The proposal to out-source litter enforcement came in for a drubbing from Kilburn Councillor John Duffy at last night's Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Sam Stopp stated at the beginning of the meeting that the Task Group he led report on illegal rubbish dumping could have been interpreted as advocating some sort of out-sourcing but this was not the case. He cited Islington as a borough where in-house services had proved to be more efficient.
Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both. He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.
Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing. They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits. He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.
He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances. This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.
He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.
Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.
Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer. Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.
Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.
A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.
Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.
Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.
Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money. He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court. He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'. He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.
For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.
Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both. He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.
Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing. They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits. He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.
He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances. This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.
He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.
Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.
Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer. Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.
Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.
A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.
Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.
Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.
Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money. He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court. He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'. He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.
For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.
4 comments:
It sounds like the Scrutiny Committee and councillors are making some good points but what's the purpose? The lead members are unwilling to budge and the Committee is ultimately toothless.
Agree with Samuel Stopp for once:
"He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both."
Which is spot on but across the board. If the council is so short on money why is it paying into the profits of Veolia PLC.
In the real world, the majority of people can't afford their own staff so do jobs themselves.
If the council has no money, it can't be paying out to cleaners, it needs to roll its sleeves up & hire someone with the competence to help the council clean up itself.
On the most basic level for Councillors walking past Starbucks in its foyer:
They could bring in their own teabags for 1-3p a cup or they could pay £2:50 a mug.
I wholly agree with Cllr Stopp and Cllr Duffy, and Scott. The council should be running this service in-house. An example would be to enforce Public Order Offences on Event Days. The last Football Event at Wembley, I personally witnessed in excess of 30 Supporters using my street as a public Toilet, before and after the game. Even at a charge of £50 on the spot would generate £1500 given the choice of being prosecuted or paying now. 4 Enforcement Officers on an event day around other local streets would generate a huge income into Council coffers,on this issue alone, which in my area is of huge concern to local residents and has been for years as we do not have a deterrent. This happens in the Royal Borough of Richmond (Twickenham Rugby Ground) where they have a policy of zero tolerance to preserve the cleanliness of their streets along with a pro-active Police presence.
I wholly agree with Cllr Stopp and Cllr Duffy, and Scott. The council should be running this service in-house. An example would be to enforce Public Order Offences on Event Days. The last Football Event at Wembley, I personally witnessed in excess of 30 Supporters using my street as a public Toilet, before and after the game. Even at a charge of £50 on the spot would generate £1500 given the choice of being prosecuted or paying now. 4 Enforcement Officers on an event day around other local streets would generate a huge income into Council coffers,on this issue alone, which in my area is of huge concern to local residents and has been for years as we do not have a deterrent. This happens in the Royal Borough of Richmond (Twickenham Rugby Ground) where they have a policy of zero tolerance to preserve the cleanliness of their streets along with a pro-active Police presence.
Post a Comment