The Government’s English Devolution White Paper lays out its intention to create a system of devolved government in England based on a set of ‘Strategic Authorities’, each of which is to eventually have a directly elected mayor. Local government within each Strategic Authority area will be provided by several unitary councils.
The white paper doesn’t mention and is not concerned with the historic counties. Nonetheless, its implementation could have a major impact on public understanding of the historic counties, especially since it should mean the final end of the old two-tier ‘county council ‘ / ‘district council’ model of local government. At least some of the remaining fake 1974 ‘counties’ may disappear.
The Association of British Counties believes that the latest reforms present a major opportunity for the Government to finally move to a system of local government which is totally distinct from the historic counties – to the benefit of both. This requires an end to the use of ‘county’ and ‘county council’ within local government terminology and an end to the inappropriate, unqualified use of a historic county name by any council or Strategic Authority – unless its area is very close to that of the county.
In this article we look at the possible impact of the white paper on our historic counties in more detail. We also discuss some further measures that the Association of British Counties is calling on the Government to take, alongside its plans for local and regional government, to ensure a long term future for our counties in the national life.
A very brief history of county councils and county confusion
Modern local government in England began with the Local Government Act 1888. The ‘administrative counties’ it created were based fairly closely on the historic counties, although many large towns and cities were created separate ‘county boroughs’. Each ‘administrative county’ had a ‘county council’ and most bore the name of the historic county whose area they were based on – although the administrative county and the historic county were always understood to be distinct entities.
In the past 136 years, innumerable changes have been made to local government. The current local government map of England bears little relation to the historic counties. And yet, we still have local government areas referred to as ‘counties’, local authorities referred to as ‘county councils’ and many councils shamelessly making unqualified use of the name of an historic county despite having an area radically different to that county (e.g. Cambridgeshire County Council, Lancashire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Staffordshire County Council, Surrey County Council, Warwickshire County Council).
The resulting confusion undermines the identities of our historic counties. ABC wants to see an end to the confusion and for local government to be given a set of terminology and authority names which ensure it has an identity totally distinct from the historic counties.
English Devolution and its possible impact on the historic counties
To be clear, the white paper isn’t concerned with the historic counties and makes no reference to them. Nonetheless, it could be of major help in clearing the confusion between local government and historic counties. But this very much depends on how its intentions are implemented over the next few years.
In short, the white paper lays out a future in which each part of England lies within a ‘Strategic Authority’ under which are two or more unitary councils. Each ‘Strategic Authority’ will eventually be headed by a directly elected mayor. Many parts of England already have such a set-up (including ‘Greater Manchester’ ‘West Yorkshire’, ‘East Midlands’, ‘West of England’, ‘Tees Valley’ etc.). In other areas, the current councils are being asked to propose the form of the new local government / Strategic Authority set-up. The Government will then make the final decision on the new set-up and put in place the processes to implement it.
There are several ways in which a move to this system could help our historic counties:
- The Government’s unambiguous intent is to see an end to the two-tier system of local government. Given that the former ‘county’ and ‘district’ levels of local government would no longer exist in England then there would be no need to refer to local government areas as ‘counties’. The term ‘council area’, as used to describe the local government areas of Scotland, could and should be used;
- Similarly, this could and should mean the end of any local authority being referred to as ‘county council’. The simple term ‘council’, again as used in Scotland, could and should be used;
- Some at least of those present ‘county councils’ which badly misuse a historic county name may disappear to be replaced by two or more unitary councils. Certainly, it is hard to see how councils with populations the size of those of Kent County Council (1.6 million), Essex County Council (1.6 million), Surrey County Council (1.2 million) or Lancashire County Council (1.2 million) could be made single unitary authorities.
Unfortunately, the simple fact that the Government is not making these changes with the historic counties in mind means that some of these benefits may not result – or may result in some parts of England but not others. Reasons for caution include:
- The Government seems intent to allow new Strategic Authorities to be set up in advance of a move to unitary local government in some areas. Whilst the intention is to eventually move to unitary local government, it is easy to imagine that the ‘county’ / ‘district’ system may persist under the new Strategic Authority for many years in some areas.
- Whilst most of the unitary authorities created in England since 1992 have chosen to just call themselves ‘council’, many of the unitary authorities of Wales brazenly call themselves ‘county council’, often despite having areas nothing like the county whose name they ape (e.g. ‘Denbighshire County Council’, ‘Flintshire County Council’, ‘Monmouthshire County Council’).
- The Government quotes a desired population size at least 500,000 for new unitary councils. In some areas, it may find it easier just to abolish district councils and base new unitary councils on the existing county councils. This may save the likes of the fake ‘Oxfordshire’ (population 876,000) and the fake ‘Cambridgeshire’ (population 690,000).
