| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Nov 2009 : Column 217WH—continued
"Take up of the initiative was limited".
Jim Fitzpatrick: I did not mean to speed over points deliberately, or not to pay them appropriate attention. Like other colleagues, I anticipated there being more speakers in this debate. I therefore edited my comments to ensure that others had as much time as possible.
On the progress that is being made under the present infrastructure, several Members pointed out that the use of consumer power reinforces their argument that there has been movement when it comes to the ethos of eating and procurement. The best example is McDonald's. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, referred to that company's sensitivity and its position in the market. The fact that McDonald's has moved demonstrates that it recognises public opinion. It is getting ahead of the game, so that it can try to maintain, if not increase, its market share. In the marketplace, blue-chip corporations involved in food supply are moving forward, and I shall give at least one more example of progress in the public sector, too. That shows that we
are talking about a moveable feast, if you will excuse the pun, Mr. Sheridan, and it is moving in the right direction-the direction that my hon. Friend wants us to take.
The second animal welfare criterion being considered as a potential entry on the healthier food mark list is the aim of having
"100 per cent. of eggs...sourced from systems which do not use conventional cages."
Owing to stakeholders' concerns about the number of criteria, that is only listed as a potential criterion; we consider that the impending ban on the use of conventional cages will drive the outcome.
In February 2008, we issued a notice to all public sector contracting authorities to alert them to the ban on conventional cages from January 2012. The purpose of the alert was to enable buyers to reflect the new regulations in forthcoming contracts, and that, in part, answers the question that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about lead-in times and the ability of producers and purchasers to make adjustments in respect of the new regulations.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the Office of Government Commerce on the collaborative food procurement programme, which aims to use collaboration between public sector buyers to generate better value and higher quality, and to embed sustainability and animal welfare in procurement decisions right across the public sector.
In the summer, I wrote to Ministers in every Department to ensure that they were aware of how much importance the Government attach to the higher welfare standards. I accept the points made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about averages, and I would not quibble with him. However, we do not want to camouflage the progress that has been made; in some areas, it is better than in others. None the less, we are trying to address the issues and to make even better progress. I have begun meeting other Ministers, starting with those in charge of the biggest food-buying Departments, to discuss procurement issues. We will look at those who are doing well to identify how they have been able to make such progress. We will also look at those who are not doing so well and listen to them to find out what obstacles they may be encountering. We will share best practice across the Departments, and that will then feed down to the wider public sector. For example, I will examine the purchasing of the Department of Health and then move on to the NHS. Likewise, I will examine the purchasing of the Department for Communities and Local Government and then move on to local government, and so on, to try to ensure that we can make additional progress.
I was interested to hear the point that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made about his cook in Ely. One issue that has come up recently in our meetings with the Food Standards Agency and the Council of Food Policy Advisers is the fact that, because of devolved budgets, there are now some 35,000 purchasing points within the public sector. It is possible that the skill level of some of those procurement officials is not appropriate. For example, they may be great at purchasing stationery, because that is their background, but they are now having to purchase food for the Department. We must consider the skills set of the people in those purchasing areas. The cook obviously knows exactly
what she is purchasing and is making positive choices, getting better value for money and producing healthier meals. However, she probably does not represent the majority; she may be a very good representative sample, but we must ensure that everyone in the public sector has the appropriate skills to make the appropriate choices.
Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for what he has said. He is right that there is an issue with buyers being responsible for stationery, desks and everything else, including food. That is the problem. The person buying the food should be not the purchasing officer but the person responsible for preparing the food. If we drive decisions further down, we will get the benefit.
Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In the exercise that I am conducting with other Ministers and within DEFRA, I am trying to identify what is working well, and am then sharing that best practice to ensure that it is as effective as possible. I should inform my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that DEFRA's caterers have made their own decision, and buy only free-range eggs and UK-sourced meat. Again, no legislation compelled them to do that. I am talking about a private sector catering contractor that is making a judgment based on what it thinks the consumer wants. It believes that by doing what the consumer wants, it will sell more of its products, thus making its business more efficient.
In conclusion, I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the welfare of animals in our care, and I agree that there is some way to go before we can really say that we have reached the desired standards. We must do things that reflect the public appetite for change as well as the need for value. We must ensure that our food and farming industry moves with us to deliver the change that we all want, and the change that allows us to work with our international trading partners for a secure, sustainable and fair food supply, now and in the future. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and would like to express my appreciation to all hon. Friends and hon. Members who have contributed.
12.5 pm
Thames Valley Police
12.30 pm
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sheridan.
