Editing Local Government Act 1972 (section)

==England==
===Background===
Elected [[county council]]s 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 borough]]s, were politically independent from the counties in which they were physically situated. The county areas were two-tier, with many [[municipal borough]]s, [[Urban district (Great Britain and Ireland)|urban districts]] and [[rural district]]s within them, each with its own council.<ref name=bryne>{{cite book|last=Bryne|first=T.|title=Local Government in Britain|year=1994}}</ref>

Apart from the creation of new county boroughs, the most significant change since 1899 (and the establishment of [[metropolitan borough]]s in the [[County of London]]) had been the establishment in 1965 of [[Greater London]] and its 32 [[London borough]]s, covering a much larger area than the previous [[county of London]].  A [[Local Government Commission for England (1958 – 1967)|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.<ref name=bryne /> Despite mergers, there was still a proliferation of small district councils in rural areas, and in the major conurbations the borders had been set before the pattern of urban development had become clear. For example, in the area that was to become the seven boroughs of the metropolitan county of [[West Midlands (county)|West Midlands]], local government was split between three administrative counties ([[Staffordshire]], [[Warwickshire]], and [[Worcestershire]]), and eight county boroughs ([[Birmingham]], [[Coventry]], [[Dudley]], [[Solihull]], [[Walsall]], [[County Borough of Warley|Warley]], [[West Bromwich]], and [[Wolverhampton]]). Many county boundaries reflected traditions of the Middle Ages or even earlier; industrialisation had created new and very large urban areas like the West Midlands, Liverpool and Manchester which spanned traditional county boundaries and were now often bigger than and far from their traditional county towns.

The Local Government Commission was wound up in 1966, and replaced with a Royal Commission (known as the [[Redcliffe-Maud Report|Redcliffe-Maud commission]]). In 1969 it recommended a system of single-tier [[unitary authorities]] for the whole of England, apart from three metropolitan areas of [[Merseyside]], [[Greater Manchester|SELNEC]] (South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire, now known as Greater Manchester) and [[West Midlands (county)|West Midlands]] ([[Birmingham]] and the [[Black Country]]), which were to have both a metropolitan council and district councils.

This report was accepted by the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] government of the time despite considerable opposition,<ref name=bryne /> but the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] won the [[1970 United Kingdom general election|June 1970 general election]] on a manifesto that committed it to a two-tier structure.<ref>{{Cite web|title=1970 Conservative Party Manifesto|url=http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1970/1970-conservative-manifesto.shtml|access-date=2020-10-18|website=conservativemanifesto.com}}</ref> The new government made [[Peter Walker, Baron Walker of Worcester|Peter Walker]] and [[Graham Page]] the ministers, and quickly dropped the Redcliffe-Maud report.<ref>{{cite news|title=Cabinet drop council house sale curb and Maud proposals|work=The Times|date=30 June 1970}}</ref> They invited comments from interested parties regarding the previous government's proposals.<ref>{{cite news|title=Adapting the Maud report|first=Timothy|last=Raison|work=The Times|date=8 January 1971}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|date=9 November 1970|title=Twice as many town-and-country councils proposed in boroughs' response to Maud|url=https://www.thetimes.com/archive/article/1970-11-09/3/1.html?region=global#start%3D1970-11-01%26end%3D1970-11-15%26terms%3D132%26back%3D/tto/archive/find/132/w:1970-11-01%7E1970-11-15/1%26prev%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/132/w:1970-11-01%7E1970-11-15/4%26next%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/132/w:1970-11-01%7E1970-11-15/6|work=[[The Times]]|access-date=12 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=13 November 1970|title=Boroughs to press for new 132-council structure|url=https://www.thetimes.com/archive/article/1970-11-13/6/11.html?region=global#start%3D1785-01-01%26end%3D1985-12-31%26terms%3DBoroughs%20132%26back%3D/tto/archive/find/Boroughs+132/w:1785-01-01%7E1985-12-31/1%26next%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/Boroughs+132/w:1785-01-01%7E1985-12-31/2|work=[[The Times]]|access-date=12 June 2020}}</ref>

===White paper and bill===

The incoming government's proposals for England were presented in a [[white paper]] published in February 1971.<ref name=white_paper>{{cite web|publisher=HMSO|title=Local Government in England: Government Proposals for Reorganisation: command paper 4584|date=17 September 2013|url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/177096/response/436264/attach/3/131003%20Circular%208%2071%20map.pdf}}</ref> 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.<ref name=process>Wood, Bruce. ''Process of Local Government Reform: 1966–1974''. 1976</ref>

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 [[Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom)|Crowther Commission]] to report.<ref name=white_paper />

The proposals were substantially changed with the introduction of the bill into Parliament in November 1971:<ref>{{cite news|title=Proposed new areas and their composition|work=The Times|date=17 February 1971}}</ref><ref>DOE Circular 8/71</ref>

*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 borough]]s, 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, Suffolk|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, Hampshire|Farnborough]], [[Fleet, Hampshire|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|Humber Estuary]], and the inclusion of [[Harwich]] and [[Colchester]] in Suffolk to unify the [[River Stour, Suffolk|Stour Estuary]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Local Government Bill, Government Proposals for New Counties in England with the Proposed Names (map)|date=4 November 1971}}</ref> The latter was removed from the bill before it became law.  Proposals from [[Plymouth]] for a [[River Tamar|Tamar]]side county were rejected.  The Bill also provided names for the new counties for the first time.<ref name=tamarside_rejected>{{cite news|title=Government rejects plan for Tamar county|work=The Times|date=26 January 1972}}</ref>

