Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
68
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 20th March 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 20th March 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 20th March 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 20th March 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
20 Mar 2025
20 Mar 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Vice-Chair
Mayor
Committee Member
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Committee Member
Vice Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Ashfield, Chatburn, Connor, Court, Eachus (maternity leave), Ganesh, Ibrahim, Lee, Miller, Perry, Putty, Tomblin, Tustain and K Watts.
Councillor Freeman was absent from the meeting.
Councillor Freeman was absent from the meeting.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Members were informed that in relation to agenda item 9, Local Government Reorganisation, the Monitoring Officer had considered the position in respect of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in relation to councillor allowances for all elected members, and particularly those who were also County Councillors.
Having carefully considered the nature of the interest and the matter for discussion, the Monitoring Officer issued a dispensation to allow those members also elected to the County Council to contribute and vote on the item.
It was considered that all other elected members of the borough council did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of their Basingstoke and Deane councillor allowance and as such did not require a dispensation.
Councillors G James and Mummalaneni declared a personal interest in item 9 on the agenda as members of Hampshire County Council.
Councillor West declared an interest in relation to item 11 on the agenda due to his employment with Luke Murphy MP.
Councillor Harvey declared an interest in relation to item 12 on the agenda as a member of Unison.
Having carefully considered the nature of the interest and the matter for discussion, the Monitoring Officer issued a dispensation to allow those members also elected to the County Council to contribute and vote on the item.
It was considered that all other elected members of the borough council did not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of their Basingstoke and Deane councillor allowance and as such did not require a dispensation.
Councillors G James and Mummalaneni declared a personal interest in item 9 on the agenda as members of Hampshire County Council.
Councillor West declared an interest in relation to item 11 on the agenda due to his employment with Luke Murphy MP.
Councillor Harvey declared an interest in relation to item 12 on the agenda as a member of Unison.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2025
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
To Follow
To Follow
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2024 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Deputy Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
There were no announcements.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 18 March 2025)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 18 March 2025)
Minutes
From: Mr Sanders
To: Leader of the Council
The Paper scheduled for discussion this evening on local government reorganisation raises some interesting and challenging opportunities to improve the quality of local government in our area. In many ways its proposals shadow those put forward in 2016 for the creation of a number of unitary councils to replace the existing structure. It cannot be right that we run local bureaucracy on a structure created more than 50 years ago before the invention of the fax machine, let alone the internet, mobile phone and email.
However, previous work carried out on this subject foundered, not on a lack of willingness to embrace a new world and the changes in it but on the practical and financial impact of those changes on residents. The paper to be discussed tonight is full of good intentions and hoped for outcomes but is largely silent on the practical impact of reorganisation.
Equally, it purports to be putting forward a recommendation shared by all Hampshire councils. However, the supporting paper to its members published by HCC on the 12th March is almost Putinesque in its unwillingness to take a view on any potential unitary structure but clearly makes an ill-disguised self-defence bid for a single unitary based upon HCC, again with a lot of waffle on good intentions but with a marked lack of financial modelling in support.
I recognise there is still much detailed work to be done on the “how” and then “how much?” which is included in the draft timeline. However, there must already be some basic indications which proposals will be worthwhile, that indicate why this is a sensible road to travel but also what potential deal breakers lie ahead. Of these there is only oblique mention in the interim plan.
For instance: a substantial part of this council’s income is from the return made on its investments which has enabled us to have one of the lowest district council taxes in the country. In a new unitary world will that income now be spread evenly throughout the new unitary area, reducing the amount accrued in Basingstoke and Deane. What will be the impact on the amount BDBC residents will be required to pay in council tax?
Over many years, astute management of BDBC assets has enabled the council to fund and improve services through income from acquisitions and disposals. Presumably ownership of these assets will become shared with our neighbouring council areas. How much will this reduce the income residents might have expected to be available for the Basingstoke and Deane area in the future?
Responsibility for adult social care, children’s services, highways and education amongst other services will be transferred from HCC to the new unitary. What is the balance between the income to be transferred from HCC and the costs to be incurred, how are they to be calculated and by whom? Are we taking on any unfunded liabilities?
Are there any liabilities hidden in the current accounts or balance sheets of the councils we will be joining with, and the functions transferred from HCC, that could have a significant effect on the financial viability of local government in our area? Are there any “black holes” that exist now or may be created by reorganisation that we may be required to fill?
There are many other questions centred on hard factual and detailed financial analysis that need to be answered before local residents can take a view on whether any proposed reorganisation, though possibly supportable in principle, is actually good for them, practically and financially. Basingstoke and Deane residents must not be made to pay for benefits accruing to others.
In putting forward their recommendations what are the red lines the administration will lay down against which they will determine whether the final proposal continues to be a benefit for the residents of this borough whose interests they are currently there to safeguard?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and welcome back Clive, it’s good to see you. Just for the benefit of everybody in the room, Gavin, Clive and I and a number of others in this room go back a number of years, and Clive is a former leader of the council, so it’s good to see you here Clive.
Clive, you mentioned 2016 in your question and I think that’s no surprise that the county appear to be dusting off the old playbook when it comes to this debate about devolution and local government reorganisation and in fact the conversation we just had, before we started the meeting, reflected our joint memories of having gone through something like this recently with the county council. The paper this evening reflects the essential position thus far. Now firstly the 15 leaders have been discussing in a series of meetings whether an agreed position was possible, and a set of principles emerged from those meetings. That was until the 12th of March when the county council published their council meeting report. Before that, these principles were the only such principles being discussed. We had made our position very very clear throughout all of those meetings that we believed a full mainland unitary option was preferable and that North Hampshire was a natural economic geography for one of those four councils. The paper this evening sets out the agreed principles amongst those other councils and also sets out our position on the four-mainland council preference and specifically referencing a North Hampshire Council. Now the timetable, the criteria that any proposals will be assessed against and the process we all have to follow has been set down by government. Government have been clear that this is happening across all 21 county areas in the country. So, you’re right Clive, the county council has thought itself very clever to have published its report on the 12th of March and you used the word Putinesque in your question. An interesting word to say the least, given what’s going on. Now I’m going to make a leap of faith Clive, that we haven’t always seen eye to eye, but you and I on this occasion, I think and I’m going to assume, unless you prove me wrong, are actually motivated and we are allies I think in this debate. Which is that the interests of the residents of Basingstoke and Deane are our first and primary responsibility. So, in a process that we’ve not instigated, where we will be done too if we do not take the initiative and shape the field ourselves and working constructively with our partners in Hart and Rushmoor for the North Hampshire Council that is in our residents’ interests, particularly given the alternative that county are now proposing. You astutely identified in the question, the challenges of the process. You are right that much of the detail remains to be worked through. But the best indications despite county’s manipulation of the data is that the natural geography of North Hampshire has a clear identity which will support growth and services relevant to our residents, the size works. There is no getting away from the financial implications as you rightly point out. Taking on social care is a risk. It’s a risk to carry on with the county council that’s going bust. There are examples of councils across the country, smaller unitary councils, that are successful, well-run, and deliver good services. So how we manage our assets will apply across the whole of North Hampshire, because the approach that you speak of, the approach that we’ve taken over many many years also applies and will apply to a significantly bigger asset base. The questions you ask are the same ones that we’re working through diligently with our officer team, and there are more besides, there are more questions besides those that you’ve already posed to us. It’s that hard detailed factual analysis to come that will underpin the principal position because we will now, if we go forward this evening, as Cabinet did on Tuesday night, agreed to do, develop a full, worked up business case that will involve that detailed considerable analysis. And we will require and need the county council to share its data fully, openly and transparently and we expect them to in order that they can facilitate the process that we need to go through to answer the questions that you’ve rightly asked. So, the full submission will be in September. It will contain a fully worked up financial case with evidence to support it and that is something we will be working on and sharing as we go through and that’s I think an important point that we work in partnership with yourselves, with others, parishes, and our public and private sectors. Now there are some red lines and I think a few of these could be, and these are some markers I think we might want to consider at least we do. We always want to work in what is first and foremost in our residents’ best interests, number one. Number two, we hope tonight that we will say no to a county-wide unitary, and yes to a North Hampshire council based on Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane coming together. Three, I think we should be clear that new services will need to be designed and they will involve service transformation. There will be a new approach that we can bring to this agenda. Something I know you worked on, others have worked on, you know back in 2016 when you were fighting the fight, and we will carry on fighting the fight right here right now. That any council must maintain the local connection to our communities, that is an absolute essential priority. And finally, that the natural economic geography for Basingstoke and Deane looks northwards up the M3 corridor, which I think is a very important point. So there is an awful lot more to what you’ve raised tonight Clive. I hope I’ve tried to address at least some of the questions as far as we’ve got thus far but I can assure you, what you said we take seriously and that work will be done as part of the process because we will be submitting something to government that stands up to scrutiny and works. We are going to win this battle for our residents.