I secured this debate to represent the views of my constituent, Paul Fidler, and the employees of his company, Wessex Recovery Ltd. I believe strongly that they have been the victims of a miscarriage of justice. Wessex Recovery Ltd is owned entirely by Mr. Fidler. It was formed in 1991 and since 1993 has had a contract with Thames Valley police for the recovery and storage of light and commercial vehicles across a large part of the force's area. In 2007, the contract ran out and operators tendered for the new contract with a new management company, Recovery Management Services Ltd. Wessex Recovery secured the contract and appears to have proceeded with an unblemished record from Thames Valley police and those it serves.
On 23 February 2009, Mr. Fidler was summoned to a meeting with John Marks, the chief executive officer of RMSL, John Brigham, a legal adviser to RMSL, and Phil Newberry, the RMSL scheme manager. The meeting was called by Mr. Newberry following a phone call the previous Friday regarding "a contractual matter". At the meeting, Mr. Fidler was informed that Thames Valley police had requested the termination of Wessex Recovery's contract and that RMSL required the suspension of Wessex Recovery. RMSL said that the suspension had been requested without any explanation, other than that there was a "problem" with Mr. Fidler-not with Wessex Recovery. John Marks had asked Thames Valley police for further explanation, such as that an arrest was imminent or that there was an ongoing investigation concerning Paul Fidler. Thames Valley police answered no to both questions.
RMSL considered a number of operational possibilities. The upshot of the meeting was that Thames Valley police would accept only certain options and had certain conditions. The first option was a share sale of Wessex Recovery Ltd by 4 pm on the same day. The second was that the company be signed over to an independent person in a caretaker capacity and that Mr. Fidler provide a declaration that he would not set foot on his premises at Halfway depot, which is near the A4 between Newbury and Hungerford. Additionally, because Mr. Fidler's house was adjacent to the depot, a new driveway was to be constructed so that he did not have to step on any ground covered by the operations of the depot. The third option was that Mr. Fidler could live elsewhere and initiate the immediate sale of his house. A further condition was that the internet protocol address for the depot's CCTV system be made available to Thames Valley police so that it could ensure that he did not enter the premises.
Mr. Fidler's business is worth between £2 million and £4 million. It is perverse and extraordinary to ask an individual to sell a company without giving any reasons. Selling a company is not an easy business. It requires a lot of due diligence work and cannot be done within a few hours. The first thing Mr. Fidler did was to try to find out the reasons for the decision, but answer came there none. He therefore visited my surgery at the end of May 2009 to seek my assistance.
I first contacted RMSL by telephone and was told that it was not obliged to give me any further information. I followed that up with an e-mail to the chief constable on 29 May. Her reply gave no information about why the decision had been taken, but said that it had not been taken lightly. I followed that up and received a letter from the chief constable on 22 June that added no further information. However, she wrote to Mr. Fidler, setting out the reasons for the suspension of his contract. The reasons related to two allegations of improper conduct with females.
The first allegation was made by a former member of staff at Wessex Recovery on 15 July 2008. Mr. Fidler had been arrested on 17 July 2008 and had strenuously denied the offence. I have no intention of going into the details of the case. However, the more I look into it, the more I feel that it would not have stood up to scrutiny in court due to the many conflicting factors. On 4 September 2008, the complainant made a further statement withdrawing the allegation. No charges were brought against Mr. Fidler in respect of the incident.
The second allegation concerned a previously unknown allegation made by a Thames Valley police scene of crimes officer on 21 July 2008. The allegation related to something that had occurred eight months previously in November 2007. The incident was not reported at the time and the complainant was adamant that she did not wish to support any proceedings against Mr. Fidler. She carried on working at the same location and in the same environment for many months after the alleged incident and did not bring it to anyone's attention. She said she was reporting it on 21 July 2008 because she had become aware of the other allegation to which I have referred. Mr. Fidler was not arrested or interviewed about the allegation, no charges were brought and no statement was made. It appears that Thames Valley police was supporting its decision on the basis of pure hearsay.
At the end of her letter to Mr. Fidler, the chief constable wrote:
"I can assure you that the approach of Thames Valley Police was not arrived at lightly, or without serious consideration of all options".
When Mr. Fidler showed me this letter, it left me with more questions, not fewer. After much thought, I wrote to the chief constable on 30 June. First, I pointed out that it seems bizarre to tell the owner of a company with a large, seven-figure turnover that his options include selling the company that day to another operator. As I have said, the sale of a company is a complex business that requires due diligence and all manner of contractual arrangements.
At the root of the problem are the allegations. I understand that Thames Valley police has to look seriously at an individual who interfaces with its staff and against whom a complaint of sexual harassment has been made. However, any organisation contemplating the removal of a contract that would be a devastating blow on an individual, his family and his employees-in this case 65 employees-should carry out the fullest possible investigation. At the least, the two individuals concerned in the allegations, Wessex Recovery staff and the police officers who dealt with the complaint should have been interviewed. Under the rules of natural justice, I believe
that Mr. Fidler should have been interviewed, and at great length if necessary. I therefore question the assertion that
"serious consideration of all options"
had been carried out and that the decision had not been taken lightly.
