Richard Benyon (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

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 always two sides to every argument. In this case, I am only getting 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 whatsoever 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.

Richard Benyon (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

The chief constable wrote to Mr. Fidler only when I wrote to her. Does the Minister not agree that it is a strange way of doing things to tell the contract manager to terminate the contract, not giving any reason why and not giving any reason to the MP concerned until I contacted her and she approached Mr. Fidler?

Richard Benyon (- Shadow Minister, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate, and I understand the limitations on him and the Home Office. I should like to put on the record again that I have a very good working relationship with the chief constable; I hope that good relationship continues after today. However, the purpose of MPs, every now and again, is to stand up for people whom we feel have been brow-beaten by a large organisation, particularly if it is a public one. There must be a method whereby ordinary Members of the House can represent their constituents on issues such as this if they feel that an injustice has been done, rather than individuals having to go through the courts themselves.