Supplementary Question
Where I have a slight problem is that the Government White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation clearly recommends a minimum size of 500,000 for population for a unitary authority. And this was largely based upon the PWC report of 2020 which we all know and love. That report has now been updated at the beginning of March and it shows that if anything, 500,000 is an absolute minimum. If you’re not going to incur extended periods of payback which may never happen and an underlying, ongoing increase in costs for the boroughs or the areas in which you’re operating. That, therefore, that comes back to us, the taxpayer to pay for. So, could the leader therefore explain why he’s recommending already to council that we form part of one of four new unitaries, where the population barely reaches 400,000, which will inevitably lead to an increase in cost to the taxpayer and where one of our partners that we’re joining with is on the verge of bankruptcy. Would it not be better to include Winchester and Andover in the new unitary area, both of which are actually closer to Basingstoke, than I am where I live and inside the borough. So talking about being part of the locality is an important aspect of that. Therefore, can I suggest that instead of just looking at the four option you don’t tie yourself and back yourself into a corner. You look at the three option as well as the four option, which gets you to 650,000 and gives us much greater long term financial security. And I would ask you to think about that when you debate later on. The fact that at the moment, as it stands, you’re asking the council to throw away one possible option which may ultimately be thrown out by government by not being financially viable.
Answer
I’m sorry Clive but we’re going to diverge on this one. This is where we will split our opinions, I’m afraid. You won’t be surprised, I mean the PWC report is a flawed piece of work to begin with. It was developed by the County Councils Network with a very specific job which was to save the county councils. It didn’t look at the problems around transformation, it hasn’t looked at service reform. It has looked at what it can do to make the case to save the county councils around the country. That is not the way to approach this issue. I think the population figure of 500,000 has been a complete red herring because it’s changed every five minutes. The position as we now know clearly, as of last week, from Jim McMahon, the local government minister speaking at the District Council’s Network conference is that councils of 350,000 in population are perfectly acceptable. And in fact there are many examples of many councils around the country that are less than 500,000 in population that run perfectly successful unitary authorities. More so than that actually, those authorities are some of the leading authorities in the country. 500,000 would still put many of those unitaries in the top bracket for being the largest councils in the country. I think it’s in the residents of Basingstoke and Deane’s interest to be part of an authority where we are involved directly with the services, the provisions, the change, and transformation we can make in children’s services and adult social care. The things that we can achieve together that many of our residents have been crying out for many many years, that by working with Hart and Rushmoor and being working with Basingstoke and Deane as we are, we will be far more successful. I don’t agree in terms of the geography. And it’s important that we do state our position. The whole point of this debate is that the county council’s very clear on what it wants. It wants to do away with the districts and to create a super county unitary. They are not mixing their words and nor should we, and that’s why a four-mainland unitary option that involves the two cities and actually splitting up the rest of Hampshire and North Hampshire leading the way in the way that we want to is incredibly important. So, I respect what you’re saying but I disagree, and in terms of the tactics and what we need to do to protect our residents’ best interests I think we’re very clear and we’ve been very clear by making it in this report, clear where we stand by publishing it publicly. Also worth saying our partners are on board with us which I think is important actually. Significant numbers of partners are on board, both public and private sector, in the business community, and in our public sector that a North Hampshire authority in fact makes perfect sense to them and the service transformation we can talk about will make a difference to our residents. So, the work we’ve done thus far has been endorsed by those communities.
To: Leader of the Council
The Paper scheduled for discussion this evening on local government reorganisation raises some interesting and challenging opportunities to improve the quality of local government in our area. In many ways its proposals shadow those put forward in 2016 for the creation of a number of unitary councils to replace the existing structure. It cannot be right that we run local bureaucracy on a structure created more than 50 years ago before the invention of the fax machine, let alone the internet, mobile phone and email.
However, previous work carried out on this subject foundered, not on a lack of willingness to embrace a new world and the changes in it but on the practical and financial impact of those changes on residents. The paper to be discussed tonight is full of good intentions and hoped for outcomes but is largely silent on the practical impact of reorganisation.
Equally, it purports to be putting forward a recommendation shared by all Hampshire councils. However, the supporting paper to its members published by HCC on the 12th March is almost Putinesque in its unwillingness to take a view on any potential unitary structure but clearly makes an ill-disguised self-defence bid for a single unitary based upon HCC, again with a lot of waffle on good intentions but with a marked lack of financial modelling in support.
I recognise there is still much detailed work to be done on the “how” and then “how much?” which is included in the draft timeline. However, there must already be some basic indications which proposals will be worthwhile, that indicate why this is a sensible road to travel but also what potential deal breakers lie ahead. Of these there is only oblique mention in the interim plan.
For instance: a substantial part of this council’s income is from the return made on its investments which has enabled us to have one of the lowest district council taxes in the country. In a new unitary world will that income now be spread evenly throughout the new unitary area, reducing the amount accrued in Basingstoke and Deane. What will be the impact on the amount BDBC residents will be required to pay in council tax?
Over many years, astute management of BDBC assets has enabled the council to fund and improve services through income from acquisitions and disposals. Presumably ownership of these assets will become shared with our neighbouring council areas. How much will this reduce the income residents might have expected to be available for the Basingstoke and Deane area in the future?
Responsibility for adult social care, children’s services, highways and education amongst other services will be transferred from HCC to the new unitary. What is the balance between the income to be transferred from HCC and the costs to be incurred, how are they to be calculated and by whom? Are we taking on any unfunded liabilities?
Are there any liabilities hidden in the current accounts or balance sheets of the councils we will be joining with, and the functions transferred from HCC, that could have a significant effect on the financial viability of local government in our area? Are there any “black holes” that exist now or may be created by reorganisation that we may be required to fill?
There are many other questions centred on hard factual and detailed financial analysis that need to be answered before local residents can take a view on whether any proposed reorganisation, though possibly supportable in principle, is actually good for them, practically and financially. Basingstoke and Deane residents must not be made to pay for benefits accruing to others.
In putting forward their recommendations what are the red lines the administration will lay down against which they will determine whether the final proposal continues to be a benefit for the residents of this borough whose interests they are currently there to safeguard?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and welcome back Clive, it’s good to see you. Just for the benefit of everybody in the room, Gavin, Clive and I and a number of others in this room go back a number of years, and Clive is a former leader of the council, so it’s good to see you here Clive.
