Agenda item

Portfolio Holder decision call in - Littering and PSPO enforcement private contractor pilot scheme

Portfolio Holder decision call in - Littering and PSPO enforcement private contractor Pilot Scheme

Cllr Birnie invited Cllr Freeman and Cllr Allen to speak for 5 minutes each regarding the matter which they had called in.

Cllr Freeman wished to raise a number of concerns and to justify why he felt strongly that this action needs to be called in to the scrutiny committee and why it was too momentous to be a unilateral portfolio holder decision.

Firstly, the goals and objectives of the decision were unclear and contentious and the Council should be clear what the objectives were. If the objectives were to reduce the instances of antisocial behaviour then it first needed to consider the body of evidence that shows that privatising enforcement leads to an increase in antisocial behaviour as well as an escalation in the seriousness of the offending. Using a private contractor incentivises anti-social behaviour. If any were genuinely observed, the contractor’s initial reaction would be to issue a fine. Contrast this with a policeman or a council employee whose initial action is going to be to discourage the behaviour from happening or from recurring. If a contractor observes possible anti-social behaviour he is more likely to treat it as an infringement and to issue a fine rather than be sure an actual infringement has occurred. Finally, even if the contractor is successful in reducing one type of anti-social behaviour, he is likely to increase occurrences of other types of anti-social behaviour in order to safeguard the levels of fines that can be issued. This would almost definitely have an effect of front loading the contract. Even if his concerns were incorrect and the initiative was successful, the contractor would issue more fines at the beginning of the contract causing a reduction in offending. This means the contractor would then be operating at a loss. Would the Council then be trapped into paying for the shortfall in the fines that were being issued? These points need to be addressed by very clear target levels and periods of review. At what point can it be stated that the problem has reduced such that an external contractor was no longer required? Despite many examples of how problems grow rather than reduce when incentivised, the Council needed targets so what the contractors were challenged to achieve was clear and if the Council were doing this purely to generate additional revenue from residents then it needed to be honest and upfront about that.

His second concern was that of reasonableness. It is unreasonable to predict that antisocial behaviour would reduce by imposing fines. Advice from police is consistent that engagement is better than enforcement. Evidence obtained from Bedford indicated that enforcement officers were universally despised and this reflected on the Council. Using a warden service that engaged residents and discouraging anti-social behaviour would be more effective and much more reasonable. An employed warden service would be seen as accountable whereas a plastic police force would not. The more street-savvy offenders would know that a contractor lacks any real enforcement power and are likely to give false information. This means that the financial burden of this proposal was much more likely to fall on the more civic minded people who just happened to have a sandwich wrapper blown out of their hands by the wind while the contractor was watching, than people who regularly torment shoppers on their bikes in the Marlowes.

There needed to be a trusted appeals process. Private parking enforcement companies have been accused of using premium rate phone lines, so if someone wishes to dispute a ticket they often need to pay more than the ticket value just to submit an appeal. Also the company is obviously incentivised to deny such appeals, leading to a further lack of trust.

The final point was that financial disincentives to people below the breadline have been proven countless times to be counterproductive. If you had somebody struggling to make ends meet and no immediate prospect of improvement or getting out of debt, the financial disincentive means absolutely nothing to them. Fines on people with no capacity to pay was not a reasonable solution. A broader base of responses was needed and a warden service would have a much broader based approach. Cllr Freeman also had issues with the proportionality of this proposal which he could not address in the time remaining to him.

Cllr Allen said he was essentially in favour of addressing litter & antisocial behaviour problems. However he was concerned that this scheme would not work effectively in reality.

There had been talk about it being based on sound research yet only a list of Councils that have followed similar approaches had been presented and there was an absence of detailed evidence on how the DBC scheme would avoid the pitfalls of many of these schemes as councillor Freedman had outlined.

