Agenda and draft minutes

The Senior Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

Councillors Peter Turner and Richard Samuel had sent their apologies to the Panel.  Councillors Sally Davis and Dine Romero were their substitutes respectively.  

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There was none.

The Chairman read out the following statement:

‘The purpose of this meeting is for this panel to decide whether Cabinet should be requested to reconsider its decision of 5th September 2018 with regard to ‘Pilot Scheme to increase enforcement activity for environmental crime’ (E3088)

As such, today’s meeting will be limited to considering the Cabinet decision and the reasons for it; plus the issues set out in the Call in request. These are contained in appendices to the report. Speakers and participants must confine their remarks to those issues and I will not allow the introduction of new issues.

This panel has three options available to it:

•  The first option is that we could dismiss the Call in. This would mean that Cabinet’s decision would take effect immediately.

•  The second option is that we could uphold all or part of the Call in. This would mean that Cabinet would have to re-consider its decision in light of our comments.

•  The third option is that we could decide that the Call in request should be considered by the full Council instead of by this panel, who would be fulfilling the role of the Scrutiny Panel in upholding or dismissing the Call in.  If Council upheld all or part of the Call in, this would also mean that Cabinet would have to reconsider its decision in the light of this.

Whatever the outcome of today’s meeting (or the Council undertaking this role), it is important to remember that the final decision will rest with the Council’s Cabinet.

We are not here to decide upon the merits of the proposals. Our job is to decide if Cabinet should re-consider its decision. Therefore, I wish to make it clear that I am entirely open minded about the outcome of this Call in application and I will be basing my decision upon the evidence and representations before me.

If any member of the panel feels that they are unable to make a decision on the Call in with an open mind, please would they say so now.

(None declared)

Members of the panel should also be aware that, under the Council’s constitution, members have a duty to declare that they are subject to a party whip and the nature of it. I can confirm that I am not subject to a party whip in this meeting. If any members of the panel are subject to a party whip, please would they declare it now.

(None declared)

Finally, can I make it clear that nobody can pass notes to members of the panel during the meeting.

Thank you.’

John Chapman made a statement to the Panel expressing his concerns on the Pilot Scheme to increase enforcement activity for environmental crime.

(A copy of the statement is attached as Appendix to these minutes and available on the Minute Book.)

The Panel asked factual questions related to comments in the statement to which John Chapman responded.

This report sets out the call-in received by 10 Councillors of the decision relating to the ‘Pilot scheme to increase enforcement activity in relation to environmental crimes’. The role of the Panel is to consider the issues raised by the call-in notice and to determine its response.

The Chairman informed the meeting that he would not allow officers to give a presentation to the Panel as it would be against the usual practice of the Call In arrangements; and because the Lead Call In Councillor (Councillor Richard Samuel) had felt that the presentation would introduce new evidence.

The Chairman invited Councillor Richard Samuel to present reasons for the Call In.

Councillor Samuel said that he and 9 other Councillors had signed the Call In of this decision for a number of reasons.  Councillor Samuel went through the each reason with the following comments:

1.  The Cabinet decision report did not demonstrate how the environmental enforcement pilot scheme can be delivered at zero cost to the Council – Councillor Samuel suggested that the Council would have to issue around 1,400 fines per year in order for the scheme to be delivered at zero cost.  Councillor Samuel expressed his concerns that the Council would do anything to increase enforcement activity in order to justify this programme.  

2.  The proposed “informal procurement process” is opaque and not in line with usual Council procurement procedures – Councillor Samuel felt that informal procurement process was not in line with the Council’s usual procurement procedures.

3.  Contract management arrangements were not set out in the Cabinet decision report – Councillor Samuel felt that contract arrangements should have more clarity in the Cabinet report.

4.  No operational details were included in the Cabinet decision report – Councillor Samuel questioned how the Cabinet made its decision without information about operational details.

5.  There is probable equalities impact, which has not been considered, as increased enforcement action is likely to disproportionately affect certain groups. The decision report does not state whether an equalities impact assessment has been carried out – Councillor Samuel pointed out that 98.3% of litter enforcement in Bristol pilot scheme was for cigarette butts.  Therefore, Councillor Samuel felt that people from disadvantaged communities would be targeted with this pilot as majority of smokers come from those communities.  Councillor Samuel also asked for the Equality Impact Assessment on this matter.

6.  There is a risk of reputational damage to the Council – Councillor Samuel felt that tourists and visitors would be affected by this decision, which would be covered by media and damage the Council’s reputation.

7.  The proposed approach is not consistent with the Council’s “Public Protection and Health Improvement Service Enforcement Policy” – Councillor Samuel felt that the there was not consistency between the Council’s Policy and legal actions against those who litter.

8.  The Cabinet decision report does not demonstrate how the pilot scheme will improve cleanliness standards – Councillor Samuel felt that the target was not set to show how cleanliness would be measured.

9.  No consultation has been carried out with Councillors, stakeholders or residents. This is not in line with the Local Code of Corporate Governance – Councillor Samuel said that there was not a proper discussion with the public.

Councillor Samuel concluded his statement by saying that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.