Clive, you mentioned 2016 in your question and I think that’s no surprise that the county appear to be dusting off the old playbook when it comes to this debate about devolution and local government reorganisation and in fact the conversation we just had, before we started the meeting, reflected our joint memories of having gone through something like this recently with the county council. The paper this evening reflects the essential position thus far. Now firstly the 15 leaders have been discussing in a series of meetings whether an agreed position was possible, and a set of principles emerged from those meetings. That was until the 12th of March when the county council published their council meeting report. Before that, these principles were the only such principles being discussed. We had made our position very very clear throughout all of those meetings that we believed a full mainland unitary option was preferable and that North Hampshire was a natural economic geography for one of those four councils. The paper this evening sets out the agreed principles amongst those other councils and also sets out our position on the four-mainland council preference and specifically referencing a North Hampshire Council. Now the timetable, the criteria that any proposals will be assessed against and the process we all have to follow has been set down by government. Government have been clear that this is happening across all 21 county areas in the country. So, you’re right Clive, the county council has thought itself very clever to have published its report on the 12th of March and you used the word Putinesque in your question. An interesting word to say the least, given what’s going on. Now I’m going to make a leap of faith Clive, that we haven’t always seen eye to eye, but you and I on this occasion, I think and I’m going to assume, unless you prove me wrong, are actually motivated and we are allies I think in this debate. Which is that the interests of the residents of Basingstoke and Deane are our first and primary responsibility. So, in a process that we’ve not instigated, where we will be done too if we do not take the initiative and shape the field ourselves and working constructively with our partners in Hart and Rushmoor for the North Hampshire Council that is in our residents’ interests, particularly given the alternative that county are now proposing. You astutely identified in the question, the challenges of the process. You are right that much of the detail remains to be worked through. But the best indications despite county’s manipulation of the data is that the natural geography of North Hampshire has a clear identity which will support growth and services relevant to our residents, the size works. There is no getting away from the financial implications as you rightly point out. Taking on social care is a risk. It’s a risk to carry on with the county council that’s going bust. There are examples of councils across the country, smaller unitary councils, that are successful, well-run, and deliver good services. So how we manage our assets will apply across the whole of North Hampshire, because the approach that you speak of, the approach that we’ve taken over many many years also applies and will apply to a significantly bigger asset base. The questions you ask are the same ones that we’re working through diligently with our officer team, and there are more besides, there are more questions besides those that you’ve already posed to us. It’s that hard detailed factual analysis to come that will underpin the principal position because we will now, if we go forward this evening, as Cabinet did on Tuesday night, agreed to do, develop a full, worked up business case that will involve that detailed considerable analysis. And we will require and need the county council to share its data fully, openly and transparently and we expect them to in order that they can facilitate the process that we need to go through to answer the questions that you’ve rightly asked. So, the full submission will be in September. It will contain a fully worked up financial case with evidence to support it and that is something we will be working on and sharing as we go through and that’s I think an important point that we work in partnership with yourselves, with others, parishes, and our public and private sectors. Now there are some red lines and I think a few of these could be, and these are some markers I think we might want to consider at least we do. We always want to work in what is first and foremost in our residents’ best interests, number one. Number two, we hope tonight that we will say no to a county-wide unitary, and yes to a North Hampshire council based on Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke and Deane coming together. Three, I think we should be clear that new services will need to be designed and they will involve service transformation. There will be a new approach that we can bring to this agenda. Something I know you worked on, others have worked on, you know back in 2016 when you were fighting the fight, and we will carry on fighting the fight right here right now. That any council must maintain the local connection to our communities, that is an absolute essential priority. And finally, that the natural economic geography for Basingstoke and Deane looks northwards up the M3 corridor, which I think is a very important point. So there is an awful lot more to what you’ve raised tonight Clive. I hope I’ve tried to address at least some of the questions as far as we’ve got thus far but I can assure you, what you said we take seriously and that work will be done as part of the process because we will be submitting something to government that stands up to scrutiny and works. We are going to win this battle for our residents.
Supplementary Question
Where I have a slight problem is that the Government White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation clearly recommends a minimum size of 500,000 for population for a unitary authority. And this was largely based upon the PWC report of 2020 which we all know and love. That report has now been updated at the beginning of March and it shows that if anything, 500,000 is an absolute minimum. If you’re not going to incur extended periods of payback which may never happen and an underlying, ongoing increase in costs for the boroughs or the areas in which you’re operating. That, therefore, that comes back to us, the taxpayer to pay for. So, could the leader therefore explain why he’s recommending already to council that we form part of one of four new unitaries, where the population barely reaches 400,000, which will inevitably lead to an increase in cost to the taxpayer and where one of our partners that we’re joining with is on the verge of bankruptcy. Would it not be better to include Winchester and Andover in the new unitary area, both of which are actually closer to Basingstoke, than I am where I live and inside the borough. So talking about being part of the locality is an important aspect of that. Therefore, can I suggest that instead of just looking at the four option you don’t tie yourself and back yourself into a corner. You look at the three option as well as the four option, which gets you to 650,000 and gives us much greater long term financial security. And I would ask you to think about that when you debate later on. The fact that at the moment, as it stands, you’re asking the council to throw away one possible option which may ultimately be thrown out by government by not being financially viable.
Answer
I’m sorry Clive but we’re going to diverge on this one. This is where we will split our opinions, I’m afraid. You won’t be surprised, I mean the PWC report is a flawed piece of work to begin with. It was developed by the County Councils Network with a very specific job which was to save the county councils. It didn’t look at the problems around transformation, it hasn’t looked at service reform. It has looked at what it can do to make the case to save the county councils around the country. That is not the way to approach this issue. I think the population figure of 500,000 has been a complete red herring because it’s changed every five minutes. The position as we now know clearly, as of last week, from Jim McMahon, the local government minister speaking at the District Council’s Network conference is that councils of 350,000 in population are perfectly acceptable. And in fact there are many examples of many councils around the country that are less than 500,000 in population that run perfectly successful unitary authorities. More so than that actually, those authorities are some of the leading authorities in the country. 500,000 would still put many of those unitaries in the top bracket for being the largest councils in the country. I think it’s in the residents of Basingstoke and Deane’s interest to be part of an authority where we are involved directly with the services, the provisions, the change, and transformation we can make in children’s services and adult social care. The things that we can achieve together that many of our residents have been crying out for many many years, that by working with Hart and Rushmoor and being working with Basingstoke and Deane as we are, we will be far more successful. I don’t agree in terms of the geography. And it’s important that we do state our position. The whole point of this debate is that the county council’s very clear on what it wants. It wants to do away with the districts and to create a super county unitary. They are not mixing their words and nor should we, and that’s why a four-mainland unitary option that involves the two cities and actually splitting up the rest of Hampshire and North Hampshire leading the way in the way that we want to is incredibly important. So, I respect what you’re saying but I disagree, and in terms of the tactics and what we need to do to protect our residents’ best interests I think we’re very clear and we’ve been very clear by making it in this report, clear where we stand by publishing it publicly. Also worth saying our partners are on board with us which I think is important actually. Significant numbers of partners are on board, both public and private sector, in the business community, and in our public sector that a North Hampshire authority in fact makes perfect sense to them and the service transformation we can talk about will make a difference to our residents. So, the work we’ve done thus far has been endorsed by those communities.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 18 March 2025)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 18 March 2025)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside bodies 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
Councillor McCormick was appointed as a representative on the North Hampshire Area Road Safety Council.
8
Pay Policy Statement 2025/2026
Recommendation from the Human Resources Committee held on 3 March 2025
To approve the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26.
To approve the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26.
Attachments:
- Document Council- 20 March 2025- Pay Policy Statement 2025-26 11 Mar 2025
- Document Appendix 1 - Policy Statement 2025-26 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which proposed the council’s annual Pay Policy Statement for 2025/26 as recommended by the Human Resources Committee.
Resolved: That the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26 be approved.
Resolved: That the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26 be approved.
9
Local Government Reorganisation
Report of the Leader of the Council, Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property, Leader of the Conservative Group and Leader of the Labour Group
Attachments:
- Document Interim Plan LGR Council Report 11 Mar 2025
- Document Appendix 1 LGR invitation to leaders Hampshire Final 11 Mar 2025
- Document Appendix 2 Draft Joint Interim Plan Submission HIOW 11 Mar 2025
- Document Appendix 3 - KPMG summary data set 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which sought endorsement of the decision by Cabinet to approve a Local Government Reorganisation Plan, developed by the 15 councils in the Hampshire and Solent area, for submission to the Government by 21 March 2025. The report further sought Council support for the preferred option for four new unitary councils for mainland Hampshire including a Northern Hampshire Unitary Council encompassing the existing boroughs and districts of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor.