In terms of proportionality it is easy to target the vulnerable, the mistaken, the usually compliant and not to necessarily deal with the serious breaches involving large groups, drunkenness or potentially violent or dangerous situations at the times of the day when enforcement officers were likely to be more vulnerable, such as dusk and after darkness. These were situations and times when a lot of antisocial behaviour happens, for example a lot of dog poo not being cleaned up happens after dark in the winter, as people feel they can get away with it. He asked how, in reality, were the enforcement officers going to address this problem.  A lot of antisocial behaviour similarly happens in large groups that are difficult to confront. It would be easy for a contract driven approach to shy away from these difficult situations. The Bedford experience with enforcement officers being universally hated came from a climate in which there are high levels of complaints and confrontations. This involved a loss pf public trust because the enforcement instead of engagement approach led people to feel challenged and challenged people will often react badly.

There is also a loss of public trust if easy targets become lent on and the more serious problems are not addressed. Bedford is 75% urban and he wondered what the strategy was for dealing with the rural areas of Dacorum and for the times like dusk and weekends, when offences were most likely to occur.

It needed to be questioned whether it was reasonable to introduce a scheme if it risked being disproportionate. There was evidence that these schemes can often lead to heavy handedness. It was necessary to know to what extent the Borough Council would have control on that and if the Borough Council would be involved in the complaints process of a commercial enterprise to make sure the residents were protected. He queried to what extent the Council would have flexibility to address the contract in the middle of the term, to respond to imbalances or emerging situations. This really came down to a point of accountability. It was unlikely that a contracting company was going to take the community engagement approach if it was under pressure to reach the level of income required for viability. The evidence that he understood from Bedford was that accountability had been an issue.

He said going back to what evidence they could draw from other schemes, it would be good if there was more evidence that they could draw from to check that this could be a successful scheme. In Bedford they were on their second contractor and the person from whom he got his information said the jury was out. DBC may want to question why.

Cllr Banks responded that crucially this Portfolio Holder decision involves only a pilot enforcement provision designed to meet a number of public concerns. She stressed that this pilot is borough-wide and related to littering offences and it was expected that around 80% of the activity would concern littering, with a smaller proportion around the dog control Public Spaces Protection Order and the third and smaller proportion would be the enforcement of the town centre Public Space Protection Order, which included spitting, urinating, defecating as well as the riding of bikes in a prohibited area.

This decision was based on feedback from residents and officers and reports, to some degree testimonies, from other Councils. Bedford had been mentioned by Lib Dem councillors and it was interesting that it was the Lib Dem portfolio holder for Environment, Councillor Charles Roydon, who advised that this allowed Bedford to carry out enforcement activities against unwelcome and anti-social behaviour.

This approach was similar to parking enforcement services delivered by Sabre Parking UK and would be useful to inform decision making that members will make next year about the future of their PSPO’s.These would be informed decisions based on evidence. DBC along with policy partners must be able to demonstrate whether the enforcement option of using a contractor was suitable. They would be able to use this data to understand how best to enforce PSPO’s.

The previous portfolio holder Janice Marshall presented the relevant PSPO’s to the Housing and Communities Overview & Scrutiny committee and to this committee and the minutes reported that there did not seem to be budgets for enforcement nor that the Council had availability of staff resources. This was likely to be the remedy for that very point.

These problems were challenging to enforce, however the effects of these offences were seen across the borough. The Gadebridge gleaners and street cleaners often shared their disappointment and frustration at the amount of litter and the Boxmoor Trust had been on social media this month complaining about the irresponsible dog owners leaving the moor covered in dog poo. With numerous complaints of littering, dog mess and antisocial cycling being received by the Council these problems were difficult to address and remedy and made the peaceful enjoyment of Dacorum an issue for residents and visitors.

The pilot was as attempt to tackle this so that they could see if this approach had a positive impact on reducing littering and dog waste complaints. If the Council did not try then we would not know if it would work as well as it had in other areas up and down the country.

