Invitees:

Councillor Hywel Williams - Deputy Leader

Councillor Stuart Baldwin - Cabinet Member Communities

Janine Nightingale - Corporate Director, Communities

Gill Lewis - Interim Chief Officer Finance, Performance and Change

Zak Shell - Head of Operations - Community Services

Sian Hooper - Cleaner Streets & Waste Contract Manager

The Corporate Director - Communities introduced the report regarding arrangements for the waste service post 2024, as a result of the current waste collection recycling contract ending in March 2024.  She advised that while the current contract had performed well against national standards, the difficulty being faced was the number of uncertainties linked to a future waste service contract, which she summarised from the report.  The Head of Operations - Community Services presented the report.

The Deputy Leader advised that it had been known that this stage was coming and discussions had taken place as a Cabinet.  Welsh Government (WG) position had changed, and maybe the targets would also change but it was clear there were a number of uncertainties, so it would be unwise to proceed to a procurement stage at that point in time.

A Member advised that he was slightly disappointed to have not heard about the option of in-sourcing / bringing back in house and wanted to have the debate. He accepted there was lots of good data and performance but the comparison data was not always accurate because this was an externalised contract, compared to other Local Authorities. A big thank you needed to be given to the public, who had taken part and had made the figures work. In terms of the costs the Member was concerned whether some of the low costs could be due to staff not getting the best terms and conditions, that they could get if directly employed. The Member advised that he would like to hear the debate and have the figures, costs, analysis and cost benefits of bringing things back in-house, because having direct control, was he felt the best way to deal with the with all the uncertainties.

The Cabinet Member Communities replied that it wasn’t to say that those discussions were not going to happen; it was just at the moment the report was about the potential to seek an extension of the current contract to allow the Local Authority to look at what is going to be the best options going forward.  In terms of the figures, 85% of people considered the service to be average and above and he would accept an average over a poor or a very poor, considering it was a service that was often criticised by the public.  He advised that the idea of the report today was about extending the contract and not to look at the wider issues at the moment, but when those wider implications were looked at this could come back to Scrutiny.

The Head of Operations – Community Services explained in relation to the options this would be about future discussions around how the Local Authority could provide the service long term. Meanwhile, this report was looking to explore all of the reasons there was so much uncertainty, that for now the best and most straightforward solution was to have a short extension, given that all the data showed things were okay at the moment

The Member stated that he could not see why those discussions could not take place now and over the coming months, because that was what scrutiny was looking for.

The Corporate Director - Communities explained that those conversations would be had on a future contract, but it was slightly premature to be having those discussions now with regards to the uncertainty and the unknowns. She understood that Members were concerned, but reassured them that those discussions would take place. 

A Member referred to legislation being introduced by WG, whereby local authorities would have to enforce pavement parking in place of the Police enforcing it.  He was concerned this would impact on large refuse / recycling vehicles being able to access quite narrow streets. He asked if the Authority would be putting traffic regulation orders in place and when would local members have sight, ward by ward, of where the regulations would be permitted and where they would not.

The Head of Operations - Community Services advised that there were two big changes in traffic legislation over the coming year; 20 mile an hour residential area speed limits, and; enforcement for pavement parking. Neither was yet in force and the finer detail would be available in the coming weeks. In terms of pavement parking, it would not suit everywhere and there would have to be designated areas where pavement parking was allowed to continue.  He advised that the budget approved for this year included a budget pressure that set out that more resource was needed in the Traffic Section to be able to deal with additional requirements over the next few years and recruitment was underway to fill those posts.  He was aware there was a potential for impact, it would have to be planned for very carefully and there would be future reports.

A Member referred to residents placing food in their blue bags and the efforts made to educate residents to place food in the food waste.  She was surprised that it had not been tackled in a big way before and felt there was a need to be working with the contractor to try and alleviate this problem.

The Head of Operations - Community Services acknowledged that report touched on that this was one of the areas of focus over the next few years in order for the Local Authority to get to the 70% statutory recycling target.  However, right now, this was such a big issue that there wouldn't be much point in trying to identify individuals and needed to be a little bit broader. A number of recycling campaigns targeting food, had been done, in the past and they had been successful because some before and after measurement had been done. Although this was still an issue people were engaging with the food recycling service. However, there was an opportunity to drive more food out of the bags using a range of measures that would include some education, working with the contractor and ultimately some sort of enforcement measures as a fall back, to drive forward food recycling for those still not fully engaged with the food service.

A Member advised that the approach to seek an extension of the contract for 2 years being taken, did not sit well with him and asked for more information why a competitive tender would not be pursued.   He added that there was clearly no appetite for bringing the service in-house and asked for confirmation on how long the extension would be, although he did not believe it represented a rigorous approach to public procurement and value for money.  He asked the Interim Chief Officer Finance, Performance and Change to comment on whether she believed that it represented value for money for the public purse.