The Leader of the Council proposed a variation to Standing Orders to adjust the length of speeches and use the timings as for the budget sequence, which Council agreed.
The Leader of the Council explained that Government had decided to radically change local government and it was crucial that the authority have a say in how the change would impact the future of local communities and delivery of services. It was an opportunity to transform what local government could do for residents. The Leader referenced a report considered by Hampshire County Council (HCC) advocating a Hampshire wide authority larger than Birmingham and reiterated support for the recommended option for four mainland unitary councils which would deliver better services for residents. The Leader explained the collaborative approach with the other Councils in Hampshire to reach a consensus for a joint interim plan based on a set of agreed guiding principles. Highlighting the financial position and culture of HCC, the Leader advocated for four smaller focused unitary authorities for mainland Hampshire which would be large enough to deliver good services, be financially sustainable and connected to the communities served. He highlighted the benefits and scope of a North Hampshire Unitary Council which was supported by key public sector partners and emphasised the importance of maintaining a democratic connection to communities as a priority.
The Leader of the Conservative Group was invited to speak. He acknowledged the scale of the reorganisation of local government being imposed and recognised that the concerns of residents, communities, parish councils, businesses, charities and partners should not be avoided. He expressed concerns regarding funding for the transition, an inadequate funding model for adult social care and children’s services, housing issues and reduced local decision making in relation to planning matters. He further acknowledged the concerns of local businesses adding they needed support and stability to thrive rather than uncertainty and the impact and uncertainty of reorganisation for charities and sports organisations. He supported the proposal and emphasised the importance of taking the lead to protect residents, the economy, and ecosystem built over generations. He further emphasised the importance of lean effective governance, low council tax, and service delivery to those most in need. The opportunities offered by devolution were recognised however it was noted that large bodies were not always better. He further referenced the proposal for a North Hampshire Authority and the challenges ahead. He expressed support for a fully developed business case, a clear map of boundaries and a strong united voice for the investment needed for economic growth, transport, health and social care. He noted the support by Leaders across the county for the proposal of four new unitary authorities.
The Co-Leader and Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group was invited to speak. Referring to the debate held by HCC and lack of engagement with its members, he clarified that Basingstoke and Deane had considered the options and taken its preferred approach for its residents and encouraged the four unitary model based on the agreed principles. He recognised the complexity of absorbing county services whilst simultaneously merging with neighbouring authorities and the importance of protecting service delivery to those most vulnerable. He further noted the proposal was a first step with further opportunity for research and input into the development of a full business case to be put forward to government in September. He further highlighted HCC’s financial challenges which were unsustainable and the likelihood of an increase to council tax. He recognised reorganisation as an opportunity to review and refresh service provision for the benefits of residents. He emphasised the importance of engagement between Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke to discuss shared priorities and visions to work together as a new North Hampshire Authority and further emphasised the preferred option as the best option for local governance to meet criteria set out by Government. He highlighted the different culture of the three authorities compared to that of HCC. He welcomed the proposal as a starting point for achieving the best outcome for residents.
The Deputy Leader of the Labour Group was invited to speak. The key role of the authority in bringing together the district councils and leading proactively throughout the process was recognised and gratitude was expressed to officers involved in the work to deliver the proposed plan. It was noted that the proposal presented a strong case to government and resolved a long standing issue of inefficiencies of a two tier system. It was also recognised that the proposal for a North Hampshire Authority would strike the right balance in size to maintain local engagement, sustain key services, maintain financial sustainability and local decision making. The confusion caused to residents by the two-tier system was noted. It was acknowledged that the status quo was no longer an option and there was an opportunity for change to deliver outcomes for residents.
The Leader of the Council moved the recommendations and proposed a third recommendation set out below:
That if any minor amendments to the proposed interim LGR plan are agreed by the 15 Council’s, the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council has authority to approve the updated report on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
During the debate that followed, several perspectives were shared and concerns raised which included:
· Concern regarding the fast pace of the process and lack of consultation with residents.
· The work of officers to date and the leadership role to co-ordinate with 14 other authorities was applauded.
· Acknowledgement that simplifying and unifying local government to remove duplication and inefficiencies of the current two-tier system was sensible however the process was not.
· Emphasis regarding the financial position of HCC including the increasing unsustainable costs of adult and children’s care and the financial challenges of reorganisation in the short term and lack of information from government about funding.
· Concern that residents could face future higher council tax costs and have assets striped to support other areas who had not been as financially prudent as BDBC.
· Support for a four unitary authority for Hampshire and concern about the alternative of a large Hampshire wide remote authority with little evidence of effectiveness.
· Concern about the risk of taking decision-making away from local people.
· Emphasis of the need to protect unique communities and distinct economic needs and interests.
· The need to be clear about the size of a North Hampshire Authority to strike the right balance between representation and governance.
· Emphasis of the collaboration and partnership between Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke to create a new North Hampshire Authority.
· Concern that the proposed interim plan failed to address criteria set out by government.
· The success of reorganisation would depend on the financial strength of a new authority.
· Noted that the proposals were a first step in the process of reorganisation and there was further work to do.
· Emphasis on the need to ensure a new authority had the resources to support communities to thrive.
· Noted the confusion caused to residents by the two-tier system.
· Adult social care could be better provided with the NHS.
· Emphasis of the need to initially preserve existing ward boundaries to ensure democratic representation with a view to future boundary reform.
The Leader concluded the debate by thanking members for their contributions and emphasised the importance of ensuring the best interests of residents was at the forefront. He also emphasised the collaborative partnership working with Hart and Rushmoor, a shared vision and direction of travel for a North Hampshire Authority and acknowledged support from the business community across the area. He highlighted the potential opportunities that a North Hampshire Authority could bring to deliver change and better outcomes for residents whilst maintaining community connections. He explained the next stage of the process to consider the financial analysis and service design and shape the final plans in collaboration with partners for better outcomes in the future, whilst still focusing on the day to day delivery of high quality services for residents.
The recommendations were put to a recorded vote with 37 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 2 abstentions. The recommendations were carried.
Resolved: Council
1) Confirm the decision of Cabinet to approve the joint interim plan at appendix 2 for submission to government by the 21 March 2025 deadline.
2) Confirm the decision of Cabinet to advocate and make the case for four new unitary councils for mainland Hampshire including a Northern Hampshire Unitary Council encompassing the existing boroughs and districts of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor.
3) Agree that if any minor amendments to the proposed interim LGR plan are agreed by the 15 Council’s, the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council has authority to approve the updated report on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
The Leader of the Council proposed a variation to Standing Orders to adjust the length of speeches and use the timings as for the budget sequence, which Council agreed.
The Leader of the Council explained that Government had decided to radically change local government and it was crucial that the authority have a say in how the change would impact the future of local communities and delivery of services. It was an opportunity to transform what local government could do for residents. The Leader referenced a report considered by Hampshire County Council (HCC) advocating a Hampshire wide authority larger than Birmingham and reiterated support for the recommended option for four mainland unitary councils which would deliver better services for residents. The Leader explained the collaborative approach with the other Councils in Hampshire to reach a consensus for a joint interim plan based on a set of agreed guiding principles. Highlighting the financial position and culture of HCC, the Leader advocated for four smaller focused unitary authorities for mainland Hampshire which would be large enough to deliver good services, be financially sustainable and connected to the communities served. He highlighted the benefits and scope of a North Hampshire Unitary Council which was supported by key public sector partners and emphasised the importance of maintaining a democratic connection to communities as a priority.
