A rushed decision that took just 20 seconds to debate on spending almost £14 million on new bin lorries will be revisited. Bristol City Council is planning to buy a fleet of new bin lorries which will be ready to be converted to electric vehicles as well as have more capacity for cardboard.

But when this investment was first approved, by the environment policy committee last month, the decision was rushed. There was confusion over how late the committee could stay in City Hall and frustration over the arduously long debate over a previous decision about black bins.

Because so little time was spent on spending so much public money, Labour called in the decision to an escalation panel on Thursday, January 22. The panel decided to get the committee to take another look at the investment, but also raised questions for Labour as well.

Black bins and recycling containers on a pavement in Bedminster | Alex Seabrook/LDRS

placeholder image — Black bins and recycling containers on a pavement in Bedminster | Alex Seabrook/LDRS

Green Councillor Martin Fodor, chair of the environment committee, said: “While we believe that it was made within the rules of decision-making, I know issues have come out about how the decision was reached. There were very detailed papers, 124 pages about the item, and they were fully public.

“Members did know that the issue was time sensitive and a lot of time had already been spent in the meeting, almost three hours. So when there was a proposal to move to a vote, which was seconded cross-party, I read out the item so it could be voted.

“However, I acknowledge, and I did so several times afterwards, it is not an ideal way to make decisions. I would have liked the committee — who all had access to the issue and debated it in a task and finish group — to ask questions in public, because we want to see that’s available to the residents of Bristol, not just the committee, so that they knew what the issues were.”

He suggested that the decision could come back to his committee, to be debated in public. Labour councillors, who called in the decision to be reviewed by the escalation panel, said they welcomed Cllr Fodor’s statement. But they added the meeting could have simply been extended, and some issues weren’t explored like spending millions on new diesel vehicles.

Labour Cllr Rob Logan said: “You can’t spend £14 million in 20 seconds without someone asking you what the rush was. The meeting should have been extended by half an hour. I don’t think anyone on the committee would have objected to that. I don’t think there was a reason why that couldn’t have happened.

“A lot of the money is spent on buying something called EV-ready vehicles. An EV-ready vehicle, if there isn’t a plan to convert it to an electric vehicle, is just a diesel van with better marketing. I think the committee would have asked how long that would have taken.”

An extraordinary meeting of the environment committee will be held, due to the time-sensitive nature of the need to approve spending the £14 million. One issue was that Labour did not object to the rushed nature of the decision before the vote, although they did have a brief opportunity to do so. Labour councillors were “surprised” and then only complained afterwards.

Green Cllr Christine Townsend said: “If I were on the committee and I wasn’t happy with the way in which the chair is taking things forward, I would have made that clear.”

Cllr Logan added: “I don’t necessarily disagree. There are lessons for all the members of the committee. I think members were surprised that the vote was happening in that way.”

Another issue was that Labour tried to amend the previous decision, on changes to black bin collections, in a “hugely disruptive” way. This led to the meeting getting adjourned for more than an hour, while the wording of Labour’s amendment was thrashed out before it was later tabled.Essentially Labour were against three-weekly black bin collections, which the committee vetoed.

Instead of agreeing to table an amendment before the meeting, or during the debate, Labour emailed their plans 14 minutes after the meeting began. This couldn’t legally be tabled because it pledged extra spending that hadn’t been subject to legal advice. The row over the wording is what delayed the meeting by over an hour, but this could have been sorted before the meeting.

John Smith, executive director of growth and regeneration, said: “There was a lengthy adjournment of over an hour where we had to try and rewrite the amendment on the hoof, to try and find a form of words that was acceptable to the person proposing the amendment, which met the legal requirements.

“The way that particular amendment played out was hugely disruptive to the rest of the meeting. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention.”