Safeguarding the Thirty-Nine Counties of England

The Association of British Counties' Response to the White Paper:

"Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions"

This document was submitted in August 2002 as ABC's response to the Government's White Paper on regional governance. A copy of the White Paper can be found at http://www.regions.odpm.gov.uk/governance/whitepaper/.

0.Executive Summary

1. Introduction - the Role of the 39 Counties in the National Life

2. A Brief History of the Threat to the Identities of the 39 Counties

3. Implications of Regional Governance for the 39 Counties

4. ABC's Proposals to Safeguard the Identities of the 39 Counties

0. Executive Summary

0.1 The 39 historic Counties of England (see Map 1) have, for over 1000 years, played a prominent role in our national life. The importance of the Counties lies in fields outside of local government. Their names and areas are widely used in tourism, sport, business, record-keeping, local and family history, in literature and the arts. They are sources of identity and affection to many people. Organisations galore - sports clubs, businesses, societies, regiments, farmers' unions etc. - are based upon them. And they are the basis for an unchanging, recognisable and stable geography for general communication in all walks of life: business, education, tourism, the media etc.

0.2 Now it's all at risk. When modern local government was created, in 1888, the areas of its "administrative counties" were closely based on the historic Counties. In this way, the traditional County-based geography of England was tied in with local government and a sense of the continuity of areas and identities maintained. The cumulative effect of the local government reforms of 1965, 1974, 1986 and the mid-nineties has been to radically alter the local government system and, almost as a by-product, shatter the traditional County-based geography of England.

0.3 The Government's repeated reassurance that local government changes were confined to local government has been rendered void by (a) the continued use of the word "county" for local government areas, a majority of which now bear no relation to any historic County; (b) the continued use of old names - like "Lancashire" and "Warwickshire" - for areas unrecognisable from the past and (c) the use by publishers and the media of each new local government geography for purposes beyond local government - so that a new geography is offered every 10 years or so - despite local government geography being totally unsuitable for general use (see Map 3).

0.4 ABC's terms of reference give it no view on the desirability of regional governance as such. However, there are several aspects of the White Paper's proposals which we feel will have a further profoundly negative impact on the identities of the 39 Counties of England:

A. A pre-requisite for the creation of a regional assembly will be introduction within the region of a local government system comprised entirely of "unitary authorities". In areas that at present have a two-tier local government system (i.e. a "county council" and several "district councils"), the top-tier area (i.e. that of the "county council") will probably be considered too large to form the basis of a new "unitary authority". However, with the exception of Cumbria, these are just those local government areas that are generally still fairly closely linked to a historic County. The full introduction of regional assemblies could, therefore, mean the final eradication of local government areas based upon the historic Counties. Unless some other means is created of maintaining the integrity and identity of the historic Counties, then the implications of this for the identities of the Counties and their role in the national life are obvious and dire.

B. Wherever a historic County straddles the boundary between two or more regions, the regional authorities and other regionally based agencies are unlikely to respect the County's traditional role in non-local government pursuits like tourism and sport. It is the regional boundary, not the County one, that seems certain to be adopted. This is a particular problem since there is no single voice on the "regional cultural consortia" which can represent the traditional County basis of such activities.

0.5 The link between local government and the historic Counties which existed from 1888-1965 has already been broken throughout much of England. The introduction of assemblies and the move to totally unitary local government will break this link throughout the whole Country. This will inevitably create opposition to the idea of elected regional assemblies since many people will consider that the creation of an assembly will require the "abolition" of a cherished County.

0.6 However, the breaking of the link between local government and the historic Counties need not necessarily be a bad thing for the historic Counties provided that a new system can found of maintaining the integrity and identity of the Counties, independent of local government. Indeed, moves towards regional governance provide an excellent opportunity to find and implement such a new system for safeguarding the social, cultural and geographical roles of our historic Counties. We make 7 proposals that would form the core of such a system. The implementation of these proposals prior to moves towards elected regional assemblies would remove the perceived threat to our historic Counties from regional governance. The debate could then focus on the desirability or otherwise of having elected assemblies to undertake the proposed administrative functions, free from the unnecessary distraction of arguments about the destruction of historic County identities.

0.7 Our proposals are that:

A. Local Government Terminology should be reformed in such a way that:

a. the remaining two-tier areas are re-labelled "administrative counties"
b. Outside the administrative counties, local government should consist of single tier areas called "unitary districts", "metropolitan districts" or "London boroughs".

B. The boundaries of the 39 historic Counties should be marked by a set of white-on-brown tourist signs with the words "Historic County of" above the County name. Signs of this nature already exist for some Counties. The use of tourist signs is appropriate since the Counties are major tourist destinations. This will also draw a clear distinction between these signs and local government boundary signs.

