Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN
MURPHY AND
MR DAVID
WILMOT
80. The most substantial?
(Mr Wilmot) It is a substantial sum of money.
81. Right.
(Mr Wilmot) We are talking in excess of £1 million
in total with costs.
82. With costs, right. Okay.
(Mr Wilmot) The others are considerably less than
that. If you just bear with me. I cannot remember the exact figures.
One involved six litigants and the total was a quarter of a million
pounds. That was instructed by the insurers to have the clause
put in there.
Mr Corbett
83. Did that include costs as well, Chief Constable?
(Mr Wilmot) I am not too sure about that. The briefing
I have got does not differentiate between costs. Another one was
less than £150,000 and another one was in the region of £5,000.
Chairman: It might be helpful if that does not
include costs for you to drop us a note about that afterwards.
If it does that is fine but, if it does not, would you drop us
a note. We are interested in the global figure for how much the
various actions arising from the Kevin Taylor investigation have
cost the Greater Manchester Police in both costs and settlements.
As I say, we are quite happy for you to lump the lot together
if that gets you round the difficulty you have described.
Mr Hawkins
84. Councillor Murphy, I want to come back on
the answers that you were giving to the Chairman earlier on about
the discussions that all the people you described were involved
in towards the latter stages of these events because it seemed
to me as one of the Members of this Committee who has actually
had experience of being involved in some of these kinds of discussions
with confidentiality, insurers and that sort of thing, which is
certainly true of some of us on this Committee but by no means
all, that what you were really saying to us when you were talking
about ball park figures in answer to the Chairman was this: that
everybody in the group that you described was aware of the rough
kind of area of figures we were talking about but nobody would
have known specifically what was finally agreed because, as you
said, you did not see it in writing and nor did anybody else.
Would that be a fair summary of what would have happened?
(Councillor Murphy) Yes.
85. That seemed to me to be describing the kind
of meeting where because everybody was aware of the general area
of figures we were talking about everybody was able to speak fairly
logically about the decisions that had to be made because you
all had a rough idea of what figures you were talking about and
you clearly had the difficulty of knowing that if the case was
brought to a conclusion, as you would have wanted, you knew there
was no chance of recovering costs from a legally aided plaintiff
but you knew what the decision was you had to make because you
had a rough idea of the kinds of figures you were talking about?
(Councillor Murphy) Yes. We were quite aware of the
costs at the time. We were quite aware that at the time we were
talking about costs in the region of £250,000 a month in
legal bills alone which were stacking up. The consequences of
those were quite horrendous. We were aware of the arguments, as
I have explained, that were going on between the insurers and
ourselves over the actual cover that we had and at what stage
the insurers would have been pulling the plug anyway. Those were
the things that were putting us under tremendous pressure. We
were aware of the general discussions that were taking place about
settling this thing on economic grounds. Yes, we were aware of
all that.
86. As you have said, as a police authority
with a responsibility to public funds in the end you had to decide
what was the most economically sensible decision to make.
(Councillor Murphy) No. I think at the end of the
day the decision that we made was based on whether we, as a police
authority, were going to pursue this case to the end. That was
one of the key decisions that we had to make. We finally made
the decision that because of the way that the insurers and discussions
had moved it was clear that if we did demanded that this case
would go to the end then we would have had to have funded that
at a point a time. At a point in time unless we won our argument
with the insurers over the amount of insurance then there was
a stage where we would have had to start funding that ourselves.
That would have had a serious detrimental effect on the way that
the Chief Constable could police Greater Manchester.
Mr Russell
87. Chief Constable, could you remind me, please,
when did you take over your post?
(Mr Wilmot) As Chief Constable, 1991.
88. Earlier on you said that you felt this was
probably the largest settlement in your period. Do I assume, year
by year, that the global sums would all appear in the public accounts?
(Mr Wilmot) They will appear somewhere in the accounts
of the Authority, yes.
