Background Elected
county councils had been established in England and Wales for the first time in 1888, covering areas known as administrative counties. Some large towns, known as
county boroughs, were politically independent from the counties in which they were physically situated. The county areas were two-tier, with many
municipal boroughs,
urban districts and
rural districts within them, each with its own council. Apart from the creation of new county boroughs, the most significant change since 1899 (and the establishment of
metropolitan boroughs in the
County of London) had been the establishment in 1965 of
Greater London and its 32
London boroughs, covering a much larger area than the previous county of London. A
Local Government Commission for England was set up in 1958 to review local government arrangements throughout the country, and made some changes, such as merging two pairs of small administrative counties to form
Huntingdon and Peterborough and
Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, and creating several contiguous county boroughs in the
Black Country. Most of the commission's recommendations, such as its proposals to abolish
Rutland or to reorganise
Tyneside, were ignored in favour of the status quo. It was generally agreed that there were significant problems with the structure of local government. The new government made
Peter Walker and
Graham Page the ministers, and quickly dropped the Redcliffe-Maud report. They invited comments from interested parties regarding the previous government's proposals. The Association of Municipal Corporations, an advocacy group representing the boroughs, responded to Redcliffe-Maud by putting forward a scheme where England outside London would be divided into 13 provinces, with 132 main authorities below that. The AMC argued that the Redcliffe-Maud units would be too far removed from the people they served, and suggested units that in some places were much smaller in size.
The Times gave the example of Kent, which under Redcliffe-Maud would have consisted of two unitary authorities, the smaller having a population of 499,000 (as of 1968), while the AMC proposal would divide the same area into seven local authorities, ranging in population from 161,000 to 306,000.
White paper and bill The incoming government's proposals for England were presented in a
white paper published in February 1971. The white paper substantially trimmed the metropolitan areas, and proposed a two-tier structure for the rest of the country. Many of the new boundaries proposed by the Redcliffe-Maud report were retained in the white paper. The proposals were in large part based on ideas of the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association. The white paper outlined principles, including an acceptance of the minimum population of 250,000 for education authorities in the Redcliffe-Maud report, and its findings that the division of functions between town and country had been harmful, but that some functions were better performed by smaller units. The white paper set out the proposed division of functions between districts and counties, and also suggested a minimum population of 40,000 for districts. The government aimed to introduce a bill in the 1971/72 session of Parliament for elections in 1973, so that the new authorities could start exercising full powers on 1 April 1974. The white paper made no commitments on regional or provincial government, since the Conservative government preferred to wait for the
Crowther Commission to report. • Area 4 (Cleveland) would have had a border with area 2 (Tyne and Wear), cutting area 3 (Durham) off from the coast. Seaham and Easington were to be part of the Sunderland district. • Humberside did not exist in the White Paper. The East Riding was split between area 5 (North Yorkshire) and an area 8 (East Yorkshire). Grimsby and Northern Lindsey were to be part of area 22 (Lincolnshire). •
Harrogate and
Knaresborough had been included in district 6b (Leeds) •
Dronfield in Derbyshire had been included in district 7c (Sheffield) • Area 9 (Cumbria) did not at this stage include the
Sedbergh Rural District from Yorkshire • Area 10 (Lancashire) included more parishes from the
West Riding of Yorkshire than were eventually included • Area 11 (Merseyside) did not include
Southport, but did include
Ellesmere Port and
Neston • Area 12 (Greater Manchester) lost
New Mills and
Whaley Bridge (to be with Stockport), and Glossop (to be in
Tameside) • The
Seisdon Rural District, which formed a narrow peninsula of Staffordshire running between Shropshire and the Black Country
county boroughs, would originally have been split three ways, between the Wolverhampton district (15a), area 16 (Shropshire) and area 17 (Worcestershire) • Halesowen would have become part of district 15d (Sandwell) rather than 15c (Dudley) • District 15f (Solihull) would have included part of the Birmingham county borough as well as parishes from Stratford on Avon Rural District • Area 18 (Warwickshire) would have included several parishes from