C. A duty should be placed on the Ordnance Survey to mark the 39 Counties on larger scale maps.

D. A specific duty should be placed on all governmental and quasi-governmental bodies (including the regional assemblies when finally created) to recognise the importance of the 39 Counties as cultural institutions and to have due regard to them in matters relating to the organisation and funding of sports, arts, cultural and tourism activities.

E. The areas of the lord-lieutenants should be re-aligned to the 39 historic Counties (with a separate lord-lieutenant for each of the 3 Ridings of Yorkshire).

F. A County Trust should be established for each of the 39 Counties (with a separate Trust for each of the 3 Ridings of Yorkshire). Each Trust should have three key functions:

i. to maintain the historical records relating to the County
ii. to support the office of the lord-lieutenant of the County
iii. to represent the interests of the County, and the many County-based organisations, on the relevant regional cultural consortium/a.

These key functions should be supported by central government grant. The first 2 of these functions would be provided more efficiently by a single County Trust than by a joint committee of local authorities. The Trusts should also have a wider role in promoting the arts, tourism, sport, heritage, recreation, wildlife and countryside, and general "quality of life" issues within their County. The Trusts should be free to raise additional funds via donations, sponsorship, public subscription etc for these activities.

G. There should be a strictly limited review of regional boundaries with the sole term of reference that each of the 39 Counties be brought wholly within one region or another.

1. Introduction - the Role of the Thirty-Nine Counties in the National Life

1.1 The 39 historic Counties of England (see Map 1) are fundamental to our culture. Older than cathedrals, more historic than stately homes, Counties like Cornwall, Norfolk, Westmorland and Dorset are basic to our life. Our history has been played out within these Counties. Many people have a strong sense of identity with their own County and with the Counties generally. Innumerable sporting, social and cultural activities and organisations are based upon them. Above all else the Counties are places - places where people live and 'come from', where they 'belong'.

1.2 But the Counties also give us something else. Like every country England needs a stable geography - a set of commonly accepted names and areas for communication between people in all walks of life: business, education, tourism, the media etc. Their great ages have made the 39 Counties an indelible part of the geography of England. To know which County a particular village, town or city is in is literally to know "where it is". The historic Counties still form a popular geographical framework more widely recognised than that provided by modern local government. They are referred to countless times a day in everyday speech throughout England. Media references to the historic Counties abound in news reports, weather reports, sports commentaries, dramas, documentaries, light entertainment etc.. The historic Counties are an acceptable part of all UK postal addresses and included in the Royal Mail's Postcode Address File.

1.3 The historic Counties are also major tourist destinations. When tourists decide to visit Devon, Dorset, Kent, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Sussex etc. it is the historic County they wish to visit, not any local government area. This tourism is encouraged by the large literature that focuses on the historic Counties. General guides to the Counties abound. More specific guides can be found describing the bird or animal life, flora, archaeology, historic houses etc. of each County. The Encyclopaedia Britannica contains a detailed article on each County. Millions of Britons study family history. Many of them will travel hundreds of miles each year to visit the places where their ancestors lived. Thousands of overseas visitors, particularly from the USA and Commonwealth countries, also come to Britain to follow up their family history research on the ground. To family historians, the geography of the historic Counties is the one that matters.

1.4 Despite all this, the identities of the 39 Counties and their place on the national life are under threat. From 1888 until the early 1960s local government areas in England were closely based upon the 39 historic Counties. Successive local government reorganisations have now broken this link over much of the country: a modern local government map bears little resemblance to the historic Counties. The Government has always maintained that local government changes do not affect the Counties themselves. Despite such re-assurances, the tendency for the media, map-makers, publishers etc. to use local government areas as a basis for geography has obscured the identities of the Counties. In fact, local government names and areas change so frequently that they are totally unsuitable for such a general geographical purpose. Surely we cannot be expected to re-learn our whole notion of "where places are" every 20 years or so? Neither should we be robbed of our cultural inheritance. There really is no need for it. The 6 Counties of Northern Ireland have no role in local government but are used by everyone as the basis of its geography.

1.5 The idea of regional government does not in itself present a threat to the historic Counties. However, certain aspects of the White Paper's proposals do threaten to further undermine the historic Counties and could even lead to their ultimate obliteration from the public consciousness. In Section 2 of this submission we outline the history of the threats to the identities of the historic Counties, primarily from previous local government legislation. In Section 3 we detail the specific further threats posed by some of the proposals of the White Paper. Finally, in Section 4 we present several proposals that would safeguard the identities of the Counties and preserve their place in the national life for future generations, whilst enabling local and regional government to operate effectively without being seen to impinge on traditional County loyalties.

