particular, the division of planning between districts and counties was a source of friction between the new councils.[60] Thamesdown Borough Council called for a further reform and complete abolition of counties as they felt Wiltshire County Council was unable to respond to the needs of an expanding urban area.[62] Further complaints surrounded the loss of water supply and sewerage powers to regional water authorities created by the Water Act 1973. This was felt to reduce the ability of district councils to plan new housing developments.[61] It was also felt that the boundaries of the metropolitan counties were too tightly drawn, leaving out much of the suburban areas of the conurbations. The leading article in The Times on the day the Act came into effect noted that the new arrangement is a compromise which seeks to reconcile familiar geography which commands a certain amount of affection and loyalty, with the scale of operations on which modern planning methods can work effectively.[60]

There was some criticism of county boundary changes. A campaign was mounted to return the Uffington White Horse to Berkshire, and a bonfire was lit at the site by protestors as the Act came into effect.[63] The campaigners claimed 10,000 signatures in favour of diverting the county boundary to include the "Berkshire White Horse".[64] The calls were rejected by the local MP, Airey Neave, who pointed out that the horse predated county boundaries, and by the chairman of the Vale of White Horse District Council.[65][66] Professor Anthony Fletcher, of the Department of Medieval History of the University of Sheffield, suggested that the new councils place signs at the boundaries of ancient counties.[67] The removal of Gatwick Airport and the surrounding area from Surrey into West Sussex met some fierce local opposition with the result that the parishes of Horley and Charlwood were subsequently returned to Surrey in the eponymous Charlwood and Horley Act 1974, leaving the airport to stay in West Sussex.[68]

Some of the reaction against the Act was motivated by opposition to loss of local control. The county borough councils regretted the loss of their independent status. Criticism of the Act also centred on the size of the new districts. The new Minister, whose party had opposed the reforms in opposition, hoped that "it will be more efficient – but it could easily become more remote". In order to combat this, Crosland was considering the creation of "neighbourhood councils" in unparished areas of the new districts.[63] The names of some of the new authorities also caused controversy.[69][70] At no point were local populations consulted about the changes.

The two arguably most loathed new counties created were Humberside and Avon. Humberside united the north and south banks of the River Humber – in theory at least promoting cooperation of the ports of Kingston-upon-Hull, Grimsby and Immingham – carving territory out of the East Riding of Yorkshire and of northern Lindsey respectively. Avon lumped Bristol, formerly a county borough within Gloucestershire, together with Bath, a former county borough in Somerset. Both these creations were to disappear in further local government reforms in the 1990s.

The system established by the Act was not to last. In England a series of incremental measures amended it. First, the county councils of the metropolitan counties, as well as the Greater London Council, were abolished in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher's government with the Local Government Act 1985, effectively re-establishing county borough status for the metropolitan boroughs. Second, a review of local government outside the metropolitan counties was announced in 1989.[71] The local government reform in the 1990s led to the creation of many new unitary authorities, and the complete abolition of Avon, Cleveland, Hereford and Worcester and Humberside. Names such as Herefordshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire reappeared as local government entities, although often with new boundaries. Several former county boroughs such as Derby, Leicester and Stoke-on-Trent regained unitary status. Additionally, another wave of unitary authorities was formed in 2009.

In Wales there was a more radical change in policy with the two-tier system entirely abolished in 1996, and replaced with the current principal areas of Wales. The 1974 counties in Wales have been retained as preserved counties for various purposes, notably as ceremonial counties, albeit with substantive border revisions.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Local Government Act 1972

• Local Government Boundary Commission for England (1972)
• Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972

• Text of the Act