The Leader of the Conservative Group was invited to speak. He acknowledged the scale of the reorganisation of local government being imposed and recognised that the concerns of residents, communities, parish councils, businesses, charities and partners should not be avoided. He expressed concerns regarding funding for the transition, an inadequate funding model for adult social care and children’s services, housing issues and reduced local decision making in relation to planning matters. He further acknowledged the concerns of local businesses adding they needed support and stability to thrive rather than uncertainty and the impact and uncertainty of reorganisation for charities and sports organisations. He supported the proposal and emphasised the importance of taking the lead to protect residents, the economy, and ecosystem built over generations. He further emphasised the importance of lean effective governance, low council tax, and service delivery to those most in need. The opportunities offered by devolution were recognised however it was noted that large bodies were not always better. He further referenced the proposal for a North Hampshire Authority and the challenges ahead. He expressed support for a fully developed business case, a clear map of boundaries and a strong united voice for the investment needed for economic growth, transport, health and social care. He noted the support by Leaders across the county for the proposal of four new unitary authorities.
The Co-Leader and Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group was invited to speak. Referring to the debate held by HCC and lack of engagement with its members, he clarified that Basingstoke and Deane had considered the options and taken its preferred approach for its residents and encouraged the four unitary model based on the agreed principles. He recognised the complexity of absorbing county services whilst simultaneously merging with neighbouring authorities and the importance of protecting service delivery to those most vulnerable. He further noted the proposal was a first step with further opportunity for research and input into the development of a full business case to be put forward to government in September. He further highlighted HCC’s financial challenges which were unsustainable and the likelihood of an increase to council tax. He recognised reorganisation as an opportunity to review and refresh service provision for the benefits of residents. He emphasised the importance of engagement between Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke to discuss shared priorities and visions to work together as a new North Hampshire Authority and further emphasised the preferred option as the best option for local governance to meet criteria set out by Government. He highlighted the different culture of the three authorities compared to that of HCC. He welcomed the proposal as a starting point for achieving the best outcome for residents.
The Deputy Leader of the Labour Group was invited to speak. The key role of the authority in bringing together the district councils and leading proactively throughout the process was recognised and gratitude was expressed to officers involved in the work to deliver the proposed plan. It was noted that the proposal presented a strong case to government and resolved a long standing issue of inefficiencies of a two tier system. It was also recognised that the proposal for a North Hampshire Authority would strike the right balance in size to maintain local engagement, sustain key services, maintain financial sustainability and local decision making. The confusion caused to residents by the two-tier system was noted. It was acknowledged that the status quo was no longer an option and there was an opportunity for change to deliver outcomes for residents.
The Leader of the Council moved the recommendations and proposed a third recommendation set out below:
That if any minor amendments to the proposed interim LGR plan are agreed by the 15 Council’s, the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council has authority to approve the updated report on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
During the debate that followed, several perspectives were shared and concerns raised which included:
· Concern regarding the fast pace of the process and lack of consultation with residents.
· The work of officers to date and the leadership role to co-ordinate with 14 other authorities was applauded.
· Acknowledgement that simplifying and unifying local government to remove duplication and inefficiencies of the current two-tier system was sensible however the process was not.
· Emphasis regarding the financial position of HCC including the increasing unsustainable costs of adult and children’s care and the financial challenges of reorganisation in the short term and lack of information from government about funding.
· Concern that residents could face future higher council tax costs and have assets striped to support other areas who had not been as financially prudent as BDBC.
· Support for a four unitary authority for Hampshire and concern about the alternative of a large Hampshire wide remote authority with little evidence of effectiveness.
· Concern about the risk of taking decision-making away from local people.
· Emphasis of the need to protect unique communities and distinct economic needs and interests.
· The need to be clear about the size of a North Hampshire Authority to strike the right balance between representation and governance.
· Emphasis of the collaboration and partnership between Hart, Rushmoor and Basingstoke to create a new North Hampshire Authority.
· Concern that the proposed interim plan failed to address criteria set out by government.
· The success of reorganisation would depend on the financial strength of a new authority.
· Noted that the proposals were a first step in the process of reorganisation and there was further work to do.
· Emphasis on the need to ensure a new authority had the resources to support communities to thrive.
· Noted the confusion caused to residents by the two-tier system.
· Adult social care could be better provided with the NHS.
· Emphasis of the need to initially preserve existing ward boundaries to ensure democratic representation with a view to future boundary reform.
The Leader concluded the debate by thanking members for their contributions and emphasised the importance of ensuring the best interests of residents was at the forefront. He also emphasised the collaborative partnership working with Hart and Rushmoor, a shared vision and direction of travel for a North Hampshire Authority and acknowledged support from the business community across the area. He highlighted the potential opportunities that a North Hampshire Authority could bring to deliver change and better outcomes for residents whilst maintaining community connections. He explained the next stage of the process to consider the financial analysis and service design and shape the final plans in collaboration with partners for better outcomes in the future, whilst still focusing on the day to day delivery of high quality services for residents.
The recommendations were put to a recorded vote with 37 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 2 abstentions. The recommendations were carried.
Resolved: Council
1) Confirm the decision of Cabinet to approve the joint interim plan at appendix 2 for submission to government by the 21 March 2025 deadline.
2) Confirm the decision of Cabinet to advocate and make the case for four new unitary councils for mainland Hampshire including a Northern Hampshire Unitary Council encompassing the existing boroughs and districts of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor.
3) Agree that if any minor amendments to the proposed interim LGR plan are agreed by the 15 Council’s, the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council has authority to approve the updated report on behalf of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
10
Members' Allowances Scheme 2025 2026
Report of the Head of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Attachments:
- Document Members' Allowances Scheme 2025 2026 11 Mar 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Members Allowances Scheme 2025 2026 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
In accordance with Regulation 10(1) of the Local Authorities (Members Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003, the Council is required to approve the Member Allowances Scheme (“scheme) before the beginning of each municipal year. The report considered by Council sought approval for the scheme for the period 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026.
Resolved: Council agree to:
1) Adopt the scheme of allowances as set out in Appendix 1 of the report for the municipal year 2025/26, effective from 1 April 2025.
2) Apply the pay award agreed for officers on the National Joint Council for Local Government Services terms and conditions to 1 above from 1 April 2025.
3) Delegate authority to the Head of Law and Governance in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer to:
i. take all necessary action to implement 1 and 2 above,
ii. undertake the necessary publicity requirements in relation to the scheme adopted.
iii. update the constitution.
iv. to establish an Independent Remuneration Panel to review the scheme of allowances for implementation of the revised scheme from April 2026.
Resolved: Council agree to:
1) Adopt the scheme of allowances as set out in Appendix 1 of the report for the municipal year 2025/26, effective from 1 April 2025.
2) Apply the pay award agreed for officers on the National Joint Council for Local Government Services terms and conditions to 1 above from 1 April 2025.
3) Delegate authority to the Head of Law and Governance in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer to:
i. take all necessary action to implement 1 and 2 above,
ii. undertake the necessary publicity requirements in relation to the scheme adopted.
iii. update the constitution.
iv. to establish an Independent Remuneration Panel to review the scheme of allowances for implementation of the revised scheme from April 2026.
11
Notice of Motion - Support for Basingstoke and Deane residents under threat of criminalisation following abortion or pregnancy loss
Proposer: Councillor Hart
Seconder: Councillor Basham
For those who access it, abortion is necessary healthcare. It is a safe and common form of healthcare. For most, it is life-changing or life-saving healthcare. But unlike any other form of healthcare, it is part of criminal statute.
The right to abortion is consistently under threat across the globe, and the control of reproductive rights is used to control and subjugate women and girls. That is why abortion must be decriminalised in this country; it must be removed from criminal law and made only a matter of healthcare between a pregnant person and their doctor.