Map 1. The Thirty-Nine Counties of England

2. A Brief History of the Threat to the Identities of the 39 Counties

2.1 Prior to 1888, there was no confusion as to what a County was or which County a particular town or village was in. Most of the Counties of England pre-date the Norman conquest. While each County may have originally been set up for some public purpose or other, long before the beginning of the nineteenth century it was their geographical identity that was paramount. No single administrative function defined them. Rather, the Counties were considered to be territorial divisions of the Country whose names and areas had been fixed for many centuries and were universally known and accepted. The Counties were clearly recognised legal entities. Numerous Acts of Parliament used them as the geographical framework for various administrative functions (lord-lieutenants, sheriffs, parliamentary seats etc.).

2.2 The Ordnance Survey Act (1841) enabled the OS to "mere" (i.e. ascertain and map) the numerous and diverse public boundaries relevant at that time. Prior to the survey most of these boundaries, including those of the Counties, were known only "by repute" since few had been explicitly set down in any statute. The OS finished its first full survey of England and Wales in 1888. The 1:2500 and 1:10560 "first edition" maps that resulted from this survey provide the definitive record of the boundaries of the 39 Counties of England.

2.3 The era of modern local government began with the Local Government Act 1888 (LGA 1888). Whereas previously acts had directly utilised the historic Counties for certain administrative purposes, this Act created a whole new set of statutorily defined administrative areas in England and Wales, terming them "administrative counties" and "county boroughs". Each administrative county was to have an elected "county council" which was given certain administrative duties. The Local Government Act 1896 created a set of rural and urban district councils within each administrative county and, thus, the familiar two-tier system of local government was created.

2.4 The areas of the administrative counties were defined by the LGA 1888 in terms of the historic Counties. The Counties provided the boundaries for the administrative counties with the following provisos:

(i) Separate administrative counties were created for each of the Ridings of Yorkshire, the parts of Lincolnshire, the east and west divisions of Sussex, the east and west divisions of Suffolk, the Isle of Ely and the residue of Cambridgeshire, and for the Soke of Peterborough and the residue of Northamptonshire.
(ii) The area of the Metropolis, excluding the city of London, was created a separate administrative county called "London".
(iii) About 60 boroughs were deemed to be "county boroughs" and to not lie in any administrative county. The county borough council had responsibility for all local government functions in these areas.

2.5 The new administrative areas also became the basis for the definition of the areas of the ceremonial offices of lord-lieutenants and sheriffs. With two exceptions (Stockport and Bristol) the LGA 1888 defined the areas of these offices to be that of an "administrative county with associated county boroughs". So the lord-lieutenant of Warwickshire had jurisdiction over the combined area of the administrative county of "Warwickshire" and the county boroughs of "Birmingham" and "Coventry". A ceremonial County of London was created from the combined area of the administrative county of London and the City of London. Aside from this, the ceremonial areas were very similar to the historic Counties. Subsequent changes to local government areas led to small divergences in area between the historic Counties and their administrative county namesakes.

2.6 The LGA 1888 did not abolish or alter the historic Counties themselves. The Census Office's General Report of 1891 carefully distinguished between what it dubbed the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" and the new "administrative counties". It made it clear that the two were distinct entities and that the former still existed. No subsequent Act has ever tried to alter or abolish the Counties; their continued existence has been reaffirmed consistently by the Government. What is true is that they are no longer used as the basis for any major form of public administration. In 1917 parliamentary constituencies were redrawn and based on the administrative counties. This was the end of the last major administrative use to which the historic Counties were directly put. They remain important cultural and geographical entities. Their boundaries, mered by OS in the 19th century, are still the ultimate definition of large parts of modern local government boundaries.

2.7 Following the LGA 1888, the OS began to denote the areas of the lord-lieutenants under the label "county" on its "second edition" maps, although the historic Counties were still noted under the label "parliamentary county" (until 1917). After 1945, OS adopted its own term "geographical county" to denote the lieutenancy areas. Aside from the County of London, the OS's "geographical counties" were very close matches to the historic Counties. The "County of London" itself posed little threat to the County identities of its constituent parts of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. In this way, the general County-based geography of England was tied in with the local government system and a sense of continuity of areas and identities maintained. Since 1965, however, successive major local government reforms have radically altered the local government system of England and, almost as a by-product, shattered the traditional County-based geography of England.

2.8 The first major reform was the London Government Act 1963. This Act created the "London boroughs" and their councils. The Act also gave a formal statutory definition to "Greater London", defining it to be the sum of the areas of the London boroughs, the City of London and the Inner and Middle Temples. The Act also created the "Greater London Council" (GLC). The Act explicitly abolished the administrative county of "Middlesex" and curtailed the areas of the administrative counties of "Surrey", "Essex" and "Kent". No mention was made of the historic Counties of these names. Despite this, the myth that Middlesex had been abolished was created: maps were altered, boundary signs taken down and so on. Notably, the Post Office did not alter its "postal counties" in response to the Act. Those metropolitan parts of Surrey, Essex, Middlesex and Kent outside the "LONDON" postal area were allowed to keep their historic County in their postal address.

