Berkshire and Oxfordshire councils to discuss potential unitary
The three councils said they have "strong demographic and economic similarities" and "significant historic ties".They think the plan is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" that would deliver high quality services and improve financial resilience.West Berkshire's leader Jeff Brooks said the plan was an "exciting opportunity to establish a council that is ready for the future – one that works smarter, delivers better outcomes, and strengthens local democracy".David Rouane, South Oxfordshire Council's leader, said it would "provide a strong and effective foundation for the future… while maintaining and enhancing the unique character of our market towns and rural areas".While Bethia Thomas, Vale of White Horse Council's leader, said the authorities' "combined strengths would create a modern and effective local authority that puts people and communities at the heart of strong, health and robust local government, all white providing a firm base for wider regional growth".All of the councils will discuss the plans on 19 March, ahead of a potential submission to government for approval later this month.Any changes would be subject to public consultation.
You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
West Berkshire Council says no to Reading's 'land grab' plans
A council has described a neighbouring authority's bid to expand its borders as a "hostile act".Reading Borough Council wants permission from the government to let it swallow up five villages on its western in Calcot, Tilehurst, Purley-on-Thames, Pangbourne and Theale currently have their bins emptied, schools run and potholes filled by West Berkshire may change though as the two councils jockey for both position and power as part of a wider shake-up of local government. It will be several years before anything actually changes in the Royal County but the cracks are already starting to appear in what appears - to outside eyes at least - to be the rather genteel world of local authorities. It all started back in the spring when West Berkshire Council announced - out of the blue - that it was looking to join forces with the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire to create a new bigger, combined council. The government says many local authorities are too small to deliver services cost-effectively and should merge to form larger councils that represent more Berkshire had not been instructed to merge with any other local authorities. However, with the government considering wider reorganisation, it said now would be a good time to join forces with the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire. So it proposed bringing the three predominantly rural councils together under what would be known as Ridgeway months Berkshire's other councils stood on the sidelines, saying nothing - in public at least. That was until Reading stepped out of the shadows saying it wanted to absorb the five West Berkshire villages into its own authority. It argued that many of the people living there already spent much of their time shopping, having fun and working in Reading. Speaking on BBC Radio Berkshire's breakfast show, West Berkshire Council's leader, the Liberal Democrat Jeff Brooks, bristled at the idea that people would be happier being looked after by Reading. He said his staff planned to go door-to-door to see how people really felt about the idea."It's a hostile act," he said. "It's unwelcome to all the people in those parishes and it's all part of this ambition of Reading to be a city, the 'Greater Reading' they want it to added: "What happens next? Do Reading then say 'oh, we'll have a piece of Earley as well?" His counterpart in Reading, Liz Terry, had already told BBC Radio Berkshire the council only started to think about expanding its western borders after West Berkshire made its move in March. She said: "Our belief is that Oxfordshire's final reorganisation proposals for the creation of a new Ridgeway Council should be considered by the secretary of state in conjunction with a review of existing boundaries between Reading and West Berkshire, because one markedly affects the other." This may seem trivial to some. The fact that two Berkshire councils have both appeared on their local radio station on consecutive days to make the case that they are the most natural fit for their current residents is not exactly earth-shattering again, a couple of years from now people could well find themselves saying "hold on a sec, why are I am paying more council tax to a local authority I didn't even know existed until a few months ago?"
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
‘Fundamentally objectionable' that Afghan relocation decisions lacked scrutiny
A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022. Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including family members of the Arap applicants were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024. However an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the data loss was 'unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile of individuals named'. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the breach in August 2023, after details were published on a Facebook group. The Government sought a court order to prevent details of the breach being published and were granted a superinjunction, which also stopped the fact an injunction had been made from being reported. Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge who oversaw most of the proceedings, gave three rulings behind closed doors – the last of which would have lifted the order after 21 days, but was overturned by the Court of Appeal. In his first decision in November 2023, the judge said that granting the superinjunction to the Government 'is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship,' adding: 'This is corrosive of the public's trust in Government.' Mr Justice Chamberlain said usually the Government would face 'the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy', from the press, MPs, peers and parliamentary committees. 'The grant of a superinjunction has the effect of completely shutting down these mechanisms of accountability, at least while the injunction is in force,' he said, adding: 'It is axiomatic in our system that decisions subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny are not only more legitimate, but are also likely to be better than ones taken in secret.' In early 2024, the High Court judge continued the superinjunction, finding there was a 'real possibility that it is serving to protect' some of those identified on the dataset. However, he noted that the Government was offering help 'to only a very small proportion of those whose lives have been endangered by the data incident', and that the decisions were being made 'without any opportunity for scrutiny through the media or in Parliament'. The judge ruled in May that the superinjunction should be lifted, finding there was a 'significant possibility that the Taliban already know of the existence of the dataset'. He also found in the – later overturned – decision that if the Taliban had access to the data, the secrecy could be depriving people who would not be relocated by the Government the chance to protect themselves. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'The one thing that can be said with confidence is that affected persons would be better off learning of the data breach by notification from the UK Government than from a knock on the door by the Taliban.' The judge also said that there were 'enormous sums' of public money involved in the response. He ruled: 'It is fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate'.