Addressing Cllr Freeman’s and Cllr Allen’s concerns she said the Environmental and Community Protection team would closely monitor the quality of this enforcement pilot. In addition to the checks and balances, there would remain the facility for those fined to appeal directly to Dacorum Borough Council if they received a fixed penalty notice. It would not be in the interest of a contractor to serve notices that would not stand up to challenge and scrutiny, as they would not receive payment for unpaid tickets.

Finally and addressing Cllr Freeman’s point, this pilot had the added benefit of educational support, supporting community projects such as litter pick days, which would aid the behavioural change that we were all looking for as well as providing an enforcement deterrent.

Cllr Taylor commented that, although the Chairman had mentioned that this was a Lib Dem call in, it was not and was not a party issue.He asked what the aims & objectives of this policy were.

Cllr Banks said making Dacorum a cleaner tidier place for us all to enjoy would be her personal objective

Cllr Taylor asked what level of reduction of litter Cllr Banks hoped to achieve from this decision.

Cllr Banks said she did not have a target at this stage, but that would come as a result of the pilot.

Cllr Taylor said he had hoped the Portfolio Holder would have some idea of what they may achieve by doing this. If the pilot scheme was not going to reduce it then he felt there was not much point.

Cllr Banks said that she absolutely agreed with him if they were introducing a scheme as a contract. However, this was what the pilot hopes to achieve, it will be analysed as a result of that.

Cllr Taylor asked whether we felt that a reduction will be sustained throughout the pilot and ongoing afterwards

Cllr Banks said she believed it would.

Cllr Taylor asked if a Police Community Support officer would have been a better way of enforcing and getting people to follow the law.

Cllr Banks said that the Council did not have a budget to part fund or fund officers and this was at no cost to the DBC. If this could be set up as other local authorities had done, she was keen to see if it worked for the residents of Dacorum.

Cllr Birnie intervened to say that this was not the appropriate time for questions about costs. After the pilot was complete it would come back to SPAE for discussion, amongst other matters, of budget costs.

Cllr Silwal said this 12 month pilot at no cost should be supported. Other authorities were using it and they needed to support the trial to see if it worked or not.

Cllr Timmis asked whether the PH would agree that anti-social behaviour was on the increase and becoming a huge nuisance and stress for local people, not just in the town but also in villages. Playgrounds were being spoilt with dog poo, parks with litter, in fact in Watling ward they have had 258 fly tips in one year. What was happening at the moment was not sufficient, so surely we needed to do something to let people know they could not behave in this way. She struggled to believe that even people who struggle to make ends meet would use it as an excuse to throw litter. She would also like to know from the Cllrs who had called this in, what their suggestions would be to tackle these problems.

Cllr Banks agreed with Cllr Timmis that anti-social behaviour, litter and dog poo were on the increase. She felt it evident that it was a few people spoiling it for everybody. The Council had 4 enforcement days a year, had issued leaflets and given advice, joined the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, organised street champions and been in schools and open spaces where litter was a problem, but it was a small minority that does not care for our environment and so she felt that enforcement had a role to play.  Part of this pilot would be educational support and it will be about informing & advising, but enforcement must be one of the tools in the box.

Cllr Ransley was interested in how this pilot would be operating events such as tidy days and talking about education, but it would have been nice to have heard this from the environmental team and Ben. Rather than 4 litter pick days in the year, one a month should be considered and more time should be spent educating people.

Cllr Beauchamp was concerned that we consider our duty of care to staff, especially in the water gardens, where there were regular instances of people defecating in bushes, not at night, but in the day. This presented a real health and safety hazard to staff, whose efforts were essential in implementing this proposal.

Cllr England asked for clarification of the amount of enforcement that would be related to litter, since Ben Stevens had quoted 70% of the enforcement and Cllr Banks 80%..

Cllr Banks said that 80% was correct.

Cllr England asked if Ben had estimates of absolute enforcement numbers expected from the pilot.

BStevens replied that some of the estimates projected 3,000 enforcements annually

Cllr England asked if this excluded fly tipping

BStevens agreed that it did.