2.9 Major local government change throughout the rest of England was created by the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972). The LGA 1972 explicitly abolished all of the remaining administrative counties and county boroughs created by the LGA 1888 and created a whole new set of local government areas. To quote from the LGA 1972: "1 (1) For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts."

2.10 A major fault of this Act was the unqualified use of the word "county" (rather than the LGA 1888's "administrative county") to describe its top-tier local government areas. It is clear from this extract that these "counties" are nothing more nor less than "local government areas" which are "to be known as counties" and which exist "for the administration of local government". The word "county" is a label within the terminology of the Act referring to the top-tier local government areas defined by it. Nonetheless, the unqualified use of this word has contributed much to the false perception that these areas were not just for administration but were also intended as a replacement for the historic Counties in a broader cultural and a geographical sense. In fact, whilst the LGA 1972 explicitly abolished all the administrative counties it said nothing about the historic Counties. The Government confirmed that this was because these were unaffected by the Act: "The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ...local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." DoE Statement 1st April 1974

2.11 Whilst the LGA 1972 did not directly affect the 39 Counties, indirectly it has had a catastrophic effect on their identities. The administrative counties and, more particularly, the ceremonial areas of the LGA 1888 had been closely based upon the 39 historic Counties. The LGA 1972's "counties" were, in many areas, radically different. Section 1(2) of the LGA 1972 subdivides the "counties" of this Act into "metropolitan counties" and "non-metropolitan counties". The "metropolitan counties" (i.e. "Greater Manchester", "West Midlands", "West Yorkshire", "South Yorkshire", "Tyne and Wear" and "Merseyside") bear no relation to any historic County. Many of the "non-metropolitan counties" created by the Act as originally passed were also not based on any historic County (e.g. "Cumbria", "Avon", "Humberside"etc.). Others bore the name of a historic County despite having a radically different (usually much smaller) area (e.g. "Somerset", "Lincolnshire" etc.). Furthermore, the LGA 1972 tied the areas of the ceremonial offices of sheriffs and lord-lieutenants to the new local government "counties". The Act also directed that the areas of its "counties" be mered by the OS. Map 2 shows the LGA 1972's "counties" of England.

Map 2. The "counties" of the Local Government Act 1972 (as passed)

2.12 The OS began to mark the new areas by the unqualified label "county" on its maps. Other publishers of maps and guidebooks followed suit. The new councils erected road-signs marking the boundaries of their areas and took down most of the road signs showing the boundaries of the historic Counties. The Post Office even amended many of its "postal counties" to reflect the new local government areas: Avon, Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Merseyside, Cumbria etc. all became required parts of postal addresses, although in other parts of England the Post Office paradoxically stuck with the historic County names (e.g. Middlesex, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, parts of Lancashire).

2.13 Whilst publishers, the media etc. may have adopted the LGA 1972's "counties", many people were deeply unhappy with the new areas. Their discontent sprang from the perception that these new areas had replaced a cherished historic County. Whilst technically the historic Counties continued to exist, this existence counted for little given the overwhelming prominence that the new local government "counties" assumed. As a result many of the new local authorities never managed to obtain the level of public support necessary to ensure their long-term survival.

2.14 First to go were the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. These were abolished by the Local Government Act 1985. All local authority functions in these areas were devolved to the "London boroughs" and the "metropolitan district councils". However, this Act did not actually abolish "Greater London" or the "metropolitan counties" themselves.

2.15 Next, the Local Government Act 1992 created a mechanism for the revision of the local government structure throughout England. A Local Government Commission made recommendations to the Secretary of State who then enacted those with which he agreed via Statutory Instruments. The main result of this process has been the creation within England of 46 local government areas that have only one council with responsibility for all local government functions. Confusingly, there are three different ways in which this has been done:

(i) There are now 39 LGA 1972 "counties" which have only a single district that has the same name and area as the "county". In these cases there is a "district council" but no "county council".
(ii) The LGA 1972 "county" of "Berkshire" still exists but it has no "county council". All administrative functions have been devolved to the 6 "district councils".
(iii) The LGA 1972 "county" of the "Isle of Wight" has no "district councils". The sole council (known as the "Island Council") is the "county council".

2.16 These 46 areas are often collectively referred to as "unitary authorities", although this expression has no statutory definition. Most of the new "unitary authorities" result from large towns and cities being removed from the 1972 Act's "county" in which they had lain. In the process, 4 of the 1972 Act's original "counties" were completely abolished: Avon, Cleveland, Humberside, Hereford & Worcester. It is no coincidence that (apart from the metropolitan counties and Cumbria) these "counties" presented the starkest conflict with traditional County identities.

