Members of the public wishing to take part (asking a question or making a statement) should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by email indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case xxxxxxx). Enquiries can be made through the telephone number / email address listed below.
Minutes:
Scrutiny of the Sale of Registration Plate AB1
The Chairman in introducing the public participation advised that:
· As Panel members and members of the public were aware, major changes to police governance were introduced a few years ago with the direct election of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) for police areas
· Police and Crime Panels were also established at the same time as part of those new governance arrangements. This Panel acted on behalf of all the principal councils in the West Mercia police area, with councillor representatives and also independent members
· PCC's had wide-ranging powers and functions, and an important role for these Panels was to scrutinise or review decisions or other action taken by them. This was part of the public accountability of Commissioners – candidates were of course accountable to the electorate at the time of elections but Panels have a clear part to play on behalf of the public in relation to the exercise of Commissioners' functions during their term of office. Later Agenda items showed part of the ongoing work of the Panel eg in relation to the budget setting process
· The Scrutiny of the Sale of Registration Plate AB1 Agenda item related to a decision by the West Mercia PCC to sell the rights to number plate AB1. The sale had caused a considerable degree of public criticism and comment, whether or not such criticism was justified. It seemed to be in the public interest to place the matter before the Panel to carry out a Scrutiny of the sale to help clarify the facts and increase transparency
· As the Report made clear, the Panel had also received a number of complaints concerning the conduct of the Commissioner in selling AB1 ie in relation to his decision to sell and the process used. It seemed that the most appropriate action to take was to scrutinise that decision causing concern in order to establish Who did What, When and Why. The additional transparency may itself resolve many or all of the complaints as far as the Panel could, or there may need to be further process to do so, but the focus of the Panel was to Scrutinise the sale of AB1 rather than attempt to resolve the individual complaints. The complaints had been summarised in the Report to inform the Panel as to the nature of the concerns raised, which may inform the Scrutiny
· In terms of how this item would be dealt with, there were a number of members of the public who would be allowed three minutes to speak with a total maximum of 30 minutes public participation for all speakers.
An outline of what each of the speakers said is as follows:
Andy Parkes (retired Police Superintendent from West Mercia Police)
· Mr Parkes worked directly for Paul West in his last role
· He represented over 1000 people who had signed a petition in relation to the sale of AB1 and its subsequent withdrawal from auction and the sale to Paul West afterwards
· AB1 had been in existence in Worcestershire since 1900. In 1957, the local tax office gave it to West Mercia Police in perpetuity to ensure that it stayed within the Worcestershire heritage. Mr Parkes believed that there was paperwork available to evidence this
· Mr Parkes challenged whether AB1 could be sold without first consulting with the DVLA which he believed had not been done
· The first indication that the process for selling AB1 had commenced was in July 2017 via Brightwells, but Mr Parkes believed that the plate should have been withdrawn to allow for consultation with the public as to whether the plate should have been sold. He believed that this would have demonstrated ethics, values, transparency and openness
· The plate was advertised for a short time and then was withdrawn and a private sale agreed at £160,000
· Mr Parkes believed that the plate could have been sold in excess of what was agreed as a private sale and it wasn’t best use of the public money. The public had not seen the purpose for what the money was being used nor had they had the opportunity to bid for it. He believed it was an underhand, insider deal.
Clive Smith
Registration number AB1 was privately sold for £160,000 after it was withdrawn from sale through Brightwells Auctioneers at the direction of the PCC, John Campion. it was, at a conservative estimate worth at least £100,000 more than the sum for which it was sold. Mr Smith asked how the PCC justified his actions.
Tim Brookes
Mr Brookes made the point that the first public awareness of the sale of AB1 was via an advert in Telegraph Newspaper on 15 July 2017 and that he believed that the summation of the situation that the Panel had been given was misleading.
Mr Brookes lived in Worcestershire and owned a series of number plates. In his view AB1 was the 'Holy Grail' of number plates and Mr Brookes wanted it as it was his wife's initials. He had made six unanswered telephone calls to Brightwells on Saturday 15 July 2017 and finally made email contact and was advised by Brightwells that offers were sought based on £250,000. Mr Brookes was then advised on the Wednesday (19 July 2017) that the plate had been sold.