The foundation of the UK’s abortion laws lies in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which was enshrined decades before any women were even permitted the vote. Women accessing this care now do so under the Abortion Act 1967 but this law did not decriminalise abortion: it simply permits it under certain circumstances. Nearly sixty years on, in response to a petition calling for decriminalisation, the Government has stated that it has no current plans to make changes to the law, and their Crime and Policing Bill introduced in February this year did not include any mention of abortion reform. It is therefore clear that we cannot look only to MPs and the Government to protect the women and girls of Basingstoke and Deane; we must seek ways to do so ourselves.
It's vital to note that this motion is not advocating for any change at all in the current healthcare guidelines on abortion limits. It does not ask anyone to abandon any religious or moral viewpoints on abortion. Decriminalisation does not in any way equal deregulation, and the regulations should stay as they are. This motion seeks only to address two things: the protection of the current de facto right to choose, and support for those who are criminalised by the law as it stands, often inadvertently and due to failures in the current system. All current healthcare parameters and safeguards will remain.
Rates of investigation and prosecution of women and girls for ending their own pregnancies are rising nationally. MSI, formerly known as Marie Stopes International, says it knows of up to 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared with almost zero before. Locally, a Freedom of Information request showed Hampshire Police investigated cases of local women procuring illegal abortions in four of the last six years.
Approximately 47,600 Basingstoke and Deane residents are women and girls of child-bearing age. That is over 25% of our town's population, all of whom are at risk of being criminalised by current law.
Dozens of groups and healthcare bodies including the British Medical Association, the Faculty of Public Health, and the Royal Colleges of GPs, Nurses, Psychiatrists, Midwives, Anaesthetists, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have stated that the current legislation is causing trauma and cruelty and demanded legal reform. While these laws stand, and their potential impact on our women and girls is a threat, this Council must find ways to step up to protect Basingstoke and Deane residents from suffering that trauma and that cruelty.
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council should do all in its power to protect the health and well-being of all its residents no matter their circumstances.
2) Abortion is currently illegal in Great Britain except under certain prescribed circumstances.
3) As such, any pregnant person is at risk of being subject to traumatic and damaging investigation and prosecution in the event of pregnancy loss and abortion.
4) Rates of such criminal investigations and prosecutions following pregnancy loss and abortion are increasing.
Council believes:
1) Abortion is a hotly contested issue and campaigns of all kinds opposing access to it are on the rise, including attempts within Government at even stricter access laws.
2) So long as abortion remains illegal, such ongoing global efforts to restrict access to abortion put the right to abortion at risk, and rates of criminal investigation and prosecution will continue to climb.
3) Tens of thousands of Basingstoke and Deane women and girls are of child-bearing age and are therefore at risk of being criminalised by current legislation in the event of pregnancy loss or abortion.
4) As part of our responsibility to advocate for these residents, it behoves this Council to understand what support might feasibly be offered to any who may find themselves in this situation.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Write to MP Luke Murphy and the Secretaries of State for Justice and for Health and Social Care to advocate for the decriminalisation of abortion;
2) Initiate work to investigate, in conjunction with partner agencies and organisations with policy responsibility:
a) What support might be required by Basingstoke and Deane residents who find themselves subject to criminal investigation or prosecution following pregnancy loss or abortion, and;
b) What support this Council and those agencies can reasonably offer to meet that need;
3) If necessary, consider a budget proposal from officers to accomplish this investigation and evaluation;
4) Thereafter consider implementation of any such support.
Seconder: Councillor Basham
For those who access it, abortion is necessary healthcare. It is a safe and common form of healthcare. For most, it is life-changing or life-saving healthcare. But unlike any other form of healthcare, it is part of criminal statute.
The right to abortion is consistently under threat across the globe, and the control of reproductive rights is used to control and subjugate women and girls. That is why abortion must be decriminalised in this country; it must be removed from criminal law and made only a matter of healthcare between a pregnant person and their doctor.
The foundation of the UK’s abortion laws lies in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which was enshrined decades before any women were even permitted the vote. Women accessing this care now do so under the Abortion Act 1967 but this law did not decriminalise abortion: it simply permits it under certain circumstances. Nearly sixty years on, in response to a petition calling for decriminalisation, the Government has stated that it has no current plans to make changes to the law, and their Crime and Policing Bill introduced in February this year did not include any mention of abortion reform. It is therefore clear that we cannot look only to MPs and the Government to protect the women and girls of Basingstoke and Deane; we must seek ways to do so ourselves.
It's vital to note that this motion is not advocating for any change at all in the current healthcare guidelines on abortion limits. It does not ask anyone to abandon any religious or moral viewpoints on abortion. Decriminalisation does not in any way equal deregulation, and the regulations should stay as they are. This motion seeks only to address two things: the protection of the current de facto right to choose, and support for those who are criminalised by the law as it stands, often inadvertently and due to failures in the current system. All current healthcare parameters and safeguards will remain.
Rates of investigation and prosecution of women and girls for ending their own pregnancies are rising nationally. MSI, formerly known as Marie Stopes International, says it knows of up to 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared with almost zero before. Locally, a Freedom of Information request showed Hampshire Police investigated cases of local women procuring illegal abortions in four of the last six years.
Approximately 47,600 Basingstoke and Deane residents are women and girls of child-bearing age. That is over 25% of our town's population, all of whom are at risk of being criminalised by current law.
Dozens of groups and healthcare bodies including the British Medical Association, the Faculty of Public Health, and the Royal Colleges of GPs, Nurses, Psychiatrists, Midwives, Anaesthetists, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have stated that the current legislation is causing trauma and cruelty and demanded legal reform. While these laws stand, and their potential impact on our women and girls is a threat, this Council must find ways to step up to protect Basingstoke and Deane residents from suffering that trauma and that cruelty.
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council should do all in its power to protect the health and well-being of all its residents no matter their circumstances.
2) Abortion is currently illegal in Great Britain except under certain prescribed circumstances.
3) As such, any pregnant person is at risk of being subject to traumatic and damaging investigation and prosecution in the event of pregnancy loss and abortion.
4) Rates of such criminal investigations and prosecutions following pregnancy loss and abortion are increasing.
Council believes:
1) Abortion is a hotly contested issue and campaigns of all kinds opposing access to it are on the rise, including attempts within Government at even stricter access laws.
2) So long as abortion remains illegal, such ongoing global efforts to restrict access to abortion put the right to abortion at risk, and rates of criminal investigation and prosecution will continue to climb.
3) Tens of thousands of Basingstoke and Deane women and girls are of child-bearing age and are therefore at risk of being criminalised by current legislation in the event of pregnancy loss or abortion.
4) As part of our responsibility to advocate for these residents, it behoves this Council to understand what support might feasibly be offered to any who may find themselves in this situation.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Write to MP Luke Murphy and the Secretaries of State for Justice and for Health and Social Care to advocate for the decriminalisation of abortion;
2) Initiate work to investigate, in conjunction with partner agencies and organisations with policy responsibility:
a) What support might be required by Basingstoke and Deane residents who find themselves subject to criminal investigation or prosecution following pregnancy loss or abortion, and;
b) What support this Council and those agencies can reasonably offer to meet that need;
3) If necessary, consider a budget proposal from officers to accomplish this investigation and evaluation;
4) Thereafter consider implementation of any such support.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Hart and seconded by Councillor Basham.
For those who access it, abortion is necessary healthcare. It is a safe and common form of healthcare. For most, it is life-changing or life-saving healthcare. But unlike any other form of healthcare, it is part of criminal statute.
The right to abortion is consistently under threat across the globe, and the control of reproductive rights is used to control and subjugate women and girls. That is why abortion must be decriminalised in this country; it must be removed from criminal law and made only a matter of healthcare between a pregnant person and their doctor.