2.17 The LGA 1992 allows the Secretary of State to make amendments to the area of jurisdiction of the ceremonial offices of sheriffs and lord-lieutenants, consequent upon changes in local government structure. To some extent this has led to a return to the pre-1974 situation where a ceremonial officer may have jurisdiction over a combination of local government areas. These changes were later codified in the Lieutenancies Act 1997. The areas of the lord-lieutenants are now often known as "ceremonial counties", although this phrase has no statutory definition. In most cases, this has simply meant that towns and cities that are now "unitary authorities" remain in the same "ceremonial county" as they were in prior to the change in local government structure (e.g. the "unitary authority" of "Derby" is in the "ceremonial county" of "Derbyshire").

2.18 In a few cases, this has been used more imaginatively to produce a "ceremonial county" more in keeping with historic County identities (e.g. the "ceremonial counties" of "Somerset", "Gloucestershire" and "Lincolnshire" are closer matches to the historic Counties than are the LGA 1972 "counties" of these names). In general though, this has not led to a return to the pre-1965 situation where the ceremonial areas were close matches to the historic Counties, not least because the "metropolitan counties" and "Greater London" are still used as "ceremonial counties". In fact over 40% of the population of England lives in a "ceremonial" county with a different name from that of their historic County. The continued use of the word "county" to describe these areas adds a further layer of confusion to that caused by its use as a label for local government areas.

2.19 Despite the very limited improved match between historic Counties and the "ceremonial counties", the overall effect of the local government reorganisation of the 1990s has been to produce a massive further erosion of the identity of the 39 historic Counties. Few publishers take any notice of the "ceremonial counties". This practice has been led by the OS, which marks each new "unitary authority" separately on its maps and not as part of its "ceremonial county". Thus, "the nation's map-maker" solemnly depicts areas labelled "North Somerset" and "North Lincolnshire" outside its depictions of "Somerset" and "Lincolnshire" respectively. The OS has also stopped marking the "metropolitan counties" and "Greater London" and, instead, just marks the metropolitan districts and London boroughs. The result is that the "standard" map of England now consists of 151 local government areas (see Map 3). The absurdities of trying to use Map 3 as a basis for general-purpose geography are plain enough. Many of these areas are unfamiliar to the public and are unlikely to ever become familiar. Only a minority of them now has any basis in an area of historic or cultural significance. The "unitary authorities" create particular problems. To describe Blackpool as being "in Blackpool" is nothing less than absurd!

2.20 The original idea of the LGA 1888 was to use the historic Counties as the basis for the (then) new idea of local government with elected councils. This may have worked to the benefit of local government and the continued identities of the 39 Counties until the early 1960s. Since then, successive local government reformers have clearly believed that many of the historic Counties are unsuitable as a basis for efficient modern local government areas. Sadly, the word "county" has continued to be used to describe local government areas that, in most cases, are now nothing like any County. This, coupled with the trend to try to use local government areas as a basis for general-purpose geography, has totally undermined the identities of the historic Counties and led to a situation where England has no single, useable, popularly understood geographical framework. A comparison of Maps 1, 2 and 3 shows how we have come from certainty to chaos in a little over 100 years. Unfortunately, several of the proposals of the White Paper could make this situation even worse. We consider these in Section 3.

Map 3. Present local government areas of England

A. LGA 1972 "counties" with a county council and several district councils

B. The City of London (see inset map)

C. The Inns of Court (not shown on map)
The Inner Temple
The Middle Temple

D. London Boroughs (see inset map)

E. Metropolitan Districts

F. Districts within an LGA 1972 "county" which has no county council but several district councils:
69 Bracknell Forest
70 Reading
71 Slough
72 West Berkshire
73 Windsor & Maidenhead
74 Wokingham

G. LGA 1972 "county" with county council but no district councils
75 Isle of Wight

H. LGA 1972 "county" with 1 district and no county council

3. Implications of Regional Governance for the 39 Counties

3.1 A.B.C has no view about the desirability or otherwise of moves towards regional governance or the setting up of regional assemblies. However, there are several aspects of the White Paper's proposals which we feel will have a profoundly negative impact on the identities of the 39 Counties of England. We discuss these in turn:

Implications of further local government reorganisation
3.2 Chapter 9 of the White Paper deals with the process needed for the introduction of a regional assembly in a particular region. A pre-requisite for the introduction of a regional assembly will be introduction within the region of a local government system comprised entirely of "unitary authorities". In areas that at present have a two-tier local government system (i.e. a "county council" and several "district councils"), the top-tier area (i.e. that of the "county council") will probably be considered too large to form the basis of a new "unitary authority". However, with the exception of Cumbria, these are just those local government areas that are generally still fairly closely linked to a historic County. Whilst not technically true, the abolition of these areas will seem to many like the abolition of their historic County. Consider Devon. Following the 1990s local government reorganisation, the OS marks the districts of "Torbay" and "Plymouth" separately from its "Devon", because they are now "unitary authorities". If the rest of the LGA 1972 "county" of "Devon" were split into "unitary authorities", the OS would no longer mark anything called "Devon" on its maps. No doubt the new authorities would take down the Devon boundary signs and to all the world it would appear as though Devon had been abolished. Retaining the "ceremonial county" of "Devon" would prove irrelevant, given that the "ceremonial counties" are largely ignored by the publishing world and the media.