Daventry Rural District in Northamptonshire • Area 20 (Nottinghamshire) would include
Long Eaton from Derbyshire • Area 26 (Avon) to have covered a larger area, including
Frome • Area 31 (Norfolk) to have covered a large area of East Suffolk, including
Beccles,
Bungay,
Halesworth,
Lowestoft,
Southwold,
Lothingland Rural District, and Wainford Rural District • Area 33 (Oxfordshire) to include
Brackley and Brackley Rural District from Northamptonshire • Area 39 (Berkshire) to include
Henley-on-Thames and
Henley Rural District from Oxfordshire • Area 40 (Surrey) to include
Aldershot,
Farnborough,
Fleet and area from Hampshire The bill as introduced also included two new major changes based on the concept of unifying estuaries, through the creation of the county of Humberside on the
Humber Estuary, and the inclusion of
Harwich and
Colchester in Suffolk to unify the
Stour Estuary. The latter was removed from the bill before it became law. Proposals from
Plymouth for a
Tamarside county were rejected. The Bill also provided names for the new counties for the first time. The main amendments made to the areas during the bill's passage through Parliament were: • renaming of Malvernshire to
Hereford and Worcester (the name "Wyvern" was also suggested) • renaming of Teesside to
Cleveland, exclusion of
Whitby • renaming of Tyneside to
Tyne and Wear • removal of
Seaham from Tyne and Wear, keeping it in County Durham • removal of
Skelmersdale and Holland from Merseyside • exclusion of
Newmarket and
Haverhill from
Cambridgeshire, kept in Suffolk (despite protests of Newmarket UDC, which was happy to see the town transferred to Cambridgeshire) • keeping the
Isle of Wight independent of Hampshire • adding part of
Lothingland Rural District from Suffolk to
Norfolk. In the bill as published, the Dorset/Hampshire border was between Christchurch and Lymington. On 6 July 1972, a government amendment added Lymington to Dorset, which would have had the effect of having the entire
Bournemouth conurbation in one county (although the town in Lymington itself does not form part of the built-up area, the borough was large and contained villages which do). The House of Lords reversed this amendment in September, with the government losing the division 81 to 65. In October, the government brought up this issue again, proposing an amendment to put the western part of Lymington borough in Dorset. The amendment was withdrawn. The government lost divisions in the House of Lords at Report Stage on the exclusion of
Wilmslow and
Poynton from Greater Manchester and their retention in Cheshire, and also on whether
Rothwell should form part of the Leeds or Wakefield districts. (Rothwell had been planned for Wakefield, but an amendment at report stage was proposed by local
MP Albert Roberts The government barely won a division in the Lords on the inclusion of
Weston-super-Mare in Avon, by 42 to 41. Two more metropolitan districts were created than were originally in the bill: •
Rochdale and
Bury were originally planned to form a single district (dubbed "Botchdale" by local MP
Michael Fidler); Rochdale took
Middleton from Oldham in compensation. •
Knowsley was not originally planned, and was formed from the western part of the planned
St Helens district. As passed, the act would have included
Charlwood and
Horley in
West Sussex, along with
Gatwick Airport. This was reversed by the
Charlwood and Horley Act 1974, passed just before the act came into force. Charlwood was made part of the
Mole Valley district and Horley part of
Reigate and Banstead. Gatwick Airport was still transferred. Although willing to compromise on exact boundaries, the government stood firm on the existence or abolition of county councils. The
Isle of Wight (originally scheduled to be merged back into
Hampshire as a district) was the only local campaign to succeed, and also the only county council in England to violate the 250,000 minimum for education authorities. The government bowed to local demand for the island to retain its status in October 1972, moving an amendment in the Lords to remove it from Hampshire, Lord Sanford noting that "nowhere else is faced with problems of communication with its neighbours which are in any way comparable". Protests from
Rutland and
Herefordshire failed, although Rutland was able to secure its treatment as a single district despite not meeting the stated minimum population of 40,000 for districts. Several metropolitan boroughs fell under the 250,000 limit, including three of
Tyne and Wear's five boroughs (
North Tyneside,
South Tyneside and
Gateshead), and the four metropolitan boroughs that had resulted from the splitting of the proposed
Bury/
Rochdale and
Knowsley/
St Helens boroughs. ==Wales==