Mr Brookes was very unhappy with the situation After being advised that that the plate had been sold Mr Brookes asked Brightwells to go back to the PCCs Office and make an initial offer of £305,000 and he advised that he was prepared to make a higher bid if needed. Brightwells confirmed to Mr Brookes that the offer had been made to West Mercia Police and had been received. Mr Brookes was further advised by Brightwells that there was an audit trail confirming his offer.
Mr Brookes made the point that there had been no extensive advertising of the number plate and that the only reference to AB1 being sold was the advert in the Telegraph Newspaper on 15 July. The sale wasn’t completed until 11 August 2017 when Mr Brookes had been advised that it had been sold on Wednesday 19 July 2017. Mr Brookes reiterated that he believed that the PCC's statement was factually inaccurate.
Mr Brookes confirmed that all his dealings were through Steve Powis at Brightwells.
John Mayne
Mr Mayne outlined his employment history and that he had monitored memorabilia over the years.
Mr Mayne didn't believe that AB1 had ever been properly valued in the way that would be normal custom and practice for expensive items ie to have two valuations. He suggested that there was no evidence that the PCC had obtained a second opinion in this case. AB1 was withdrawn from sale even after offers were made. A business man had told Mr Mayne that he would be prepared to pay £250,000 and that he also had a number of other number plates and another person had said they would be prepared to pay £200,000.
The PCC had said he had accepted the highest offer which Mr Mayne said implied that there had been 3 bids, when in fact there had only been one offer. He believed that the PCC had been misleading, inaccurate and dishonest. He questioned whether the PCC was authorised to sell any asset he wanted to and whether there were any contract conditions in respect of Paul West selling the number plate on for greater profit that he would need to reimburse the Police with the difference.
Mr Mayne believed that the PCC had brought himself and the Force into disrepute and had not used public money effectively.
Richard Arnold (written submission read out by the Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager)
Mr Arnold's complaint was based purely on the argument that the PCC disposed of the plate (which he was entitled to) without first ensuring that he got the best price for it. The PCC could have enquired with the Auction House how much commission he would have to pay, adding £160,000 and then selling the plate with a fixed reserve (£160,000 less commission).
Andrew Knight
When Mr Knight realised that AB1 was being sold, he was interested as his Grandfather had previously owned the number plate when it had been in general circulation and it had been sold on with the car.
Although he was sad that the number plate was being sold, he understood the security issues of why it couldn't be used for the Chief Constable's car and that the funds were needed for the Service. He thought that the plate would be auctioned to achieve maximum value and total transparency.
Although Mr Knight and a consortium of his family were interested in the Plate the indicative bid (£250,000) was beyond what they could afford so they were unable to bid. However when Mr Knight found out that the Plate had been withdrawn from sale and the price that it was sold at was considerably less than estimated value and in fact less than he and his family may have offered to pay he was dismayed.
He felt it was an 'inside job' and the lack of transparency and the fact that the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) didn't investigate the situation was despicable. There was a lack of confidence in the process and the plate was donated on the basis that it would never be sold.
Mr Knight suggested that a full audit into the sale should be carried out and that the PCC had failed in his duty to get the best price and value for the Authority which had suffered a financial loss.
Mr Knight would also like a full investigation to be carried out by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.
Peter Harris (written submission read out by the Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager)
The PCC had justified the sale of AB1 as an asset to be sold to support policing and keep communities safe. If so why it was not sold at market value but virtually gifted at a knock down price to a retiring officer without the initials ‘AB’, who appeared to have no other desire for ownership than to make future financial gain?
Did the PCC ascertain the true market value of the asset before deciding on the now apparent unrealistic value when he was obligated to realise the best price by the best practice constraints of his job, and why was the plate not put out to public auction?