3.3 The full introduction of regional assemblies will therefore mean the final eradication of local government areas based upon the historic Counties. This would form a logical conclusion to the process that has been ongoing since the London Government Act 1963, i.e. the final breaking of that link (created by the LGA 1888) between local government and the historic Counties. Unless some other means is created of maintaining the integrity and identity of the historic Counties, then the implications of this for the identities of the Counties and their role in the national life are obvious and dire.

3.4 The creation of a completely unitary system of local government would also further exacerbate the problem of geographical chaos. Consider Map 3, the OS's current standard map of England. Now imagine all the remaining two-tier (yellow) areas split into several unitary authorities. How are the media, publishers, map-makers etc. supposed to make anything sensible from this ?!

Consequences for the maintenance of local historical records
3.5 The historic Counties are the bedrocks of the local history of England. Consequently, a wealth of historical documents are based upon the County system: parish records, parish registers of baptisms, marriages and deaths, Quarter Sessions records, manorial records, taxation records etc. The interests of efficiency, clarity for users, and plain common sense dictate that the historical records relating to each historic County should be maintained as a whole by a single body.

3.6 Over the last fifty years local authorities have been given responsibility for the collection, care and maintenance of local historical records. When local government was closely based upon the historic Counties then a sensible system could be maintained whereby the records for each historic County could be collected into a single "county record office". This duty of care for local historical records still lies with local authorities, despite the fact that only a minority of local authority areas now have any similarity to a historic County. Most local authorities have decided to care only for historical records from the area covered by authority itself, even if that area does not match a historic County. For example, Dorset County Council, Poole Borough Council and Bournemouth Borough Council maintain a joint record office (called "Dorset Archives Service") that includes the records of the combined area of these authorities, despite the fact that many of these records relate to the historic County of Hampshire. As another example, Lancashire Record Office holds records relating to the whole of the historic County of Lancashire for some classes of record only. For other classes, it holds records relating only to Lancashire County Council's area: the other records have been moved to Merseyside Record Office, Greater Manchester Record Office and Cumbria Record Office. These are just 2 examples of the pointless confusion that has been caused by making local authorities responsible for local historical records.

3.7 The abolition of the remaining two-tier authorities will throw this already confused situation into further turmoil. Presumably groups of unitary authorities will be expected to jointly run an archive service (which may not even cover an area related to any historic County) with all the inefficiencies that such joint arrangements inevitably entail. Alternatively each unitary authority will maintain its own archive service. Such a fragmentation of local historical records would be totally absurd.

The regional basis of the arts, tourism, sport and cultural activities
3.8 Whilst ABC has no particular view on the desirability of most of the proposed functions of the regional assemblies, we do have a concern about the proposed role that the assemblies would play in cultural activities, including the arts, tourism and sport (Sections 4.39 to 4.44 of the White Paper). For example, Section 4.40 says that: "An elected assembly will fund, sponsor, and lead the regional cultural consortium. The cultural consortium will draw up a regional cultural strategy - encompassing tourism, arts and sport - for agreement with, and publication by, the assembly."

3.9 The proposed regions are not, by the Government's own admission, areas which have a distinct historic or cultural identity. ABC fears that the assemblies will use their powers in this area to try to promote a corporate image for their region. Whilst in areas such as economic development, training, housing, planning etc. such a regional corporate image may be appropriate, we do not consider this to be so in cultural, sporting or tourism matters. Our major concern is that our historic Counties (which are real historic and cultural institutions) will be by-passed. Surely the "brand" of the region will predominate in tourist literature and the basis of tourist organisations? Sports clubs and societies may be encouraged to develop a region-based organisation. This is a particular problem since there is no single voice on the regional cultural consortia which can represent the traditional County-basis of such activities.

3.10 This problem will be compounded by the proposed boundaries of some regions (Chapter 6 of the White Paper). Several of the historic Counties are to be split between two or more regions. Yorkshire and Middlesex will lie in three different regions! If a County is split between two or more regions then the setting up of regional assemblies and the likely basis of the activities of other organisations (both governmental and non-governmental) upon the regions is inevitably going to conflict with ABC's aim to maintain the integrity of these Counties as a basis for cultural, sporting, social and tourism activities. For example, if the administration and funding of sporting activities is based upon the regions then there will be an inevitable tendency for the geographical basis of these sporting activities to be adjusted so as to fall within these boundaries. It will be very hard for organisations that cover the whole of these Counties to obtain uniform levels of funding when some constituent parts lie under different funding bodies/offices to others.

