Councillors agree something must be done after poor quality two hour debate – no litter tickets in Wrexham since Kingdom enforcement cancelled

Councillors today agreed doing nothing about the lack of enforcement of littering and dog fouling in Wrexham was not an option, however what exactly should be done remained unclear.

The debate came as Wrexham Council look for a way forward to deal with littering and dog fouling in the area after controversial enforcement company Kingdom were given the boot.

Lead Member for Environment at Wrexham Council Cllr David Bithell told the Homes and Environment Scrutiny Committee he was looking for a ‘steer’ to be given on what direction should be taken in these post-Kingdom days. Cllr Bithell pointed to previous pointers issued by councillors; for a firm hand at tackling litter, as well as outsourcing enforcement in a profitable manner, both carried out but then u-turned on by some once they saw the execution.

Today’s Committee were presented with four seemingly quite straightforward options, to do nothing, to hire another company, to work with other councils or to do the litter enforcement as Wrexham Council ‘in house’.

A near two hour meeting bounced around various ideas, although much of the time was on the process of the debate and going around in several circles over what the committee was agreeing on and how or what to vote on.

The debate kicked off with what turned out to be an irrelevant discussion between Cllr Alan Edwards and Cllr Bithell over a specific type of parking enforcement (obstruction), with the committee pointed to North Wales Police if they had issues around that since it was a police matter.

Cllr Alun Jenkins brought the topic back to litter and dog fouling enforcement, noting that in his view the area was ‘no worse for cleanliness’ despite Kingdom Enforcement ceasing operations locally, a damning verdict on the Council procured company.

Cllr Morris enquired if Wrexham Council could look to hire a contractor to enforce for specific items rather than the generic term of ‘litter’, with Kingdom seemingly going for the easy pickings of cigarette ends whereas more ‘major’ litter was ignored. Cllr Morris said that takeaway rubbish or dog mess ‘had more impact on communities’ than cigarette ends. The Council Officer and Cllr Bithell replied that ‘litter’ was a legislative term and therefore what defined litter could not be picked locally, but a further legal check will be sought.

Cllr Morris also asked for a break down of the much bandied about figure of £1.2m attributed to the cost of cleaning up litter in the county borough. Cllr Bithell gave a list of items making up that price tag including staff time and equipment, but also noted the true figure was in excess of that sum as clean ups on the A483 and other areas were on top. Cllr Bithell said Welsh Government should pay Wrexham Council for the bypass clean ups as it is a trunk road, however no cash has been forthcoming.

With one eye on that large sum, Cllr Alan Edwards asked if dashcam footage could be used by Wrexham Council to prosecute those who drop litter on the bypass, and if so could the council ask people to submit videos. The Council Officer said it was possible the authority could enquire about the registered keeper of a vehicle and look to issue a fixed penalty notice, however if no registered keeper was given then ‘nothing can be done’. The meeting was told that if Wrexham was in England that situation would be different, but Welsh law is currently different on the relevant section.

Cllr Harper said she was ‘relaxed’ about decision making, as she wished to get the right enforcement and litter solution for Wrexham rather than rushing to a choice. Cllr Harper was clear she wanted to have any for-profit third party company ruled out to prevent a financial target driven Kingdom-esque company being brought in again.

Cllr Harper explained her view that she did not like the outsourcing option, but if an option involving any third party company was to be looked at she would want the motive of profit explicitly removed from any deal, however in the final mangle of recommendations that request was lost.

The meeting was being conducted on a page by page basis, on a report that was only five pages long. This method meant that each option presented ended up with a debate, and at first, an attempt to rule them out one by one.

Cllrs Edwards and Rogers tried to make progress by pointing out which options were ‘clearly’ already off the table, however others disagreed and wanted a wider debate.

A vote was sort of held to remove Option 1, the choice to stay as-is with no enforcement, however the raising of hands took place along with a point of order raised by Cllr Davies who pointed out votes should not take place before all members have spoken.

