Issue - decisions

Public Question

A member of the public asked a question, as set out below.

 

Ms Brennan raised the following points:

      i.          Pest control is an important service.

    ii.          The Council Pest Control Service treated a variety of pest and sites.

 iii.          The pest control service was free for residents.

  iv.          Suggested a chargeable private service would reduce the number of reported cases and lead to less use of pest control services.

    v.          Suggested that moving to a chargeable private service would not lead to justifiable cost savings for the council.

  vi.          Pests do not respect boundaries. A lack of treatment in the city could spread to other areas.

 

The Head of Refuse and Environment responded:

       i.          The Pest Control Service was discretionary; cost savings were set out in the Officer’s report.

     ii.          The service would not cease until criteria in the Officer’s report were met (if approved at committee today).

   iii.          The council would provide an advisory service to residents if the pest control service was outsourced to the private sector.

   iv.          Many local authorities had already withdrawn pest control services, whilst continuing to provide an advisory service to residents.

    v.          The Council only paid for pest control on the Mill Road site, not on any others as the land owner was responsible.

   vi.          The Council had a statutory duty to enforce pest control.

 

Ms Brennan asked a supplementary question to clarify if all on-costs were considered in the Officer’s report.

 

The Head of Refuse and Environment said that officers would review on-costs in future if councillors decided to stop providing the pest control service today.

 

Matter for Decision

In the light of budget pressures at the City Council the Pest Control Service has been reviewed and options considered to reduce the costs of the Service. The Service safeguards public health by eradicating and preventing pests such as rats, mice, and bedbugs in residential and commercial premises. In some cases the City Council makes a charge but there is limited scope for additional income as there are a number of private companies that provide the service at a more competitive rate. The Service is discretionary and many Local Authorities, faced with budget pressures, have ceased the activity.

 

It has been concluded that the Service should be discontinued subject to financial assistance (reviewed annually) being made available to residents in receipt of benefit. This approach will ensure that the public health objectives of the City Council will be achieved whilst achieving a budget saving.

 

A variety of options have been considered when reviewing the Pest Control Service. Last year efforts were made to try and bring in some commercial contracts and reduce costs but due to the highly competitive market this was not successful.

 

Charging for treatment in both domestic and commercial premises has also been considered. Charges previously introduced for mice treatments, resulted in a decline in the number of treatments. Due to the overall cost of providing the Service the introduction of charges would not provide sufficient income to cover the Council’s cost of the service.

 

Using a private contractor to undertake the work is unlikely to provide any savings with a lengthy procurement exercise which would incur additional management and contractual costs.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services

       i.          Approved the cessation of the Pest Control Service with effect from July 2014.

     ii.          Instructed officers, in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Opposition Spokesperson, to develop a scheme prior to cessation of the Pest Control Service for those residents in the city that are suffering from financial hardship.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Refuse and Environment.

 

Labour Councillors said in response to the report that residents were concerned at the loss of the service and felt it should be protected. They suggested that using a private contractor would not lead to great cost savings.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

       i.          Government funding varies between different types of local authorities.

     ii.          The level of pest control service varies between different local authorities as it is discretionary.

   iii.          Environmental health is a statutory service. There are no expected changes to the Council’s high quality Environmental Health Service if the Pest Control Service was withdrawn. Most Environmental Health Officers could identify pest problems without Pest Control Service input.

   iv.          The proposal is to withdraw the Council’s discretionary Pest Control Service and replace it with an advisory service that would also signpost private pest control services. The Council would aim to continue working with residents and businesses. For example, if tenants required advice regarding landlord’s responsibilities regarding pest control.

    v.          Financial support for tenants on benefits was subject to review by the Executive Councillor, Chair and Opposition Spokesperson.

   vi.          The Council had tendered to undertake private work using its pest control service, but was unsuccessful when bidding in a competitive market.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.