3.11 Unless these issues are addressed, then many people will develop a disposition against elected regional assemblies because they will see such assemblies as a threat to their traditional County identities. Indeed, it is inevitable that much of the opposition to elected regional assemblies will focus on the notion that their establishment will require the "abolition" of many traditional Counties. Important issues such as the role assemblies could play in transport, planning, economic development etc. could form a minor part of the debate, despite these being the main proposed responsibilities of the assemblies.

4. ABC's Proposals to Safeguard the Identities of the 39 Counties

4.1 In Section 2 we examined the history of the present crisis in the identities of the 39 Counties of England. In Section 3 we discussed several areas of the White Paper that will lead to a further blow to the role of the Counties in the national life. In this section we provide a set of proposals that would mitigate these threats and give the Counties the proper recognition and status that we feel is appropriate.

4.2 The link between local government and the historic Counties that existed from 1888-1965 has now been broken throughout much of England. The introduction of assemblies and the move to total unitary local government will break this link throughout the whole Country. This need not necessarily be a bad thing for the historic Counties, provided a new way is found of maintaining the integrity and identity of the Counties.

4.3 Our broad aim is to create a sustainable solution whereby the 39 historic Counties of England are able to persist as cultural and social institutions and as the basis of our popular, general-purpose geography, whatever the administrative arrangements of the day. Administrative changes can then take place without people having to have their traditional loyalties offended. We make 7 proposals that would effectively create such a set-up.

4.4 The implementation of these proposals prior to moves towards elected regional assemblies would remove the perceived threat to our historic Counties from regional governance and, in consequence, make the whole notion of regional assemblies more palatable to the many people with traditional County loyalties. The debate over regional governance could then focus on the desirability or otherwise of having elected assemblies to undertake the proposed administrative functions. Our proposals follow.

A. Reform of Local Government Terminology
4.5 Local Government terminology needs to be reformed both to make it logical and consistent and in order to make clear the distinction in kind between local government areas and the 39 Counties. A reference to Map 3 reveals what a bizarre mix of terminology and legal status the various local government bodies of England have. ABC's main bugbear, of course, is the unqualified use of the word "county" to describe local government areas. We suggest that:

(i) the remaining two-tier areas are re-labelled "administrative counties" (as the pre-1974 two-tier areas were) so as to make it clear that these are administrative areas which, though generally closely based on an historic County, are not the County itself.
(ii) Outside the administrative counties, local government should consist of single tier areas called "unitary districts", "metropolitan districts" or "London boroughs" (as appropriate). This would mean abolishing the "county" level of the "unitary authorities" and abolishing the "metropolitan counties".

4.6 The process of the implementation of more "unitary authorities" prior to the introduction of a regional assembly can then take place in a comprehensible structure with "unitary districts" replacing "administrative counties". This would also help make it clear that the abolition of an "administrative county" did not mean the abolition of a County itself.

B. A consistent system of boundary signing for the 39 Counties
4.7 A uniform type of boundary sign needs to be devised which will mark the boundaries of the 39 historic Counties wherever these cross major roadways and waterways. A set of such signs of a uniform type will help to make clear the distinction between the Counties and local government areas. We have submitted a Proposal to the ongoing consultation process on the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) along these lines. Our suggestion is that a white-on-brown tourist sign with the words "Historic County of" above the County name would be appropriate. Signs of a similar nature already exist for some Counties (see Figure 1 for a Scottish example). The use of tourist signs is appropriate since the Counties are major tourist destinations and this will also draw a clear distinction between these signs and local government boundary signs.

Figure 1. A local government boundary sign on the A90 marking the boundary of the area administered since 1996 by Aberdeenshire Council, along with a white-on-brown tourist sign marking the boundary of the historic County of Kincardineshire. The use of a tourist sign and the inclusion of the word "Historic" make clear the different nature of the two areas.

C. A duty on the OS to mark the 39 Counties
4.8 The Counties should form the major areas marked on larger scale OS maps. Local government areas may also be marked, although, as more and more "unitary authorities" are created the relevance of these on large-scale general maps will become increasingly unclear.

D. A duty on assemblies and other government bodies to recognise the historic Counties as a basis for arts, culture, sport and tourism
4.9 We outlined above our fears of allowing the assemblies wide powers in the areas of the arts, culture, sports and tourism. We are also concerned that other government organisations that base their activities on the regions (e.g. Sport England) will wish to see a regionalisation of sporting, tourism and cultural activities. This is a particularly acute problem for those Counties that are currently split between regions.

4.10 We, therefore propose that a specific duty be placed on governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, including the assemblies when finally created, to recognise the importance of the 39 Counties as cultural institutions and to have due regard to them in matters relating to the organisation and funding of sports, arts, cultural and tourism activities.

E. Lord-lieutenants' areas to be re-aligned with the 39 historic Counties.
4.11 The areas of the lord-lieutenants should be re-aligned with the 39 historic Counties, with a separate lord-lieutenant for each of the 3 Ridings of Yorkshire (the ancient city of York being considered part of the East Riding for this purpose). This would see a return to the pre-1965 situation where the "ceremonial counties" were closely matched to the historic Counties. If this is not possible then the word "county" should no longer be used to describe the lord-lieutenants areas.

