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
| 
