Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 2)

Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 2)

Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 2)

                                

Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016

This is a report of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended, the matter had already been part heard and this was day 6 of 10. As far as I know there are no reporting restrictions. Brief details are below followed by the first part of a report based on my notes.

Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX

Case reference: 2400718/16

Appellant: Mrs A. Mountney

Respondent: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Employment Judge: Judge Robinson

Tribunal Members:
Mr AG Barker
Mrs JE Williams

Clerk: Lynne Quilty

Date: 6.2.2017

Time: 10.00 am


The following is a contemporaneous account of day 6 and continues from Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1).

Mr Mountney referred Mr Tour to page 642 and asked him what was his response to number 6?

EJ Robinson asked to let him known of the provenance of the letter to Alison Mountney dated 12th January and asked for a paragraph?

Mr Mountney referred to answer eight with the response at the bottom. In elections, he referred to the appointment of staff above counter staff. He referred to ability and a named member of staff.

Surjit Tour stated he was incorrect, that staff were required after polls closed at the counting centres on the counting tables. This was a change to counting staff. Moving to the requirement for management approval, he pointed out the named member of staff was a poll clerk.

EJ Robinson asked who was responsible for the appointment of polling clerks? Surjit Tour replied that the appointment of polling clerks was the responsibility of Alison Mountney.

EJ Robinson said that at 10 o’clock the polls close and a poll clerk would be sat at the tables in the polling station?

Surjit Tour answered that a poll clerk would be supervised by a presiding officer, but there would be one or two poll clerks at each polling station.

Mr Mountney said he accepted it for what it is and asked a further question of Mr Tour. Mr Tour answered that if there was an issue with a member of staff employed it was not within the discretion of Alison Mountney and that the responsibility for suitability rested with Kate Robinson.

Mr Mountney asked Mr Tour a question about Kate Robinson to which Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall Kate Robinson coming to him regarding that individual.

Mr Mountney referred Mr Tour to paragraph 29 of his witness statement and said as it was important he would go back to the first line. A whistleblowing concern had been made in 2015, Mrs Robinson says she told Mr Tour but Mr Tour says he can’t remember. He asked a question of Mr Tour around being made aware by Mrs Robinson.

Mr Tour said he didn’t recall being made aware of the issue at the time, but it had been made clearer in 2015.

Mr Mountney referred to the whistleblowing report and the reports starting at page 649.

Mr Tour asked for a page number? Mr Mountney referred to page 761. Mr Moore suggested it was 771. Mr Mountney confirmed it was 771.

Mr Mountney referred to the bottom of page 770, at the bottom of the page, 3rd line, P1, he asked if Mr Tour agreed to which Mr Tour answered yes.

EJ Robinson interrupted and said it was his fault but asked for a more explicit reference.

Mr Mountney stated page 770, 6.4.9, third line, P1. He stated that it was here that he never dismissed the integrity of the election was an issue. P2 never refers to him and asked how come is says that?

Mr Tour said he did not recall. Mr Mountney coming to Kate Robinson, he asked a further question to which Mr Tour replied Kate Robinson. Mr Mountney asked wouldn’t Mr Tour know?

Mr Tour answered referring to an incident, canvassing and how steps were taken.

Mr Mountney referred to 6.4.5 and at P2, some time after, people agreed Kate Robinson had made a verbal report to P1 about an alleged canvassing fraud, was Mr Tour told?

Mr Tour referred in his answer to internal audit and how the canvassing book had gone to the individual known as P1.

Mr Mountney asked if a report was made? Mr Tour said that he didn’t recall the conversation with Kate Robinson, but that individual therefore says Kate Robinson. Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall, going on to refer to Bradfield and a canvassing issue.

Mr Mountney asked a question about fraud to which Surjit Tour answered yes. Mr Mountney asked if it was involving public money and he was a solicitor? Mr Tour answered yes. Mr Mountney referred to Mr Tour’s witness statement and matters concerning a polling clerk, he noted these were not issues that concerned fraud and asked a question.

Mr Tour answered that he had seen the context dealing with the issues and that the issues had been addressed. He referred to Mrs Bradfield, he was not belittling the issues, but there were other matters on his mind and his attention and focus had been on those things, he expected it would be dealt with by a manager.

Mr Mountney said he agreed it was, he couldn’t remember where but did it not state Kate Robinson was lying. Therefore it was raised, but Mr Tour had said it was not issue of concern to him. It was not a matter he would expect to be unresolved and pointed out that Mr Tour was the Borough Solicitor.

Mr Tour explained that at the time there was a governance report by Anna Klonowski in early September, the organisation was in turmoil and there were governance issues. In the grand scheme matters prevailing were important, but his attention and focus was on other issues.

Mr Mountney referring to those other issues, said that these election issues might affect the integrity of the elections.

Mr Tour said he was not aware the integrity of the elections was called into question. The issue of Bradfield was how the canvass was conducted as an example.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)

Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)

Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 1)

                                

Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016

This is a report of an Employment Tribunal hearing I attended, the matter had already been part heard and this was day 6 of 10. As far as I know there are no reporting restrictions. Brief details are below followed by the first part of a report based on my notes.