The Head of Operations - Community Services advised that the current contract was procured in a competitive environment, with a 70% weighting on finance, to ensure good value for money. The Authority was not looking to extend for the entire seven years, because that would mean discussion about a new fleet of vehicles and the problems talked about in why choosing a new fleet of vehicles right now would not be appropriate.  It was about obtaining an extra couple of year’s lifespan from the existing vehicles.

The Interim Chief Officer Finance, Performance and Change confirmed that she was not actually responsible for procurement but acknowledging what the Head of Operations - Community Services had said, that this was a proper procurement and would be looked at in terms of value for money. It did perform well across the piece in terms of the indicators compared to other refuse contracts. This was about an extension, rather than the whole contract running again and there would be heavy involvement in looking at alternatives and costs. She noted the pressure on the revenue and capital budget if the Local Authority was to embark on buying a fleet of vehicles, that in itself would be a huge cost, and there was no guarantee that by bringing in-house this would give better value for money. Authorities with an in-house collection often struggled to attract staff, which was a reputational issue for the Council, not for the provider.

The Corporate Director - Communities reassured Members that this was an extension and alternative methods and contract forms, would be looked at and if necessary a procurement option would be considered.

The Member noted that the Head of Operations - Community Services had mentioned the original contract with Kier was procured with value for money in mind and asked how the Local Authority knew this would represent value for money come 2024.  Surely tendering the contract to a number of providers would allow the Local Authority to benchmark against private contractors.  If the contract was extended further clarification was needed on what that stop gap would be because in the report it says up to seven years and did not provide a limit on time scale.

The Corporate Director - Communities confirmed that the intention was for no more than two years extension to provide enough time to get to the bottom of the uncertainties, work through them and then procure a new contract if that was the preferred option and that the lifespan of the existing vehicles was two years.

The Head of Operations – Community Services clarified that the report stated two to three years, but absolutely it was governed by what the Local Authority could get out of the existing fleet.

The Member noted that if it was up to three years it would tie the hands of the next administration altogether and that did not sit well with him.

The Cabinet Member Communities clarified in relation to Member’s statement of there being no appetite to in-source the service, it was not that there was no appetite for it, rather those options hadn’t been looked at yet and so it could not be determined whether there was an appetite to in-source or to continue to outsource.  The options would continue to be looked at in order to make the decision on the best way forward.

The Member questioned why the options hadn't been looked at before the end of the contract period so the Local Authority was not in a position where the contract had to be extended.

The Corporate Director Communities reiterated to the Member that the contract had been looked at but there were so many uncertainties it was unwise to make those decisions currently based on everything that was in the report. Those uncertainties needed to be worked through to make sure the correct contract was procured.

A Member thanked the Cabinet Member for confirming that all options were still on the table, and reiterated points made by the previous Member, but felt disappointed that the in-house option and other options were not now being discussed as part of the report.

The Corporate Director Communities reiterate her point again that there were so many uncertainties currently it would not be an informed decision to discuss those options.  There was nothing to benchmark a new contract on if the targets for recycling were not known, what the return bottle scheme and environmental standards would be, and what an ULEV fleet would look like. Officers had been open and honest and had committed to coming back to Scrutiny to discuss the new contract at the right time including telling Members about the four areas of uncertainty, when more was known about them. A line had been drawn under what had happened in 2017 and the same mistakes would not be made going forward.

The professional advice to Cabinet was that this was not the right time, the uncertainties would be unlocked and those discussions would be had with Scrutiny.

The Cabinet Member Communities advised that a prudent decision was being made in respect of spending public money in the best way.

A Member thanked Officers for the report and asked about the possibility of ULEV vehicles becoming far cheaper in years to come and what would be the current cost of replacing the fleet.

The Head of Operations - Community Services explained that it would be a large sum of money which was why the difference in price between ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV’s) and diesel vehicles, and buying in at the right time was so important to the Local Authority.  WG would be supporting the purchase of ULEV’s and making grants available and the Local Authority would fully want to utilise that and get some of these vehicles on board to trial them and start finding out what the pros and cons of using them were, how well did they work for the area, particularly as the tipping point down at the MREC was not local, how good were the batteries, etc.  There was a lot to learn over the next year and it would be good to see a few being trialled in Bridgend, but an entire fleet would currently cost many millions of pounds.

The Committee made the following recommendation:

     That Members could not support the extension of the current Waste 

     Contract for a further two years, without having the debate about options,

     costs, and cost benefits analysis and value for money for the public

     purse.