Talk:Local Government Act 1972

1974 statement

Just came across a section on "traditional Counties" in the Guiness Book of Answers, 9th edition, (1993). It is full of inaccuracies. For instance:

Moreover the 1974 Act (sic!) Stated "The new county councils are solely for defining areas of first-level government of the future; they are administration areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries."

It goes on to say that a review of local government begun in 1992 was likely to result in single-tier councils, and that

"The traditional counties are likely to return for all other purposes."

I've no idea who wrote this, and it gives no sources (maybe because they made it up. It gives areas for the counties in km² and square miles, and I thought it might be the source for the figures, but on conversion to acres they don't match.

Interesting to see factually incorrect information on trad counties from the pre Internet and Wikipedia age. Lozleader 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We must track down that infamous 1974 statement one day. I can state it wasn't a Written Answer in the house made in March or April 1974. Morwen - Talk 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

According to [1], the government made a statement on April 1, 1974 which was quoted in The Times of that day. The person quoting it notes that it "honoured much more in the breach than in any attempt to observe it". Mr Thurnham seems further to be under the delusion that traditional county boundaries were being shown on Ordnance Survey maps prior to 1974. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, compare and contrast

"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." - the ABC's version

"The new county boundaries 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, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties" - the version quoted in Hansard

These are clearly different versions of the same sentence (with one word recapitalised - is that a form of misquoting?). Morwen - Talk 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found the exact quote and added it to the article. The one that was made at the time, and then the one made in 1990 by Michael Portillo, who was Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities when he made it, making it explicitly clear that the "areas" are entirely administrative. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We resolved this in 2006. It's somewhere on a talk page, not sure where. Anyway. Hang on found it... Talk:Historic_counties_of_England/Archive_2#Government_Statements.

New areas are administrative
According to a Department of the Environment official, 
the new county boundaries are solely for the  purpose of defining areas of first-level government of the future:
"They are administrative areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries
 of counties, nor is it intended that ther loyalties of people living in them will change."
Citing Middlesex as an example, he said that although that county had been swallowed up in Greater London in 1965 
and disappeared for governmental purposes, the name still exists for postal and other reasons. 
>"Similarly the broad acres known as Yorkshire will remain unaltered 
despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."

The upshot was there was no government statement, just something attributed to a civil servant (and only the bits in quotes). The bit about about them being solely for the purpose of defining areas of local government was written by the journalist. Whoever briefed Portillo obviously did a poor job.

Incidentally I found this in Hansard for February 20, 1962 (cols 324 - 325) during the debate on the London Government Bill :

Mr McLeod:
Because I know that, although these questions have played only a minor part in the debate, they weigh very heavily in
 people's concern about these problems, I should like first to make it clear, as the Royal Commission and the White Paper
 make it clear, that we are discussing a reform of local government. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says: In general they"— 
that is the Government— wish to emphasise that they propose to make only changes which are needed to achieve their main
 purpose and matters consequential to it. These proposals should not affect any existing cultural, social, sporting or
 other associations or loyalties which may be based on the traditional counties. I have received a considerable number
 of letters saying that these proposals Link to column 325 will, for example, greatly change the County Cricket
 Championship. There has been a County of London by Statute for seventy years. Clearly it is a county for legal purposes, but
 it is made absolutely clear in the laws of cricket that it is not a county for the purposes of cricket.
 [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] 
It should be made quite clear that we are considering here local government alone.

Which of course has nothing to do with the Local Government Act 1972, so probably shouldn't be on this talk page :-) Lozleader (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Portillo statement should not go in the article. If a quote were to go in here, it should summarise the Act and be from someone at the time of the Acts passing. As Portillo had nothing to do with the policy process at the time, what authority is he on its provisions? Also for the purposes of WP:CITE the minority interest group used as the source are not reliable. MRSC • Talk 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Still in force?

Are parts of the 1972 Act still in force?

Could we document this in the article, perhaps?

(Or maybe in a wider-ranging article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of it is still in force (less so in Wales), although parts of it are amended. There may have been some changes in the number and boundaries of counties and districts but they all basically exist in terms of the 1972 legislation (which explicitly abolished the existing units/authorities). The changes in 1986, the 1990s and 2008 were all bolted on to the LGA1972. Probably worth adding a sentence to the lead.

The current version, as amended, is here: [2]Lozleader (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Heath-Walker act"?

At the time (and to date), this act was often referred to as the "Heath-Walker Act" or the "Heath-Walker reforms". See, for example, [3] and [4] (para 3.2). Should we mention this in the article? Tevildo (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Slough

It's always seemed bizarre to me why they moved Slough from Bucks to Berks. Does anyone know why this happened? Epa101 (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You might be more likely to get an answer by asking this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

the Acts List

The list of Acts entitled "Constitutional documents relevant to the status of the United Kingdom and legislative unions of its constituent countries" needs to be updated to include the Local Government Act 1888 and the Local Government Act 1933. I'm not familiar with the macros and stuff in here; I'm more of a physics type. Looking through the various acts that I'm interested in, several do not have that list in them. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)