F. The establishment of County Trusts.
4.12 An official "County Trust" should be established for each of the 39 Counties of England, with a separate Trust being established for each of the Ridings of Yorkshire (the ancient city of York being considered part of the East Riding for this purpose). Each Trust would have three main responsibilities:

(i) to maintain the historical records relating to the County.
(ii) to support the office of the lord-lieutenant of the County.
(iii) to represent the interests of the County, and the many County-based activities and organisations, on the relevant regional cultural consortium/a.

4.13 Each Trust should be supported by a central government grant to perform these 3 key functions. We suggest that the first 2 of these functions could be provided more efficiently and effectively via a County Trust system than by local authorities since a single body would be responsible for each rather than a joint committee of local authorities. There would also be a reduction in the number of lord-lieutenants in England from 49 to 42. The advantage to users such as genealogists and local historians of having local historical records properly organised on an historic County basis are obvious and overwhelming.

4.14 Each Trust should also be given a more general duty to support and encourage County-based social, sporting and cultural activities. The Trust could also have a wider role in promoting the arts, tourism, sport, heritage, recreation, wildlife and countryside, and general "quality of life" issues within their County, as well as supporting local charities. To pursue these other activities the Trust should be free to raise additional revenue from sponsorship, donations, public subscription, merchandising etc.

G. Revision of the boundaries of certain regions.
4.15 We understand that the Government does not wish to launch a full-scale review of regional boundaries. However, we suggest that the Government does need to undertake a strictly limited review of regional boundaries with the sole term of reference that each of the 39 Counties be brought wholly within one region or another. The changes that would need to take place to bring the regions into line with historic County boundaries are relatively few and minor. Given that such moves, along with our other proposed methods of preserving County identities, would surely make the whole idea of regional government more palatable to many people, we suggest that these reforms are made before the beginning of the process of seeking an elected assembly in any region.

4.16 The main changes that would have to be made are:

(1) To prevent historic Lincolnshire being split between "Yorkshire and the Humber" and "East of England", the unitary authorities of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire should be transferred from "Yorkshire and the Humber" to the "East Midlands".

(2) To prevent historic Northamptonshire being split between "East Midlands" and "East of England", the unitary authority of Peterborough should be transferred from the "East of England" region to the "East Midlands". That part of this unitary authority that lies in historic Huntingdonshire should be attached to Huntingdonshire district so that it can remain in the "East of England".

(3) To prevent historic Hampshire being split between the "South East" and "South West" regions, the unitary authority of Bournemouth should be transferred from the "South West" to the "South East" and those parts of historic Hampshire in the districts of East Dorset and Christchurch should be moved to districts wholly in historic Hampshire so that they too can be part of the "South East".

(4) To prevent historic Lancashire being split between "Yorkshire and the Humber" and "North West", that part of the district of Calderdale in historic Lancashire should be moved to a district wholly in historic Lancashire.

(5) To prevent historic Yorkshire being split between "Yorkshire and the Humber", "North East" and "North West" regions: the unitary authorities of Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland should be transferred from the "North East" region to "Yorkshire and the Humber"; those parts of Yorkshire in the districts of Ribble Valley, Pendle, Teesdale, in the unitary authority of Stockton on Tees and in the metropolitan districts of Oldham and Tameside will need to be moved to districts completely in Yorkshire.

(6) The present situation where Essex, Kent and Surrey are split between the "London" region and one other seems irresolvable. Specific provisions should be made to ensure that this does not compromise the integrity of these Counties.

(7) The whole of Middlesex should be brought into the "London" region. Spelthorne district should either be made a unitary authority and added to "London" or this area added to a London borough. The small part of Middlesex in the unitary authority of Slough (i.e. Poyle) should either be added to a new unitary Spelthorne or to the London borough of Hounslow. That part of Middlesex in the Hertsmere district (i.e. Potter's Bar) should be added to the "London" region, either by being added to the London borough of Enfield, or by being included in a new unitary authority or London borough with the Middlesex part of the present London borough of Barnet (see next point).

(8) The whole of historic Hertfordshire should be brought into the "East of England" region. That part of Hertfordshire in the London Borough of Barnet should either be added to a district wholly in historic Hertfordshire (e.g. Hertsmere) or else created a unitary authority in itself. Such a unitary authority could be called "Barnet". The rest of the present London borough of Barnet (i.e. the Middlesex part) could be added to the Potters Bar area to create a new unitary authority or London borough, perhaps called "Southgate".

ABC's Home Page | Meet the Counties | Map | Gazetteer | Postal Directory | FAQ | Links | Join ABC |

Website designed and maintained by the Association of British Counties
Last updated 31st August 2002
Email us at abc@abcounties.co.uk