The foundation of the UK’s abortion laws lies in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which was enshrined decades before any women were even permitted the vote. Women accessing this care now do so under the Abortion Act 1967 but this law did not decriminalise abortion: it simply permits it under certain circumstances. Nearly sixty years on, in response to a petition calling for decriminalisation, the Government has stated that it has no current plans to make changes to the law, and their Crime and Policing Bill introduced in February this year did not include any mention of abortion reform. It is therefore clear that we cannot look only to MPs and the Government to protect the women and girls of Basingstoke and Deane; we must seek ways to do so ourselves.
It's vital to note that this motion is not advocating for any change at all in the current healthcare guidelines on abortion limits. It does not ask anyone to abandon any religious or moral viewpoints on abortion. Decriminalisation does not in any way equal deregulation, and the regulations should stay as they are. This motion seeks only to address two things: the protection of the current de facto right to choose, and support for those who are criminalised by the law as it stands, often inadvertently and due to failures in the current system. All current healthcare parameters and safeguards will remain.
Rates of investigation and prosecution of women and girls for ending their own pregnancies are rising nationally. MSI, formerly known as Marie Stopes International, says it knows of up to 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared with almost zero before. Locally, a Freedom of Information request showed Hampshire Police investigated cases of local women procuring illegal abortions in four of the last six years.
Approximately 47,600 Basingstoke and Deane residents are women and girls of child-bearing age. That is over 25% of our town's population, all of whom are at risk of being criminalised by current law.
Dozens of groups and healthcare bodies including the British Medical Association, the Faculty of Public Health, and the Royal Colleges of GPs, Nurses, Psychiatrists, Midwives, Anaesthetists, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have stated that the current legislation is causing trauma and cruelty and demanded legal reform. While these laws stand, and their potential impact on our women and girls is a threat, this Council must find ways to step up to protect Basingstoke and Deane residents from suffering that trauma and that cruelty.
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council should do all in its power to protect the health and well-being of all its residents no matter their circumstances.
2) Abortion is currently illegal in Great Britain except under certain prescribed circumstances.
3) As such, any pregnant person is at risk of being subject to traumatic and damaging investigation and prosecution in the event of pregnancy loss and abortion.
4) Rates of such criminal investigations and prosecutions following pregnancy loss and abortion are increasing.
Council believes:
1) Abortion is a hotly contested issue and campaigns of all kinds opposing access to it are on the rise, including attempts within Government at even stricter access laws.
2) So long as abortion remains illegal, such ongoing global efforts to restrict access to abortion put the right to abortion at risk, and rates of criminal investigation and prosecution will continue to climb.
3) Tens of thousands of Basingstoke and Deane women and girls are of child-bearing age and are therefore at risk of being criminalised by current legislation in the event of pregnancy loss or abortion.
4) As part of our responsibility to advocate for these residents, it behoves this Council to understand what support might feasibly be offered to any who may find themselves in this situation.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Write to MP Luke Murphy and the Secretaries of State for Justice and for Health and Social Care to advocate for the decriminalisation of abortion;
2) Initiate work to investigate, in conjunction with partner agencies and organisations with policy responsibility:
a) What support might be required by Basingstoke and Deane residents who find themselves subject to criminal investigation or prosecution following pregnancy loss or abortion, and;
b) What support this Council and those agencies can reasonably offer to meet that need;
3) If necessary, consider a budget proposal from officers to accomplish this investigation and evaluation;
4) Thereafter consider implementation of any such support.
The motion was debated. Views expressed were generally supportive of the motion and advocated for change to decriminalise abortion. Concern was raised that the use of council budget and officer resources was not the right approach as abortion legislation was a matter for national government and should be a matter for reform at that level. It was also commented that council support should be focused on those organisations already equipped to support people caught by the legislation and council resources should be used where they could be most effective. An alternative view was that there was limited budget and there was the opportunity to review what services organisations offered and ensure the councils frontline services and community centres had the skills and knowledge to point people in the right direction to seek help. It was highlighted that abortion had been decriminalised in Northern Ireland and there should be parity within the rest of the UK. It was also noted that there was an assumption by the general population that abortion was legal.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 28 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 8 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
For those who access it, abortion is necessary healthcare. It is a safe and common form of healthcare. For most, it is life-changing or life-saving healthcare. But unlike any other form of healthcare, it is part of criminal statute.
The right to abortion is consistently under threat across the globe, and the control of reproductive rights is used to control and subjugate women and girls. That is why abortion must be decriminalised in this country; it must be removed from criminal law and made only a matter of healthcare between a pregnant person and their doctor.
The foundation of the UK’s abortion laws lies in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which was enshrined decades before any women were even permitted the vote. Women accessing this care now do so under the Abortion Act 1967 but this law did not decriminalise abortion: it simply permits it under certain circumstances. Nearly sixty years on, in response to a petition calling for decriminalisation, the Government has stated that it has no current plans to make changes to the law, and their Crime and Policing Bill introduced in February this year did not include any mention of abortion reform. It is therefore clear that we cannot look only to MPs and the Government to protect the women and girls of Basingstoke and Deane; we must seek ways to do so ourselves.
It's vital to note that this motion is not advocating for any change at all in the current healthcare guidelines on abortion limits. It does not ask anyone to abandon any religious or moral viewpoints on abortion. Decriminalisation does not in any way equal deregulation, and the regulations should stay as they are. This motion seeks only to address two things: the protection of the current de facto right to choose, and support for those who are criminalised by the law as it stands, often inadvertently and due to failures in the current system. All current healthcare parameters and safeguards will remain.
Rates of investigation and prosecution of women and girls for ending their own pregnancies are rising nationally. MSI, formerly known as Marie Stopes International, says it knows of up to 60 criminal inquiries in England and Wales since 2018, compared with almost zero before. Locally, a Freedom of Information request showed Hampshire Police investigated cases of local women procuring illegal abortions in four of the last six years.
Approximately 47,600 Basingstoke and Deane residents are women and girls of child-bearing age. That is over 25% of our town's population, all of whom are at risk of being criminalised by current law.
Dozens of groups and healthcare bodies including the British Medical Association, the Faculty of Public Health, and the Royal Colleges of GPs, Nurses, Psychiatrists, Midwives, Anaesthetists, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have stated that the current legislation is causing trauma and cruelty and demanded legal reform. While these laws stand, and their potential impact on our women and girls is a threat, this Council must find ways to step up to protect Basingstoke and Deane residents from suffering that trauma and that cruelty.
Council notes:
1) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council should do all in its power to protect the health and well-being of all its residents no matter their circumstances.
2) Abortion is currently illegal in Great Britain except under certain prescribed circumstances.
3) As such, any pregnant person is at risk of being subject to traumatic and damaging investigation and prosecution in the event of pregnancy loss and abortion.
4) Rates of such criminal investigations and prosecutions following pregnancy loss and abortion are increasing.
Council believes:
1) Abortion is a hotly contested issue and campaigns of all kinds opposing access to it are on the rise, including attempts within Government at even stricter access laws.
2) So long as abortion remains illegal, such ongoing global efforts to restrict access to abortion put the right to abortion at risk, and rates of criminal investigation and prosecution will continue to climb.
3) Tens of thousands of Basingstoke and Deane women and girls are of child-bearing age and are therefore at risk of being criminalised by current legislation in the event of pregnancy loss or abortion.
4) As part of our responsibility to advocate for these residents, it behoves this Council to understand what support might feasibly be offered to any who may find themselves in this situation.
Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Write to MP Luke Murphy and the Secretaries of State for Justice and for Health and Social Care to advocate for the decriminalisation of abortion;
2) Initiate work to investigate, in conjunction with partner agencies and organisations with policy responsibility:
a) What support might be required by Basingstoke and Deane residents who find themselves subject to criminal investigation or prosecution following pregnancy loss or abortion, and;
b) What support this Council and those agencies can reasonably offer to meet that need;
3) If necessary, consider a budget proposal from officers to accomplish this investigation and evaluation;
4) Thereafter consider implementation of any such support.