89. Year by year?
(Mr Wilmot) That is, those that are paid out by the
Police Authority. The position over the years has changed quite
significantly because this particular insurance company who covered
us for this event, there were several settlements bearing in mind
the force was created in 1986. There were changes with insurance
companies. There were changes with the different annual contracts
with insurance companies. This particular company found itself
in financial difficulties and is now gradually withdrawing and
settling claims. Since then we have gone with various companies
and we now carry a quite significant cost against the legal action
of the force against themselves.
90. Surely you would recall if one was as large
as this one or larger?
(Mr Wilmot) There has certainly never been one as
large as this one.
91. So it is the largest one probably to date?
(Mr Wilmot) I hesitated because there was a case—whether
it is the GMP or not, or whether it was the Home Office—there
was a settlement for an issue which developed in, I think, 1986
or 1987, over swabs and blood samples being taken. The swab was
found to contain alcohol, albeit in a small amount, and a decision
was made to withdraw some prosecutions and to compensate those
who had been prosecuted. So there was a fairly substantial—
I do not know what the total was because it is the Home Office.
In fact, it is not finalised yet.
92. On the Kevin Taylor cases, the related ones,
did I hear you correctly when you were saying that there were
three others related to the sums you mentioned, £350,000,
circa £150,000 and £5,000?
(Mr Wilmot) No, they are not related to the Kevin
Taylor. That was in answer to a question: were there any other
cases where the confidentiality clause was inserted? I gave the
answer that there were three cases, not related to Taylor. One
was by the insurers, one by ourselves, and one by the plaintiff.
I have the given the figures and I have advised the Committee
whether those figures include costs. There were three other plaintiffs
arising out of the same investigation with Taylor, one of whom
was settled prior to the Taylor trial taking place.
93. Are you allowed to say what that figure
was?
(Mr Wilmot) There was a confidentiality clause in
that. The insurers settled that one. My understanding was that
the confidentiality clause in that instance was put in because
the other three were still outstanding.
94. The point I am getting at, Chief Constable,
is if the global sum is included in the public accounts.
(Mr Wilmot) It will not be because the insurers have
paid that out.
95. We are going round in a circle here.
(Councillor Murphy) May I explain that. At the end
of the day any compensation that has been paid out by insurers
will not appear in the Greater Manchester Police Authority accounts.
The only things that will appear in our accounts are the insurance
premiums, the cost of our insurance. We frequently review the
insurance premiums that we pay. We frequently sit down and look
at whether we pay the premiums or whether we offset some of that
by paying out of compensation ourselves to keep the costs of the
premiums down. You will never find these figures anywhere in the
Greater Manchester accounts because they are nothing to do with
us, they are the insurers.
96. So the public are none the wiser now than
before on that? Can I move on, may I ask Councillor Murphy, at
what stage were you aware that the initiative to include the clause
of confidentiality came from the Greater Manchester Police, bearing
in mind these numerous discussions that were taking place over
a period of time?
(Councillor Murphy) I was only ever aware that there
was a confidentiality clause being put in. It was never indicated
to me, in any of the discussions that we had, that one of the
parties or all of the parties were in agreement with that. It
was quite clear from all the discussions that I had that it was
in the interests of the insurers, the police service, to make
sure that there was a confidentiality clause in there. This is
because there were other cases which had not been settled and
did not want to have any effect on those.
97. Other than the parties directly involved
in Greater Manchester, were there any outside interests calling
on you to settle without proceeding further?
(Councillor Murphy) In what respect?
98. What I am suggesting is that bearing in
mind the possible history of how this case came about, were there
any other interests brought to bear to settle before the case
went its full course?
(Councillor Murphy) No. The upsetting concern we actually
had as a police authority—and I certainly as Chairman of
the Police Authority do not see any relevance—because at
the end of the day we always believed that there was a case to
answer. All of the discussions that took place with the insurers
and the barristers that were representing, certainly our sides,
made it quite clear to us that there was a case to answer, so
at no stage did we ever want this case to stop. We felt that in
the public interest it should go on all the way but at the end
of the day it was made on uneconomic grounds.
99. So in totality it was a Manchester affair
and nothing else but a Manchester affair?
(Councillor Murphy) That might be your opinion but
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it is a
Manchester affair.
| 
