Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60 - 79)

TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998

COUNCILLOR STEPHEN MURPHY AND MR DAVID WILMOT

  60. Who approves the content of the annual report of the Police Authority?
  (Councillor Murphy) We do, as a police authority.

  61. So why do you not include in that annual report then the amount of total damages in any one financial year that the police have paid out? Notwithstanding the issues in this, why is that not done as a matter of routine in the Police Authority, as it is done in the Metropolitan Police?
  (Councillor Murphy) It has not been an issue that has been done. I am being prompted. It is not an issue that is being done by our police authority. It may have been done by the Metropolitan Police, I do not know how long they have been doing it. It may be an issue that we will look at, I do not know.

  62. We know that the Met paid something over £2 million last year in total damages because they published it. Let us say that Greater Manchester Police paid out £5 million, do you not think that would be a matter of public interest that the public ought to know about and be able to ask questions about?
  (Councillor Murphy) Yes.

  63. Therefore, why do you not publish it?
  (Councillor Murphy) I ask questions of the Chief Constable for any damages that he pays out on the personal liability issues and the small amounts. We have raised those and questioned them quite vigorously.

  64. But why should the total figure not be in the public domain every year?
  (Councillor Murphy) I have no difficulty with that.

  65. So you will do that in future?
  (Councillor Murphy) It is an issue that we will take on board and we will look at as a police authority. I will take advice from our legal advisers and see what they tell us.

Mr Cranston

  66. The Association of Police Authorities has written to us: "In the Association's view confidentiality would not be appropriate and should not be sought in the vast majority of cases but there will be exceptions where for good public interest reasons confidentiality must be paramount." Do you agree with that?
  (Councillor Murphy) I do not disagree with it.

  67. What about you, Mr Wilmot?
  (Mr Wilmot) I agree with that.

  68. Can I just ask you one more question. Have you got specific legal advice that it would be contempt of court to reveal the information?
  (Mr Wilmot) I am just assuming that because there is a court order that if I was to breach that court order then I would be in contempt of the court.

  69. So you are just assuming that, you have not got specific advice?
  (Mr Wilmot) I have asked my solicitors whether I am at liberty to disclose it and the advice I have got is if this Committee asks me a direct question then I am obliged, because I would be in contempt of Parliament, to answer the question, but in any other circumstances I am not at liberty to disclose the sums.

  70. It seems to me that you would be in breach of the agreement if you did but I am not sure that you would be in contempt of court.
  (Mr Wilmot) The whole of my life if I have had a court order I have carried it out, or tried to make sure that it has been carried out. That is what I am trying to do here. If this Committee asks me then I will answer the question that is put to me.

  Mr Winnick: We are not going to ask you to break any court order, Mr Wilmot, so you can rest assured on that aspect.

  Mr Cranston: I am not sure about that, Mr Winnick.

  Mr Winnick: Well, no-one has done so so far.

Chairman

  71. Can I just pursue one point with you. Ms Hughes was asking about the Greater Manchester Police report at the moment and I understood Mr Murphy to say—
  (Councillor Murphy) The Greater Manchester Police Authority report.

  72. Right. The Chief Constable's report is your's, is it not, Mr Wilmot?
  (Mr Wilmot) There are two reports. There is the police authority's annual report and the Chief Constable's annual report.

  73. Would you have any objection in whichever is the appropriate of those two reports to the figures for payment in civil claims being published?
  (Mr Wilmot) Off the top of my head I cannot see any reason why not. Anybody who wished to go through the accounts would find them anyway, the accounts is a public document. I think the issue here is with individual cases but that is not what the question was about. I am aware of one recent case in Greater Manchester which was settled out of court and where the plaintiff asked for a confidentiality clause to be inserted and that was agreed. I would not specifically identify that case but I see no reason why off the top of my head we should not publish the figures; they are there in the accounts and they are available and any member could ask. Indeed, I report on a regular basis to members about the more serious cases that are going through the courts and then I give them a sort of report about the quantity and quality. It is there, it is just that it has not actually been highlighted in a report. That is not for any particular reason except that we have not thought of doing it.

  74. It is something that you will contemplate in the future?
  (Mr Wilmot) Certainly. The Chairman has just said that we will look at it.

  75. Did I understand you to say a moment ago that arising from the Kevin Taylor inquiry, if that is the right way to describe it, there have been a number of other out of court settlements?[1]

  (Mr Wilmot) I am aware of three others since the Kevin Taylor inquiry.

  76. Since then?
  (Mr Wilmot) Yes. One was a confidentiality clause inserted by the insurers I am told, the other by ourselves and the third requested by the plaintiff.

  77. So they are all secret?
  (Mr Wilmot) They have all got a confidentiality clause in, yes.

  78. Are you able to give us a global figure for the total?
  (Mr Wilmot) For those three?

  79. Yes, or for the whole lot. We are anxious to know how much all this has cost the Greater Manchester Police. I appreciate you cannot break it down for the reasons you have described but it ought to be possible to give us some sort of global figure as we seem to be the only ones who do not know.
  (Mr Wilmot) The Taylor inquiry is a substantial one.


1   The replies which follow to QQ 75-83 were based upon a misunderstanding. For clarification, see QQ 100 ff. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 2 September 1998