DESPITE concerns about the integrity of enforcement and the cost to the authority, it seems likely that Thurrock will once more be offering a four year contract to a private company to police and fine residents in matters such as littering and fly-tipping.

At the end of this year the council's current contract with controversial company Kingdom Security runs out.

As reported by Thurrock Nub News last week officers have recommended the council once more goes out to tender on the option of a new contract - rather than bringing the service back under direct control.

The matter came before the council's cleaner, greener and safer overview and scrutiny committee where, despite some concerns coming from the chair, Tory councillor Joy Redsell, and outright opposition from the Labour group leader Cllr John Kent, the committee agreed to recommend the council opt to create a new contract - left to the discretion of senior officer Julie Rogers, the director of environment and highways.

If the cabinet agrees with the committee Mrs Rogers will have sole responsibility for the tender and awarding a new contract, giving councillors little say in its implementation.

That is an anathema to Cllr Kent, who believes that having a system whereby the company earns money from issuing tickets rather than preventing the offence in the first place is the wrong policy.

Assistant Director for Counter Fraud, Investigation & Enforcement David Kleinberg, whose salary for running enforcement is close to £100,000 a year, briefed the meeting, saying: "This paper outlines the proposal for the council to retain its bought-in support services that assist us in meeting our objective to improve the environment and neighbourhoods for our residents.

"For us the current contract has seen significant improvement in our posture for environmental crime specifically targeted to improve our deterrence and respo9nse to the criminal offences of littering.

"In essence the contract brings us more eyes and ears on the ground within our communities to protect our residents with a reduced financial risk of us expanding the staff or doing it ourselves."

He then handed to floor to the strategic lead for environmental enforcement Phil Carver who expounded the case for staying private rather than going in house and confirmed that any new contract is likely to see a bigger proportion of any fines issued going to the contractors.

Currently around £45 of each fine of £150 is pocketed by the company but that is expected to rise to at least £75 and probably more.

However, Mr Carver (strategic leads at the council earn on average between £66 and £77 thousand) says it still makes better financial sense to go out of house because the council won't have staffing problems like sickness cover to manage.

That is despite that, aside from himself and Mr Kleinberg the council also employs a team of officers to manage environmental crime issues and respond to the volume of service requests.

Mr Carver detailed the current internal team structure, saying: "The council has a small internal environmental enforcement team consisting of four day shift officers that are responsible for responding and taking appropriate action for the 4,000 service requests, 50 complaints and 450 plus councillor enquiries received on average each year.

"The council has recently expanded and introduced a twilight enforcement team comprising of three environmental enforcement officers on a two year fixed term contract.

"The objective of the twilight team is to focus on environmental offences and some aspects of anti-social behaviour occurring during the night time economy

"The size of the day team restricts activity to being a purely reactive service, prioritising larger complex investigative casework. In order to deliver a highly effective service to complement the existing in house service there is a need for a proactive enforcement solution resolving simple high volume cases."

It is not proposed that any new contract would instruct its operators to increase the number of officers on the ground.

Currently Kingdom employ four in Thurrock which nets them around £150,000 a year. Under a new contract that is likely to rise to around approaching £300,000. Enforcement officers typically earn between £19,000 and £25,000 and some are paid bonuses in relation to the number of tickets issued. So firms bidding for the new contract look set to make substantial profits.

The increase in profit to a private sector firm, rather than the money going into council coffers was of great concern to Cllr Kent.

Speaking at the meeting he said: "Mr Carver spoke on the posture of environmental crime, could he elaborate in what he means by that?"

Mr Carver, who looked increasingly uncomfortable as he was questioned - and when later asked about the council's CCTV enforcement provision admitted he did not know the answer or how many cameras the council had or where! - answered Cllr Kent by saying: "It's statutory offences that they (the contractors) deal with and the processes they have to follow. They work in line with our process.

"In terms of littering, it is a statutory offence and that's what they have got to follow."

Mr Carver was then asked by Stifford Clays Conservative councillor Elizabeth Rigby how many contractors are there and generally how often do they go out on patrol and what areas are covered.

"And how do they actually get the littering offenders?"

Mr Carver said: "There is only one contractor. They are assigned what areas to over and that can be by a number of complaints we have received. They need to witness the offence there and then to interact with an alleged offender."

Cllr Kent remained the one significant voice of opposition and summed by saying: "I think the decision we have got this evening really boils down to two options doesn't it?

"Nobody wants to not have an enforcement team, I think that is case proven.

"The choice comes between retendering for external companies coming in on it or to bring it in house.

"I am disappointed that the case that has been made for in-house is as weak as it is and doesn't talk about the positives you can have. Positives in terms of having more flexibility because you directly employ the staff, in terms of a better deal for those people who are employed and those people have a greater allegiance to the place and the people that they work for.

"It also gives us the possibility of just softening the approach a little.

"Far too often every elected member here has had it. We know examples where these enforcement officers have gone after the low-hanging fruit, the easy tickets because that's what gets results and gets them paid.

"And we know that they are encouraged to do it.

"We have seen stories recently of elderly people misunderstanding what the rules are and then being fined for that.

"I have had people complaining, especially during pandemic, that they have gone to recycling bins to drop clothes off in supermarket car parks and to have teams of enforcement officers waiting there and nicking people who have gone to those bins which are full and have no option but to put clothes by the banks,

"I don't think that's good enough. And I don't think that's something that will happen if this was an internal team.

"We just need to look at whether we can use these officers as a force for good. If somebody is dropping a cigarette butt then public health surely tells you that we should be trying to help people and given them some information on how to stop smoking.

"I we are then going to be writing to them should we not take the opportunity to give them some information and some help, not just fining them for dropping a cigarette butt?

"My plea would be that we recommend going in house and I hope that everyone would agree that the recommendation as it currently stands isn't valid."

However, despite committee chair Cllr Redsell nodding her approval of his words throughout Cllr Kent's speech, his words fell on deaf ears and the recommendation was passed with him the only objector.