Cllr England asked if there was a correlation found between fixed penalties being issued for litter and the absence of a litter bin and whether that will trigger the installation of a litter bin.

BStevens said he would be unable to answer that.

EWalker said that when they have completed the pilot they can look at that and any other outcomes that come through. It would be silly to ignore evidence where there was more littering and no litter bins and it is likely that this would be something Craig Thorpe’s team would be keen to see.

Cllr Birnie said questions like these would be better left until after the pilot.

Cllr England said that, although he does not agree with the PH decision, he was trying to engage constructively with it, as a Councillor who had on several occasions requested more bin coverage to deal with this problem. This PH decision had unclear implications for residents who should be advised of the KPI’s and in his view, the whole matter should be referred to Full Council for further consideration.

Cllr Birnie ruled that Cllr England could request KPI data, but he could not demand that this matter to be put to Council. At the end of the debate, the committee will decide what it wished to do and where, if anywhere, it wished to refer the matter.

Cllr England said that what he had meant to say was that he requested that, instead of making a decision, the committee should put it to the Council.

Cllr Birnie responded that Cllr England’s opinion was just one opinion of many at this stage and this would no doubt be tested by this committee at the end of the discussion.

Cllr England stated that he had eight points for Cllr Banks to answer. First, although it was claimed that this decision was based on sound research and engagement with other local authorities into alternative methods of influencing against litter, dog fouling and other PSPO breaches and that due process had been followed, in an email dated 2^nd February 21 (which he had copied to the Chairman) Cllr Banks had stated that, rather than studying other local authorities, officer research had been based on the contracts and services provided by the four main contractors in the area and the local authorities that have entered into contracts and pilots with them. He demanded to know which of these accounts was accurate..

Secondly, officers had found all of these companies provided a similar service with the offer of extra benefits on top of the enforcement on an income share basis, which indicated that this project was fundamentally money led and not outcome led.

Thirdly, Bedford Council had been using contractors for their PSPO’s for several years and had been through two tender processes, which suggested that the first private enforcement contract did not work.

Fourthly, the introductory report on this item made it clear that this PH decision covered enforcement not only of the town centre PSPO’s, but also the dog control PSPO’S and littering offences and he asked how the resource would cover all areas profitably or whether most areas will be short changed in order for the contractor to meet KPI’s and he demanded details of these KPI’s.

Cllr Birnie said that the last point concerning the viability of covering so many enforcement areas would be revealed as a result of the pilot, and it was unfair to expect the answers to that at this stage. He then asked Cllr Banks to respond to the other points made.

Cllr Banks said she stood by what she had said in both her email correspondence and in the presentation that this was a pilot which had come about through best practise in other areas and in other local authorities. Discussing the success or failures in other areas was almost irrelevant, but a good way to use the time of officers was to see what was available in the market place and whether they could run a pilot and to see if it worked for Dacorum.

Cllr England commented that, in the remainder of Cllr Banks’s email in February, she had made reference to other councils in Hertfordshire which think the same way as Dacorum and had the same problems, yet she had just said this was not relevant.

Cllr Banks said that it was not relevant to the success of this pilot, but what was critical was that it did work in some areas, especially if it was going to address the issues raised about disproportionate amounts of littering and dog fouling. She said she did not think every field was covered in litter but at the end of the summer, if people had been out in the park people were not taking responsibility for their own littering. If they can get it to the park they can get it home again and they should not rely on litter bins.

Cllr Birnie invited Cllr Rogers to speak and said he would go back to Cllr England later.

Cllr Rogers said we do have a problem and so something needed to be tried and he welcomed this initiative. After 12 months the data with the facts and figures behind them could be discussed logically. If it did not work in 12 months’ time, those who did not wish to implement this PH decision could give themselves a pat on the back. The focus should be on what this was actually trying to achieve for the people in the borough for a better quality of life. The public supported this as members would find if they spoke to their residents and voters because it was aimed at creating the exemplary standards that they expected in the towns and villages of the borough.