I wrote to the chief constable again on 29 July to ask whether the independent investigator from the professional standards department interviewed Mr. Fidler, the two women at the centre of the allegations and the police officers who investigated the allegation. I have had no response to those questions. All I heard from the chief constable, for whom I have the highest regard in all other matters, was a further assertion that the decisions were not taken lightly. She also wrote:
"I am not sure that you and I will be able to take this matter much further in correspondence".
She seemed to leave the situation open for Mr. Fidler to take legal action. However, as hon. Members know, such legal action is expensive, especially for somebody who has been put in a difficult financial position by the initial decision.
My next step was to consult Mr. Fidler's local councillor, who also happens to be West Berkshire's representative on the Thames Valley police authority. With Mr. Fidler's agreement, I laid out all the facts, as I know them, for Councillor Anthony Stansfeld. He had much the same reaction as I did, and took matters up himself with the chief constable and others. However, he has hit the buffers with this investigation in the same way as I have, and I am therefore seeking the assistance of the Minister to try to unravel what has happened.
On at least two occasions, I have said to the chief constable that if she were to say to me that there is much more to this matter than meets the eye and that she is simply unable to give me the details, I cannot say that I would be happy, but I would be less inclined to follow up the matter, as I am doing today. In our roles as Members of Parliament, we are frequently visited in our surgeries by people who give us cases that, on the surface, seem cut and dried, but bitter experience has shown us that there are two sides to every argument. In this case, I am getting only one side of the argument and the more I investigate the matter, the more I feel that an injustice has been done.
I understand Thames Valley police's concern about the safety of its staff and that that might require it to make difficult decisions from time to time. However, I am worried that this decision has been taken without proper investigation or regard to the rules of natural justice in a way that shows either an organisation that is too risk averse, or that makes such decisions in a slap-dash manner in the hope that, because it is a large organisation and Mr. Fidler is an individual, the problem will just go away in due course.
The more I am involved in the case, the more certain I am that I wish to follow it through to some sort of conclusion. We might get some degree of closure today in that, on hearing these words, the Minister might conclude that an investigation needs to be carried out by an independent body or individual into the exact circumstances of the termination of the contract. At the very least, I hope that this debate will encourage Thames Valley police to look very closely at its procedures. I simply cannot understand how any public body can be prepared to remove the livelihood of an individual and
his family, and potentially the livelihood of 65 employees, without being prepared to give any reasons for the removal of that contract.
I leave the Minister with two points. Wessex Recovery Ltd, with its 100 per cent. shareholding by Mr. Fidler, retains a contract with Hampshire police for work similar to that which it carried out for Thames Valley police prior to 23 February. The contract with Hampshire came up for renewal after the contract with Thames Valley police was suspended and, in the full knowledge of that suspension, Hampshire police has re-awarded Wessex Recovery Ltd its contract. If for no other reason, I submit that that makes Mr. Fidler's case yet stronger.
My second point is that seven months elapsed between Mr. Fidler's initial arrest and the decision to terminate the contract. Thames Valley police contacted RMSL, gave it one working day to terminate the contract and attempted to force through a sale of the company in just a few hours. However, I repeat: seven months had elapsed. Thames Valley police cannot have been as concerned as it now says it is if it was prepared to allow seven months to elapse before it took action.
As things stand today, a cloud hangs over Mr. Fidler and will do so for the rest of his business life, as he has to declare that he has been suspended from a contract in all future tender documents. In addition, a cloud has been placed over his character and reputation based on the flimsiest of evidence and investigation. I urge the Minister to consider the level of injustice and to instigate a full and independent inquiry without delay.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sheridan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has raised what is clearly a serious and important constituency matter for him. There are strict limitations on what I am able to say to the hon. Gentleman today, but at least he has had the opportunity to raise in Parliament what he clearly believes to be a miscarriage of justice.
The Home Office is responsible for setting the level and structure of the charges, but we cannot become involved in contractual arrangements between individual police forces and managing agents or vehicle removal operators, or any police decision that leads to the suspension or termination of a contract with an individual recovery operator. I cannot therefore specifically comment on Thames Valley police's decision or on the specific circumstances that led to the suspension of Wessex Recovery's contract with RMSL, which is the managing agent for the Thames Valley police vehicle recovery scheme.
This is a very sensitive issue and I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley police that the force took the decision that it could no longer support the involvement of Wessex Recovery in its vehicle recovery scheme on the grounds of public protection and that, in doing so, it carefully balanced the impact on the owner of Wessex Recovery and other staff, following consideration of alternative options. I understand that the chief constable has written to the owner of Wessex Recovery to explain the reasons for the decision and that the chief constable has been engaged in detailed correspondence with the hon. Member for Newbury on the issue.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |