Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN
MURPHY AND
MR DAVID
WILMOT
Chairman
100. Mr Wilmot, we may have been at cross-purposes
when I was asking you about other settlements. The other settlements,
in which I was interested, were those that related to the Taylor
case. Now, I think the ones you read me out were—
(Mr Wilmot) Separate.
101. Yes. You were using those as illustrations
of other cases where confidentiality clauses had been inserted.
(Mr Wilmot) Yes.
102. Let us, therefore, return to the other
settlements arising from the Taylor case. What I am trying to
get from you is a global figure for the total costs in those cases.
(Mr Wilmot) I have not got them with me, I am afraid.
103. But you could provide that without breaching
any agreements, could you not? What the Committee wants to know
is how much exactly the Kevin Taylor issue has cost in total.
(Mr Wilmot) Again, I would have to speak to my solicitor
because I think the confidentiality clause is in each.
104. Yes, but I do not think that there is any
confidentiality clause that the global figure should not be exposed,
is there?
(Mr Wilmot) Again I say, if you ask the direct question
then I will answer it, but I have not got that figure.
105. You could get it for us?
(Mr Wilmot) I would be able to get it. I have two
figures with me today because I thought we were concentrating
on the Taylor issue.
Chairman: Yes. I think it is better to let us
have a considered reply on that point, but we are interested in
the global figure both for the sums of the settlement and for
the costs. You can add them together if you want in order to obscure
the individual details but we are interested in that figure.
Mr Cranston: Chairman, would this include the
payment made—I think we ought to clarify this—by the
insurers, because the Chief Constable has said that money which
comes from that route would, understandably and quite properly,
not show up either in your accounts or those of the Authority.
Chairman
106. I will leave it to Mr Wilmot to qualify
the letter in any way he sees fit. We can always get back to him
if we are not satisfied with the qualifications.
(Mr Wilmot) My understanding is that you want the
global figures for all the four plaintiffs connected with what
is known nationally as the Taylor case.
107. That is right, yes.
(Mr Wilmot) Including costs.
Chairman: Yes, thank you. Mr Singh.
Mr Singh
108. Councillor Murphy, you are not party to
any agreement, court order or anything in the Taylor case?
(Councillor Murphy) Not formally, no.
109. You do know the figures we are talking
about?
(Councillor Murphy) I have knowledge of. I know the
ballpark.
110. You know the figures? And if you were asked
a direct question you are prepared to answer the question of this
Committee?
(Councillor Murphy) If I am asked a direct question
I am led to believe I am legally okay to answer. I am going to
answer any questions you put to me.
111. I want to make your trip down here worthwhile.
Will you tell the Committee the figures that you know about, the
damages and costs in the Taylor case: the direct costs, please,
and the insurance figures, please.
(Councillor Murphy) I will tell you in the way that
I had it put to me in the discussions we were having with the
insurers and the barristers and our legal advisers and our financial
advisers. We were being given quite clear indications that the
insurers felt that they were swiftly approaching the maximum amount
of cover that they felt they had in this case and at that time
the maximum amount of cover was £6 million. They were quite
confident when they discussed with us the settlement figures that
what they wanted to do was see themselves clear before they exceeded
that £6 million because their argument was "once we
go beyond that figure then as far as we are concerned our cover
finishes and you will have to start funding that yourselves".
Mr Malins
112. I was not quite sure what you were saying
there, forgive me. Were you saying that the insurers in your view
had got up to the limit of £6 million?
(Councillor Murphy) They were telling us that they
were swiftly approaching the maximum figure that they said we
were insured for with them. The figure was £6 million.
113. Suggesting to me that that pay-out in this
case was of the order of nearly that figure. Am I right or have
I misunderstood?
(Councillor Murphy) You would have to ask the insurers.
I was not party to the agreement.
114. No, you were not party to the agreement
but you were party to the discussions.
(Councillor Murphy) There was a massive legal bill.
115. Perhaps you will correct me if I am wrong,
you are obviously taking advice. If, as I understand it, the better
part of six million went out on this case—
(Councillor Murphy) That was all the plaintiffs.
116. Would it be something like 50/50 costs
and damages?
(Councillor Murphy) No.
117. Not the slightest idea?
(Councillor Murphy) It was not 50/50 costs and damages,
I can tell you that.
(Mr Wilmot) The costs were substantially more than
the damages.
118. You said earlier, Councillor Murphy, that
the more compensation there is the higher the premiums. Correct
me if I am wrong but the premiums come out of the public funds.
(Councillor Murphy) That is correct.
119. So all this secrecy that is going on, the
control of all these actions by the insurers etc., the inflated
monies that are paid out without accountability, actually affects
the public purse in a rather debilitating way?
(Councillor Murphy) I cannot disagree with your comments
there but at the end of the day when you sit down and work out
insurance policies with insurance companies they have strict regulations
that they work to and one of the criteria that they have is that
they will defend these cases themselves. You cannot defend them
with your people, you have got to accept their people and they
will do whatever they want to do, it is their money as they put
it.
| 