Cllr Taylor referred to Cllr Timmis’ question about what else could be done and his answer would be to put more police on the street. He went on to ask Cllr Banks how the enforcement contractors would deal with littering from motorists.

Cllr Birnie ruled that this was not a matter for present discussion because this would be a completely different type of enforcement.

Cllr England was then allowed to continue with the fifth of his criticisms and stated that Cllr Banks was looking to get into a 12 month no cost pilot and not a contract, so evaluation could be made post pilot on whether it was appropriate or beneficial to commit to a long term pilot. However if the pilot were to be evidenced as rational or reasonable it ought to be able to be judged on its performance and not be a free trial where there were benefits to the council. It seemed obvious that the trial would be a huge success because it was being offered as a loss leader in order to get a longer contract.

His sixth criticism was that Cllr Banks had said that other local authorities were turning to partnership working with private contractors where problems were being identified with over 20 authorities who were in long term contracts or pilot scheme partnerships and this was increasing. But he pointed out that 20 out of 300 local authorities was not an endorsement in itself and it was not a reasonable or rational situation because 23 trials did not imply any evidence at all suggesting confidence in the outcome. It was not known how many of those 12 month trials were still progressing, so there was not much data from that statement so that statement was not relevant.

The seventh point of criticism was that Cllr Banks had said that the 12 month pilot would be at zero costs to the Council, with the operational expense and risk incurred by the contractor. The Council would not pay for this service and would be guaranteed 5 to 10 % of the income. The pilot was based on four officers to provide seven day borough wide coverage and the vast majority of FPN’s would concern littering offences. The company must know that it would stand to do well to offer such a resource for free or in fact not free, but to pay the Council to do this. He was not sure that the PH was rationally viewing the idea of a pilot and that was obvious that it would be a success. So either it was a pilot or an inducement. There would be benefits to the Council and if these sweeteners were included how was the evaluation going to be unbiased?

The final point was that the PH had said the process of making the decision had been open and unambiguous in demonstrating that the overarching aim and desired outcome was to bring a reduction in littering, dog fouling, PSPO’s and other related complaints in the borough and the decision to implement a 12 months trial to deliver a visible, consistent deterrent was the most appropriate of the various options available to the authority in achieving the same. Within that statement, reduction was definitely promised and he wanted to know what objective metric was being employed to be able to make the claim that there would actually be a reduction and whether there was a survey that showed how much litter was presently out there.

Cllr Banks responded that a number of his points had already been covered by the officer and in her opening statement. As far as she was concerned there was a problem with littering, dog fouling and town centre PSPO’s. There were over 30 examples of districts and local authorities who had contracts for which it was working and she was keen to see if it would work for Dacorum. Once the pilot had been completed Officers would have an opportunity to gather evidence, and information and prove that either it was working or that Cllr England was right, but there was huge value in pushing through a pilot that would raise standards across Dacorum as Cllr Rogers had said. She said that concerning the metrics that had been referred to, she was not sure whether Officers had actually got any background information specifically or whether that will be revealed by the pilot.

Cllr Birnie intervened to state that the figures exist because the committee received quarterly reports from Clean Safe & Green which stated the weight of rubbish of different kinds that was collected in the borough. Therefore, the pilot simply needed to achieve a reduction in these figures in order to dispose of that particular criticism.

Cllr Allen responded to Cllr Timmis’s earlier question about what alternative would be suggested by those that called this in. Following last year’s litter explosion after the summer a group was formed of local volunteer residents who were training for Youth Connections and who engaged with young people on Boxmoor with litter bags. As a result of ongoing nightly contact with the young people, they had developed a relationship in which they had started using the bins more as well as the bags that they had been left. The issue was dealt with in a civil and reasonable way. He claimed he had not said this to highlight the difference between Boxmoor and other areas but more to suggest that each young person often had a reason for his or her behaviour and engaging with them and building a relationship could be a very successful way of addressing the problem.