Barrie Redding (written submission read out by the Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager)
· Mr Redding understood that AB1 was ‘gifted’ to the Constabulary to preserve its existence and to prevent it being lost or indeed sold in the commercial market. This aspect appeared to have been totally ignored by the PCC
· This item was part of the heritage of the Force and should have remained as such
· If the Force were indeed so desperate for cash, then perhaps with such an issue, some specific use should have been identified and not merely monies to be thrown into a general pot. It might have been more amenable to any sale if some specific use of the proceeds could be seen. As an example, perhaps an interview suite for child/abuse victims and with some mention of the origin of the funding, thus at least in some way part retaining some of the heritage aspect
· With regard to the sale itself, originally the item was apparently placed with local Auctioneers, in itself perhaps the only proper way to sell the item. At this early stage, indications were that the sale could realise £250,000
· For some reason a decision was made to then sell the item privately. This would appear to move some distance from the idea of best practice
· The sale would appear to have been for an amount far less than the initial projected figure and the PCC had sold the Force and the people of West Mercia somewhat short
· Many questions remained unanswered as to why this action was taken. It would appear at best irresponsible and at worst potentially criminal
· To add to the confusion we were told that the purchaser would not sell the plate in his lifetime, but now the inference is that it would not go outside the County - both these aspects were totally unenforceable.
· In short the whole matter had been handled with total contempt for all those connected with West Mercia and had provided a potentially very lucrative investment to person(s) other than those that could have benefitted
· Mr Redding believed that action needed to be taken against the PCC, which would guide him to dealing with matters in a more thoughtful and honest manner and to consider more carefully his duties to all aspects of the Service for which he has responsibility
The Chairman made the point that the Panel dealt with complaints about the conduct of the PCC short of criminality. However, complaints which alleged that a potential criminal offence had been committed by the PCC were referred to the national Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (now the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)) for consideration. The IOPC considered whether to instigate a criminal investigation in relation to the complaints referred to it. If the IOPC decided not to pursue such a complaint referred to it, then the complaint was referred back to the PCP to consider.
In terms of the complaints received in respect of AB1, the IOPC determined that, on the information available, there was not sufficient substance to the allegations that the PCC had committed a criminal offence for the IOPC to determine that an investigation was necessary and referred the 4 complaints concerning alleged criminal conduct back to the Police and Crime Panel.
The Chairman invited the PCC to respond to the public's contribution; however the PCC suggested that he would pick up some of the points during the substantive discussion.
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the Panel were undertaking a Scrutiny exercise of the decision of the PCC and the matters surrounding that and how the Panel dealt with that was a matter for the Panel to determine. The Panel had heard a number of comments which may be covered either in the PCC's report or during the ensuing discussion. It was in order for the Chairman to ask the PCC to respond to the public and if the PCC declined that was a matter for the PCC.
The role of the Panel was to dig into the facts behind the matters of concern and although the complaints were relevant to reflect the public concern, the Panel was not trying to resolve individual complaints but scrutinising the decision. The PCC was not on trial and the Panel had a statutory duty to scrutinise the PCC and determine the best way forward.
The PCC advised that the public contribution was typical of the issue from the beginning. There had been suggestion, rumour and invention throughout the process. He had set out clearly the process followed and the timeline in the paperwork. The exempt papers showed the offers received. The PCC felt offended at the suggestion that he had received offers from outside calling into question his integrity and that of his Chief Executive (and Monitoring Officer). He believed that the Panel should accept the paperwork as it was written as his submission. No-one was prevented from bidding for the number plate as it was in the PCC's interest to get the highest bid. However, following the agreed sale, the PCC was advised by Brightwells that there was a Worcestershire resident who intended to start bidding at £300,000 but this was an intention and the PCC could only work with actual offers made.
The PCC was offended that he had been referred to by the public as dishonest. There had been an extensive process in respect of the sale of AB1 including referral to the IOPC and the Alliance's Internal Audit Committee which had reviewed the process and found nothing wrong.
AB1 was an item no longer in use, which the PCC acknowledged did have heritage value but he believed that those times had passed and he had decided to dispose of it in an open and transparent process to achieve best value. He received an offer and was able to conduct the sale without incurring the commission fee from Brightwells fully meeting the duty to maximise value to the taxpayer. The PCC was fully prepared to be questioned on the feasibility of whether he should have decided to sell the number plate or not in the first place but objected to having his integrity questioned. He didn’t personally know Paul West nor had he sold the Plate for a lesser value. The process was overseen by professional officers. Applying hindsight, he suggested was neither fair or in the interests of the community which he served.
The Chairman reiterated that the Panel was considering the process not questioning the PCC's integrity.