Could the new Strategic Authorities undermine historic county identities?
Whilst the new Strategic Authorities are not likely to be viewed by the media or public as any kind of ‘county’, they do present their own dangers to the identities of our historic counties.
Some of the new Strategic Authorities may themselves make inappropriate, unqualified use of an historic county name. For example, one suggested Strategic Authority is for the combined areas of Cheshire West and Chester Council, Chester East Council and Warrington Council. The first two of these councils want this new Strategic Authority to just be known as ‘Cheshire’. As our map (below) shows this would be wholly inappropriate since the proposed Strategic Authority area includes only about three-quarters of the real Cheshire (and only around half of its population) and also that part of Warrington Council area in Lancashire (around 150,000 people). Fortunately, Warrington Council is insisting on the name ‘Cheshire and Warrington’ which, whilst not perfect, at least does not make the false claim that this area literally is Cheshire.
A Strategic Authority also looks set to be created on the combined area of the current Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council and Blackburn with Darwen Council. Whilst this may eventually see the current woefully misnamed Lancashire County Council replaced by several unitary councils, this is scant comfort given that the new Strategic Authority will inevitably be given the label ‘Lancashire’. One day there will very likely be a ‘Mayor of Lancashire’, for the fake ‘Lancashire’. Truly dreadful.
Other Strategic Authorities will perpetuate the identities of fake 1974 local government ‘counties’. There are already Strategic Authorities of ‘Greater Manchester’, ‘West Midlands’, ‘West Yorkshire’ and ‘South Yorkshire’. To these will almost inevitably be added a Strategic Authority of ‘Cumbria’. ABC has no issue with these areas being used as the basis for administration but these particular names are so associated with fake 1974 ‘counties’ that their perpetuation in this way is a serious continued threat to the identities of the real counties in these areas. The names of the likely Strategic Authorities in the north-west of England are of especial concern (see map).
The only obvious place where a new Strategic Authority might have an area close to an historic county is in Sussex. East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Council are asking the Government to form a Strategic Authority covering the whole of their combined area, with East Sussex and West Sussex becoming unitary councils. As our map (below) shows, this proposed Strategic Authority area is very close in area to Sussex and to call it the ‘Sussex Strategic Authority’ seems reasonable. Do not put it past them, though, to name it ‘East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton & Hove Strategic Authority’.
The reality is that how this all plays out over the next few years, in general and in specific areas, is hard to predict. Governments often get cold feet about local government changes and devolution plans. Governments often create administrative set-ups that don’t tie in with stated policy, due to local lobbying or ministerial whim.
The Association of British Counties’ proposals for promoting the historic counties
ABC will be seeking a meeting with the Government to make the point that this is a golden opportunity to finally totally separate local government from the historic counties. Specifically we will propose that:
- The word ‘county’ and the phrase ‘county council’ need to drop out of local government language altogether as new unitary local government is created. Instead ‘council area’ and ‘council’ should be used.
- Unless a unitary council or Strategic Authority really does cover an area very close to that of an historic county, then it should not make unqualified use of that county name.
We are delighted with the UK Government’s support for the historic counties in recent years, in particular its Celebrating the historic counties of England guidance. However, the widespread changes to local government also present a great opportunity for some further specific measures to promote the historic counties. These are laid out in our draft Historic Counties of the United Kingdom Bill. This Bill proposes two specific measures.
First, the bill seeks the insertion of a definition of the term ‘historic county’ within the Interpretation Act 1978. Such a formal, legal definition of ‘historic county’ is necessary to ensure the consistent use of the historic counties across Government and its agencies, within the heritage sector and more widely as a general-purpose geography for the UK. The proposed definition is based on the Historic Counties Standard, the standard definition of the names, areas and borders of the historic counties, e.g. used by the Office for National Statistics.
Second, the bill seeks a return to the appointment of the office of lord-lieutenant to the historic counties, recognising the importance of both the historic counties and the office of lord-lieutenant. Our fact sheet The lieutenancies of England and their relation to the historic counties describes the current bizarre mess the lieutenancies of England are in. Further large-scale local government change is going to make the current set-up even more anachronistic. It is high time the lieutenancies were returned to the real counties.
We would also like to see the Celebrating the historic counties of England guidance updated and expanded to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. Some kind of national approach to marking historic county borders on major highways is also required, although who would meet the cost of this is an issue which would have to be addressed.
We hope that the Government will see our suggestions as common sense, low cost ideas which will do much to secure a long term future for our historic counties. We will report back on the Government’s response.