The motion was debated. Views expressed were generally supportive of the motion and advocated for change to decriminalise abortion. Concern was raised that the use of council budget and officer resources was not the right approach as abortion legislation was a matter for national government and should be a matter for reform at that level. It was also commented that council support should be focused on those organisations already equipped to support people caught by the legislation and council resources should be used where they could be most effective. An alternative view was that there was limited budget and there was the opportunity to review what services organisations offered and ensure the councils frontline services and community centres had the skills and knowledge to point people in the right direction to seek help. It was highlighted that abortion had been decriminalised in Northern Ireland and there should be parity within the rest of the UK. It was also noted that there was an assumption by the general population that abortion was legal.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 28 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 8 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
12
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
From: Councillor Z West
To: Leader of the Council
"At the last meeting of the Human Resources Committee (HR), Labour councillors raised concerns about a proposed change to the Council’s grievance policy, particularly regarding employees’ ability to have a representative present at the early stages of the grievance process.
Following that discussion, the committee agreed that Unison, as the Council’s recognised trade union, would be consulted, and that the proposed change would be dropped if Unison opposed it. It was also agreed that while minor amendments to HR policies could be made by the HR Management team, any major changes would be brought back to the committee.
Following this meeting I would like to understand:
What engagement has taken place with Unison since that meeting? Whether the Council has fully accepted the position of Unison reps on the proposed grievance policy change? Whether Unison suggested any further changes to the Council’s HR policies, and if so, whether those changes are considered minor or major under the terms agreed by the committee?"
Answer
Thank you for the question, Councillor West and highlighting an important point to clarify our position in supporting staff. Council, as an employer has an open and constructive relationship with Unison as the council’s recognised trade union and engages with them on a regular basis through both informal and formal meetings to enable discussion on key matters affecting staff. Two policies were presented at the HR committee, the Grievance Policy and the Procedure and Disability and Accessibility Policy and Procedure. The council has fully accepted the position of the Unison representatives on the specific proposed Grievance Policy change discussed at the HR committee. This makes it clear that staff can have representation from the early informal stages of the grievance procedure. Since the HR committee, Unison representatives have met with senior council officers at their two monthly meeting and discussed the general approach in policy and review. Unison representatives have also met with the Head of HR in an informal meeting and discussed the specific clause discussed at the HR committee and Unison set out their preferred wording which has been accepted by the council. Unison representatives subsequently on Friday last week confirmed via email that they have no further requested comments to make on either policy and were content with the minor changes that have thus been proposed.
To: Leader of the Council
"At the last meeting of the Human Resources Committee (HR), Labour councillors raised concerns about a proposed change to the Council’s grievance policy, particularly regarding employees’ ability to have a representative present at the early stages of the grievance process.
Following that discussion, the committee agreed that Unison, as the Council’s recognised trade union, would be consulted, and that the proposed change would be dropped if Unison opposed it. It was also agreed that while minor amendments to HR policies could be made by the HR Management team, any major changes would be brought back to the committee.
Following this meeting I would like to understand:
What engagement has taken place with Unison since that meeting? Whether the Council has fully accepted the position of Unison reps on the proposed grievance policy change? Whether Unison suggested any further changes to the Council’s HR policies, and if so, whether those changes are considered minor or major under the terms agreed by the committee?"
Answer
Thank you for the question, Councillor West and highlighting an important point to clarify our position in supporting staff. Council, as an employer has an open and constructive relationship with Unison as the council’s recognised trade union and engages with them on a regular basis through both informal and formal meetings to enable discussion on key matters affecting staff. Two policies were presented at the HR committee, the Grievance Policy and the Procedure and Disability and Accessibility Policy and Procedure. The council has fully accepted the position of the Unison representatives on the specific proposed Grievance Policy change discussed at the HR committee. This makes it clear that staff can have representation from the early informal stages of the grievance procedure. Since the HR committee, Unison representatives have met with senior council officers at their two monthly meeting and discussed the general approach in policy and review. Unison representatives have also met with the Head of HR in an informal meeting and discussed the specific clause discussed at the HR committee and Unison set out their preferred wording which has been accepted by the council. Unison representatives subsequently on Friday last week confirmed via email that they have no further requested comments to make on either policy and were content with the minor changes that have thus been proposed.
13
Questions to the Chair of Cabinet and/or a committee
To receive questions from members in relation to the minutes of the meetings detailed below:
Committee
Meeting Date
Environment and Infrastructure
6 February 2025
Audit and Accounts
10 February 2025
Cabinet
11 February 2025
Development Control
12 February 2025
Council
27 February 2025
Committee
Meeting Date
Environment and Infrastructure
6 February 2025
Audit and Accounts
10 February 2025
Cabinet
11 February 2025
Development Control
12 February 2025
Council
27 February 2025
Minutes
From: Cllr Kotecha
To: Chair of Audit and Accounts Committee
Reference the Minutes of the Audit and Accounts Meeting held on 10 February 2025
I would like to ask the chair of Audit and Accounts to give us an update from our last meeting regarding the discussions we’ve had. Thank you.
Answer
Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. Thank you for your question, Councillor Kotecha. It was actually the question of the whole committee. This council delegates responsibility for the approval of its financial statements to the Audit and Accounts Committee of which I am Chair. The 2024 accounts were approved for issue at our meeting in February. However, committee asked me to draw Council’s attention to the fact that this is the second year running where we have had to do so with a disclaimed audit opinion, and the likelihood is of further disclaimed audit opinions in 2025 and possibly 2026. Our 2022/23 audit opinion was disclaimed under government legislation, commonly referred to as the backstop legislation. 2023 was the reset year, designed to reset the audit backlog across the country. You may recall that Councillor Izett asked a question of Councillor James about this in December. At that time, Councillor James said that it may have repercussions for future audits. He was correct because the accounts contain numbers brought forward from previous years. We are now in what is termed the recovery period while we rebuild assurance. Official guidance issued by the regulator, the Financial Reporting Council, sets out that we are likely to have disclaimed audit opinions again in 2025/26. This is an unfortunate situation not of our making, that has placed members on Audit committee into a difficult position to approve and sign our accounts in the absence of an unqualified external audit opinion. It is commendable, the strength of our finance team and our section 151 officer, that helped members to make that approval. More details are in the meeting minutes and on the council website, but if you have follow-up questions, with the Mayor’s permission I may be able to answer those now or I’m happy to do so by email afterwards. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
To: Chair of Audit and Accounts Committee
Reference the Minutes of the Audit and Accounts Meeting held on 10 February 2025
I would like to ask the chair of Audit and Accounts to give us an update from our last meeting regarding the discussions we’ve had. Thank you.
Answer
Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. Thank you for your question, Councillor Kotecha. It was actually the question of the whole committee. This council delegates responsibility for the approval of its financial statements to the Audit and Accounts Committee of which I am Chair. The 2024 accounts were approved for issue at our meeting in February. However, committee asked me to draw Council’s attention to the fact that this is the second year running where we have had to do so with a disclaimed audit opinion, and the likelihood is of further disclaimed audit opinions in 2025 and possibly 2026. Our 2022/23 audit opinion was disclaimed under government legislation, commonly referred to as the backstop legislation. 2023 was the reset year, designed to reset the audit backlog across the country. You may recall that Councillor Izett asked a question of Councillor James about this in December. At that time, Councillor James said that it may have repercussions for future audits. He was correct because the accounts contain numbers brought forward from previous years. We are now in what is termed the recovery period while we rebuild assurance. Official guidance issued by the regulator, the Financial Reporting Council, sets out that we are likely to have disclaimed audit opinions again in 2025/26. This is an unfortunate situation not of our making, that has placed members on Audit committee into a difficult position to approve and sign our accounts in the absence of an unqualified external audit opinion. It is commendable, the strength of our finance team and our section 151 officer, that helped members to make that approval. More details are in the meeting minutes and on the council website, but if you have follow-up questions, with the Mayor’s permission I may be able to answer those now or I’m happy to do so by email afterwards. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in