Cllr Birnie suggested that that would fall under education that had been mentioned as a necessary support for the pilot.

Cllr Banks agreed and said that she herself worked closely with a local young people’s charity and they regularly litter pick in Grovehill and Adeyfield. However it had not solved the problem and enforcement to manage this was still needed.

Cllr England asked if the PH if the criteria for the success or failure of the pilot would be published and asked whether she agreed with him that a pilot for one year cannot reveal the long term effects of the creeping corruption in enforcement.

Cllr Banks responded that, there was no contract so there was no corruption and she felt that Cllr England was looking at the pilot very negatively. These organisations were professional and business-like and she had no doubt that the results would be objectively presented by Officers and carefully examined in the scrutiny process.

Cllr Birnie asked, given the depredations caused by the pandemic, whether the Council could afford the 4 officers which he understood would be required in the policing aspect of this proposal.

Cllr Banks confirmed that there was not a budget for this currently.

Cllr Birnie referred to other outsourced services, for example parking controls and noted that he had not noticed any huge corruption in that particular area and asked whether it was true that this PH decision would allow the Council control on the validity of any fines issued.

Cllr Banks responded that there would always be a right of appeal and appeals would come to DBC Officers for a decision, so any overzealous issuing of fixed penalty notices would be addressed immediately.

Cllr Birnie therefore concluded that it was reasonable if this pilot were implemented to expect at the end of it to see accurate figures on the number of fines issued, what they were for and the result of any appeals.

Cllr Banks replied that she would make note of that and ensure that the information was available and included in her final draft.

Cllr Birnie was happy at this stage to go to a vote and proposed that the committee approved the PH decision and would so inform cabinet. He made the point that if cabinet so wished, they could then pass the matter on to Council for further discussion.

Cllr England proposed an amendment that this PH decision be referred to Full Council for a decision.

Cllr Birnie allowed Cllr England’s proposal and asked him to confirm his full proposal.

Cllr England confirmed his proposal was as follows;

“That more numbers are put into this report as to the expectation of the pilot and it goes to cabinet, alternatively that the whole thing goes to Full Council for further discussion as the proposal is not ready”.

Cllr Birnie responded that the proposal not being ready was an opinion with which he could not agree as it had now been before this committee twice. However, he was prepared to accept a less contentious motion from Cllr England as an amendment to his motion.

Cllr England confirmed his motion would be to refer this proposal to Full Council.

Cllr Banks asked if Cllr Birnie was first calling members to make the decision on accepting her decision.

Cllr Birnie said that was the correct procedure and he was prepared to compromise with Cllr England. His suggestion would be that the committee approved of the PH decision and will so inform cabinet rather than seeking to pass the matter on to Council and he asked whether that would satisfy Cllr England.

Cllr England said that usually the Chairman would enable discussion until that is curtailed by a decision of the committee, which is why he is suggesting they vote on going to Full Council.

Cllr Birnie asked for a seconder for this motion.

Cllr Taylor seconded the motion.

VOTE: to refer the PH Decision to Full Council

YES – 4

Cllr England

Cllr Ransley

Cllr Stevens

Cllr Taylor

NO – 7

Cllr Peter

Cllr Silwal

Cllr Rogers

Cllr Beauchamp

Cllr Hearn

Cllr Riddick

Cllr Timmis

ABSTAIN – 2

Cllr Hobson

Cllr Birnie

 

Alternative: This Committee approves of the portfolio decision and will so inform cabinet

VOTE:

YES -7

Cllr Silwal

Cllr Beauchamp

Cllr Hearn

Cllr Timmis

Cllr Peter

Cllr Riddick

Cllr Rogers

NO- 4

Cllr Ransley

Cllr England

Cllr Hobson

Cllr Stevens

ABSTAIN – 2

Cllr Birnie

Cllr Taylor

The motion was approved.