North Wales Chronicle
4 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Ministry of Defence data breach timeline
Here the PA news agency looks at the timeline of events in the data breach and how governments responded to it: – 22 February 2022 A UK Government worker accidentally emails a dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) outside of a secure government system. He sends the email in an attempt to verify information, believing the dataset to only contain around 150 rows of information. It contains around 33,000. – 14 August 2023 An anonymous Facebook user posts a small excerpt of the dataset on the social media site. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is notified. Around 1,800 Arap applicants in Pakistan are sent a warning via WhatsApp by UK officials that their data may have been breached. – 15 August James Heappey, then armed forces minister, is sent an email warning by a civilian volunteer who assists Arap applicants after they discover the data breach. The volunteer says: 'The Taliban may well now have a 33,000 long kill list – essentially provided to them by the UK government. 'If any of these families are murdered, the government will be liable.' – 16 August The incident is reported to the Information Commissioner's Office, and later to the Metropolitan Police. – 17 August A journalist from the Daily Mail contacts the directorate of defence communications, which includes the MoD press office, seeking comment on a story he wished to run about the breach, without disclosing the personal information lost. The journalist later agrees not to publish until the MoD has a chance to implement 'protective measures'. – 18 August A representative of Facebook's parent company Meta says that the post has been removed, after requests from the MoD due to the 'risk of physical harm'. – 22 August A journalist from The News Agents podcast contacts the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and says he has information about the data incident. This journalist also agrees not to publish until protective measures completed. – 25 August Then defence secretary Ben Wallace 'personally' makes the decision to apply for a court order. – 1 September The MoD asks the High Court for an injunction for approximately four months so that the government 'may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk'. Judge Mr Justice Robin Knowles grants a superinjunction until a planned hearing on December 1. The superinjunction, which is made 'against the world', rather than named individuals, is the first of its kind. – 18 September Head media judge Mr Justice Nicklin describes the superinjunction as 'wholly exceptional' and say it 'must be kept under active review by the court'. He brings the planned hearing forward. – 13 October The MoD asks for the superinjunction to continue, with the department's deputy chief operating officer saying in written evidence that the threat to those in the dataset is 'grave'. – 16 November Cabinet committee, the Domestic and Economic Affairs committee meets. Notes from the meeting show plans to establish a compensation scheme, at a cost of between £120 million and £350 million not including administration, once the data breach is made public. – 23 November Mr Justice Chamberlain gives a private judgment where he says granting a superinjunction to the Government 'is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. He decides to continue the superinjunction 'for a period of four weeks'. – 12 December John Healey, then shadow defence secretary, is served with the superinjunction and given an initial briefing. – 18 December MoD lawyers describe the risk to life as 'immensely serious, and extends to thousands of individuals' in written submissions. Mr Justice Chamberlain extends the superinjunction until February. – 19 December The Domestic and Economic Affairs committee meets again and says that a new route of settlement in the UK should be offered to some individuals who were ineligible for Arap. This is agreed to be a targeted cohort of around 200 people and their dependents at the highest risk following the data breach, called the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR). – 15 February 2024 Mr Justice Chamberlain continues the superinjunction, finding a 'real possibility that it is serving to protect' some of those identified on the dataset. He adds in a second judgment: 'What is clear is that the Government has decided to offer help to only a very small proportion of those whose lives have been endangered by the data incident and that the decisions in this regard are being taken without any opportunity for scrutiny through the media or in Parliament.' – 21 May Mr Justice Chamberlain rules that the superinjunction should be lifted, but gives the MoD 21 days before the lifting comes into effect. He says there is a 'significant possibility' the Taliban know about the dataset, adding it is 'fundamentally objectionable' that decisions about thousands of people's lives and billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being taken in secret. – 25 June A two-day hearing behind closed doors starts at the Court of Appeal, as the MoD challenges the decision to end the superinjunction. – 26 June At the end of the hearing, Court of Appeal judges announce that the superinjunction will continue. In a later written ruling, judges Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Warby say: 'As the number of family members involved is several times the number of affected people, the total numbers of people who would be exposed to a risk of death or serious harm if the Taliban obtained the data is between 80,000 and 100,000.' – 4 July Labour enters Government following the general election. – 11 November The High Court is told by a barrister representing multiple media organisations that the government made a 'misleading' public statement about applications for assistance from Afghanistan. Jude Bunting KC adds in written submissions: 'It is a matter of concern that the public did not know that the claimant had put over 90,000 lives at risk in the recent general election, by reason of this superinjunction.' – 3 February 2025 A review of the data incident response says current plans for the Afghanistan Response Route would mean relocating more Afghans under it than had been relocated under Arap, and would extend schemes for another five years at a cost of around £7 billion. The document, addressed to the Defence Secretary, recommends a review. – 19 May The High Court is told by a Manchester-based law firm that it has more than 600 potential clients who may sue the Government under data protection laws. – 4 July The Defence Secretary concludes that the Afghanistan Response Route should be closed following an independent review which finds the data breach is 'unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile' of those named. The review by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer also said that the government possibly 'inadvertently added more value to the dataset' by seeking the unprecedented superinjunction and implementing a bespoke resettlement scheme. Government lawyers tell the High Court that in light of the decision to close the Afghanistan Response Route, the superinjunction 'should no longer continue'. – 15 July Mr Justice Chamberlain lifts the superinjunction.