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)<ref>{{cite news|title=Unpopular Name|newspaper=The Times|date=5 January 1972}}</ref>
*renaming of Teesside to [[Cleveland (county)|Cleveland]], exclusion of [[Whitby]]<ref>{{cite news|title=Teesside: Town and country welcome Whitehall compromise|work=The Times|date=21 March 1972}}</ref>
*renaming of Tyneside to [[Tyne and Wear]]<ref>{{cite hansard|title=Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England|house=House of Commons|date=6 July 1972|column_start=907|column_end=910|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/06/counties-and-metropolitan-districts-in#column_907}}</ref>
*removal of [[Seaham]] from Tyne and Wear, keeping it in County Durham<ref>{{cite hansard|title=Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England|house=House of Commons|date=6 July 1972|column=939|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/06/counties-and-metropolitan-districts-in#column_939}}</ref>
*removal of [[Skelmersdale and Holland]] from Merseyside<ref name=process /><!-- page 143 --> – they were to be part of the independent district of Southport, before Southport was included within Merseyside
*exclusion of [[Colchester]] and area from [[Suffolk]], kept in [[Essex]]<ref name=tamarside_rejected /><ref name=up_all_night>{{cite news|title=Local government keeps MPs up all night.|work=The Times|date=7 July 1972}}</ref>
*exclusion of [[Newmarket, Suffolk|Newmarket]] and [[Haverhill, Suffolk|Haverhill]] from [[Cambridgeshire]], kept in Suffolk (despite protests of Newmarket UDC, which was happy to see the town transferred to Cambridgeshire)<ref>{{cite news|title=Boundaries Bill protest|work=The Times|date=4 July 1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite hansard|title=Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England|house=House of Commons|date=6 July 1972|column_start=1002|column_end=1010|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/06/counties-and-metropolitan-districts-in#column_1002}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Newmarket tries again to jump the boundary|work=The Times|date=3 August 1972}}</ref>
*keeping the [[Isle of Wight]] independent of Hampshire<ref>{{cite news|title=Isle of Wight reprieve|work=The Times|date=5 October 1972}}</ref>
*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 [[South East Dorset conurbation|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).<ref>{{cite hansard|title=Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England|date=6 July 1972|column_start=1033|column_end=1047|house=House of Commons|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/06/counties-and-metropolitan-districts-in#column_1033}}</ref> The House of Lords reversed this amendment in September, with the government losing the division 81 to 65.<ref>{{cite news|title=Lymington stays in Hampshire|work=The Times|date=12 September 1972}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|title=Peers renew fight to keep Lymington undivided|work=The Times|date=17 October 1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Lymington to remain undivided|work=The Times|date=18 October 1972}}</ref>

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, West Yorkshire|Rothwell]] should form part of the Leeds or Wakefield districts.<ref>{{cite news|title=Triple Lords defeat for Government on boundaries Bill|work=The Times|date=17 October 1972}}</ref> (Rothwell had been planned for Wakefield, but an amendment at report stage was proposed by local [[Member of Parliament|MP]] [[Albert Roberts (British politician)|Albert Roberts]]<ref name=up_all_night /> and accepted by the government, then overturned by the Lords.) Instead, the Wakefield district gained the town of [[Ossett]], which was originally placed in the [[Kirklees]] district, following an appeal by Ossett Labour Party.<ref>{{cite book|title=Ossett Town Hall|publisher=Ossett Historical Society|year=2008|page=104}}</ref>

The government barely won a division in the Lords on the inclusion of [[Weston-super-Mare]] in Avon, by 42 to 41.<ref>{{cite news|title=Somerset loses its battle to remain intact|work=The Times|date=17 October 1972}}</ref><ref>{{cite hansard|title=Local Government Bill|house=House of Lords|date=16 October 1972|column_start=1568|column_end=1661|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1972/oct/16/local-government-bill#column_1568}}</ref>

Two more metropolitan districts were created than were originally in the bill:
*[[Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale|Rochdale]] and [[Metropolitan Borough of Bury|Bury]] were originally planned to form a single district (dubbed "Botchdale" by local MP [[Michael Fidler]]);<ref>{{cite hansard|title=Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England|house=House of Commons|date=6 July 1972|column_start=763|column_end=834|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/06/counties-and-metropolitan-districts-in#column_763}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Lancashire saved from 'Botchdale'|work=The Times|date=7 July 1972}}</ref> Rochdale took [[Middleton, Greater Manchester|Middleton]] from Oldham in compensation.<ref>{{cite news|title=Philosophy on councils has yet to emerge|work=The Times|date=8 July 1972}}</ref>
*[[Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley|Knowsley]] was not originally planned, and was formed from the western part of the planned [[Metropolitan Borough of St Helens|St Helens]] district.<ref name=up_all_night /><ref>{{cite hansard|title=Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England|house=House of Commons|date=6 July 1972|column_start=855|column_end=907|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/jul/06/counties-and-metropolitan-districts-in#column_855}}</ref>

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.<ref name=white_paper /><ref name=reformed>Redcliffe-Maud & Wood, B., ''English Local Government Reformed'', (1974)</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite hansard|title=Local Government Bill|house=House of Lords|date=17 October 1972|column_start=1680|column_end=1684|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1972/oct/17/local-government-bill#column_1680}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Isle of Wight retains its county council|work=The Times|date=18 October 1972}}</ref>

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 [[Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead|Gateshead]]), and the four metropolitan boroughs that had resulted from the splitting of the proposed [[Metropolitan Borough of Bury|Bury]]/[[Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale|Rochdale]] and [[Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley|Knowsley]]/[[Metropolitan Borough of St Helens|St Helens]] boroughs.