Bit of a meeting mess as there was sort of a vote to rule out Option 1 – but that was paused when Clr Davies intervened. Now treated as though was ruled out, but now being revisited to hold another vote. Some Cllrs think they voted, others do not… Ah Scrutiny 👀

— Wrexham.com (@wrexham) February 13, 2019

Clr Rogers: “Suggest you take a show of hands” Clr Pemberton (Chair) “We had a show of hands and it was all passed”. Eh?! Either way, the meeting moves on…

— Wrexham.com (@wrexham) February 13, 2019

Cllr Davies was also unhappy with the amount of information in the report before councillors, indicating 1.5 pages of A4 was not detailed enough, “It is too soon to discount options when we have not got full option appraisals. Why are we not following the standard option appraisals on making informed recommendations?” adding there was no financial details before members for three of the options.

After a further roundabout debate Cllr Bithell pointed out the options were ‘there’ before councillors and he could, if he wished, had taken the report direct to Executive Board however thought it was right to ‘give members the opportunity’ to input on what direction they felt the council should pursue.

Data on performance was also requested by two councillors, with Cllr Morris discovering zero tickets had been issued in Wrexham for dog fouling or littering since Kingdom were scrapped. Later Cllr Phillips asked about historic in-house performance before Kingdom were appointed, compared to Kingdom stats, with Cllr Bithell initially appearing unwilling to share the information in the meeting stating that all councillors have had the data historically. Cllr Bithell then gave a rough figure of 21 tickets in a year for dog fouling when things were run by the council, and ‘well over a hundred’ for a similar timeframe for Kingdom.

Cllr Blackwell spoke succinctly, saying he preferred the fourth option of an in-house service however wanted more details on how such a service would be provided.

Debate moves to Option 4 – “Provide an in-house Enforcement Service”. Chair ask if any seconder to Clr Blackwell’s idea. Clr Jenkin sticks hands up, almost taken, but he points out he just wants to ask a question. Bit of a bumbling meeting this at times.

— Wrexham.com (@wrexham) February 13, 2019

Council meeting facilitator delicately attempts to herd cats, noting lots of calls for votes but also points out not many seconders to make things formal. Might get some progress and meeting wrap up if committee works out what it wants to do. pic.twitter.com/tmOJdTaYs5

— Wrexham.com (@wrexham) February 13, 2019

The meeting was dragging forward in an unstructured manner with it unclear how recommendations would be formed with several councillors putting forward ideas, but Cllr Morris appearing to be the only one formally creating firm motions.

In what has been commonplace scenes over the years a traditional Scrutiny Committee ending took place where hands were raised, claims of ‘we have already voted on that’, councillors expecting their amendments to be voted on but then lost, all ending up in a decisive vote accompanied by unhappy chuntering from some.

Faced with four options at the start two hours earlier, the committee in effect agreed not to do nothing (Option 1), however found it a struggle to decide what they did want to recommend doing so kept the lot on the table in some form or other.

The committee voted to ‘prefer’ the creation of an in-house Wrexham Council run enforcement option. Two other options were also left open, with exploration of legal terms of ‘litter’ being looked at with the implication that if it was possible to tightly define litter a better contract could be created for a third party company.

The other option of working with the likes of Flintshire or Denbighshire councils to share costs appeared to be knocked on the head by the Council Officer and Lead Member, however the committee agreed to leave the door open for any such opportunities should they arise.

Not unanimous vote – Clr Harper clearly unhappy not-for-profit rule was left out, and Clr Blackwell sees it as ‘kicking the can’ down the road. Clr Edwards abstained. Observing Cllr Davies brands it as a decision made without any evidence ! 2 hour meeting somehow.

— Wrexham.com (@wrexham) February 13, 2019

A ‘gentleman from the Wrexham Business Group’ also made a non-public emailed submission to the committee, however the Chairman noted it was done just 48 hours before the meeting despite it being well trailed, and was too voluminous to digest. No detail of the membership of the Group was made, or who they represent. Cllr Bithell also referred to the submission as being from an unknown ‘Business Forum’. Aside from Wrexham.com and the BBC there were no others in the public gallery.

Interesting start to Enforcement agenda point saying submission from “Wrexham Business Group”, think that is the CIC. If so, we have asked a few questions on that ‘group’ with not much joy, specifically about council grants / accounts and assets.

— Wrexham.com (@wrexham) February 13, 2019

The recommendations will now likely go forward to the Executive Board, and future committee meetings could see feedback on information requested, however that could well be after any new in-house service is started up.