APPENDICES TO THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
APPENDIX 1
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from Mr Alun Michael MP, Minister of State, Home Office
HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO
POLICE COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE
When I appeared before the Committee on 11 November
to give oral evidence, I was asked for detailed information about
the insured and uninsured costs of settlements paid in respect
of civil claims against the police. I undertook to consider the
request and to respond.
I must again emphasise that we take the issue
of civil claims against the police very seriously. We are currently
finalising work to collect certain data in 1998-99 for the purposes
of complaints and discipline inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectorate
of Constabulary. Further, in October we approached ACPO to find
out the extent to which forces have mechanisms in place to learn
the lessons of civil actions and complaints. In response ACPOs
Personnel and Training Committee is now undertaking a structured
assessment. However, we do not hold information centrally which
would answer the Committee's questions.
From initial enquiries I have had made in relation
to the specific queries raised by the Committee on insurance and
civil claims, it is clear that this is a complex area. The Association
of Police Authorities does not collect this type of information
as it does not perceive any need for it. Enquiries of some police
authorities suggest that the position will vary from area to area
and will vary over time. The problem of collecting information
is further complicated by the fact that some police forces have
delegated budgetary responsibility and will arrange some or all
of their insurance, while in other areas the police authority
retains this function.
Without trawling all police authorities and
forces, it seems fair to assume that they will have employer liability
and public liability insurance cover. However, they may choose
to carry some of the risks themselves to reduce premiums, and
some policies would have excesses at different levels. Figures
for settlements paid out by insurance companies would not provide
the whole picture because part of any particular settlement may
have been paid by the police authority or force from its own resources.
It would be possible to approach the insurance
industry to try to seek information which would give some of the
picture but there is no guarantee either that they have the information
in a form which is easy to identify and dependable or that they
would agree to supply the information. Further, if civil claims
for misfeasance are paid out under, say, public liability policies,
perhaps as part of a wider claim, the forces or the insurance
companies concerned would need to be able to identify the relevant
elements of any settlement, otherwise the figures will be incomplete
and misleading.
I have made enquiries about the case of Mr Kevin
Taylor and I understand that the settlement was paid in full under
a public liability policy.
You asked me to consider consulting the parties
involved in the settlement of the claim brought by Mr Kevin Taylor
against the former Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police
to see what objections they would have to the sum involved being
disclosed. My officials have approached the Greater Manchester
Police and they have considered the approach carefully together
with the clerk to the police authority, their solicitor and their
insurers. They remain of the view that the confidentiality clause
in the settlement was an integral part of the agreement, binding
on all parties and it is not open to the parties on any subsequent
date to abrogate any part of that agreement. They object in principle
to disclosure: they take the view that freely contracting parties
should not be called upon for such an explanation. It would be
for the person or body requesting the information to explain and
justify the request, though even then they believe it is difficult
to envisage circumstances in which their response would change.
The Deputy Chief Constable has asked that it be borne in mind
that the decision to settle was made for commercial reasons by
the insurers whilst the Chief Constable was in the process of
vigorously defending the action. No admissions of liability were
made.
The Committee asked a number of questions about
the position in the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police
carries its own insurance. The exception to this policy is aviation
risks which are insured conventionally because of the size of
potential liabilities. In 1996-97 payments made in respect of
motor liabilities amounted to £3.7 million and payments in
respect of public liability and occupier's liability claims amounted
to £4.5 million. The high proportion of motor claims is likely
to be reflected across forces.
Information on the cost of civil claims is set
out below. This information is taken from the Commissioner's Annual
Report. These are paid out of the Metropolitan Police's own funds.
| Civil Actions |
1995-96 | 1996-97
|
| Actions | 495 | 409
|
| Threatened Actions | 1,000
| 769 |
| Damages | 1995-96
| 1996-97 |
| Number of Cases | Cost (£k)
| Number of Cases | Cost (£k)
|
| Threatened Actions | 72 |
249 | 79 | 169
|
| Settled Actions | 146 | 1,138
| 190 | 960 |
| Court Awards | 30 | 627**
| 36 | 1,529* |
*This figure includes six cases totalling £945k where
the quantum is the subject of an appeal.
**This includes one case where the quantum is the subject
of an appeal.
The vast majority of the actions above include an allegation
of wrongful arrest. A significant proportion will include an allegation
of malicious prosecution. A minority will be for courses of action
not involving unlawful detention eg unlawful interference with
goods.
I understand that it is not standard practice for a confidentiality
clause to be included. The Metropolitan Police do not keep figures
on the number of settlements which include a confidentiality clause.
As you will appreciate, a considerable amount of work could
be expended into trying to elicit, pull together and make sense
of the information the Committee has requested. I appreciate that
the committee's initial inquiries were based on the assumption
that the information would be relatively easy to provide and I
started from a similar assumption. It is part of the nature of
such inquiries that Ministers and committee members alike confront
the complexities of real life! Before I consider authorising further
work in this area, it would be helpful if you could clarify precisely
what the Committee wants, or rather, which particular aspect of
the police complaints and discipline system it hopes to be able
to evaluate with the information. That may allow for a more fruitful
and less time consuming and resource intensive approach. It may
be that the information which ACPO's Personnel and Training Committee
is collecting will offer a fuller picture of how forces seek to
learn from civil claims to provide a better service to the public
which is what counts in the final analysis.
Alun Michael
14 December 1997
| 