Venue: Tribunal Room 2, Third Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX

Case reference: 2400718/16

Appellant: Mrs A. Mountney

Respondent: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Employment Judge: Judge Robinson

Tribunal Members:
Mr AG Barker
Mrs JE Williams

Clerk: Lynne Quilty

Date: 6.2.2017

Time: 10.00 am


The following is a contemporaneous account of day 6.

EJ Robinson told people present in Tribunal Room 2 to sit down and apologised for the wait. He said that they would carry on with Mr. Mountney (the lay representative for Alison Mountney).

The order of witnesses would be Surjit Tour, Kate Robinson, Joe Blott and Mr. Williams.

EJ Robinson said good morning to Mr. Tour and said that he could say the oath on a bible of his choice. He then asked Mr Tour to read from the yellow card.

Mr Tour read the oath which starts, “I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I will give..”.

EJ Robinson asked him to sit down. He said that he intended to break at 10.45 am, but if Mr Tour needed a break he must tell him. Mr Moore (representing Wirral Council) would introduce the cross-examination.

Mr Moore asked Mr Tour to find the witness statement. He asked Mr Tour his name to which he answered, “Surjit Tour”. He then asked if it was his business address in the witness statement. It was.

The representative for Wirral Council Mr Moore asked Mr Tour if he had read Mr Tour’s witness statement. Mr Tour answered yes.

Mr Moore asked if Mr Tour wanted to make any amendments to his witness statement.

Mr Tour wanted to make some clarifications. The first was in paragraph 101 on page 20. Referring to a reference here it would be “rolled out in phases”, Electoral Services had been passed until the elections in May 2015.

In paragraph 17, the references to public interest reports, there was just one which was about the highways procurement exercise, the other reference was a reference to a call-in of a different decision regarding services.

EJ Robinson said OK and asked if there were other amendments?

Mr Tour answered that a handwritten letter had been provided to him in October, he remembered the date in reference to paragraph 55, to avoid confusion he didn’t remember receiving it.

EJ Robinson said (to Mr Mountney) that although the letter was not discussed he could ask Mr Tour about it to which Mr Mountney replied OK.

Mr Mountney thanked EJ Robinson and said good morning. Starting at the beginning of Mr Tour’s witness statement he referred to Mr Tour starting at Wirral Council in 2009. He asked Mr Tour if Wirral Council was in turmoil at that time?

Mr Tour said that the detail [of the turmoil] had not become apparent until later. Continuing, he said that Cllr Green had commissioned Anna Klonowski to look into whistleblowing concerns of Martin Morton and that the issues that arose needed to be reviewed.

Mr Mountney referred to page 227 and a Cabinet report in November 2013 that summarised the issues. There had been a need to established effective governance. Wirral Council had many whistleblowers and it was clear to those present at that time that there were issues in the way Wirral Council treated whistleblowers with disdain.

Mr Tour said that although there were issues, that Wirral Council was addressing them which was made clear arising from the Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd review relating to Mr Morton.

There had been a Cabinet report in September 2011, which was a supplementary report which set out the issues of governance in the organisation. Wirral Council had worked to address the governance issues and the failings.

Mr Mountney referred to page 281 and asked a question to which Mr Tour answered yes.

Mr Mountney referred to 2.8 and 2.9, the Anna Klonowski Associates report and the culture at Wirral Council about whistleblowing. The culture was one were there was fear of reprisals (against whistleblowers). He asked a question about this. Mr Tour replied that he accepted it.

Mr Mountney said that the concerns whistleblowers had that they felt they were not listened to, treated fairly and that whistleblowers were conscious of reprisal.

Mr Tour said that in the context of the whistleblowing raised by Martin Morton it was spread out, in 2009 he was not told the large issues but it was clear in the report that Anna Klonowski prepared.

Mr Mountney said he was correct. Referring to the Public Interest Disclosure Act reports, he referred to the major issues. Mr Tour said that the public interest report into highways was to do with the procurement arrangements.

Mr Mountney asked that if someone was working for Wirral Council at that time might they be fearful of blowing the whistle or raising a grievance?

Mr Tour said that he recognised that improvements needed to be made, there was a revised whistleblowing policy and a follow-up report.

Mr Mountney asked if most employees were fearful of whistleblowing or raising a grievance?

Mr Tour said that they “would or could be concerned” but referred again to the revised whistleblowing policy and the commissioning of the Anna Klonowski Associates report.

Mr Mountney asked how long it took to resolve Martin Morton’s whistleblowing?

Mr Tour answered that it took a few years to resolve.

Mr Mountney referred to paragraph 14 in reference to the major impact on Mr Tour’s time due to day-to-day issues.

Mr Tour replied that much time was spent on the Improvement Plan and sustaining improvement.

Mr Mountney asked if it was really the case that Mr Tour had dropped one?

Mr Tour admitted it was “challenging”, as there was a “lot to address” and then commented on the “level of work”.

Mr Mountney asked a further question if whistleblowers got the time they deserved?

Mr Tour said it was clear there were conversations with Mrs Mountney and that all staff were communicated to about the improvements. There had been work undertaken. Mr Tour felt that Wirral Council dealt with the issues needed to be dealt with effectively, but there had been demands on time.

Mr Mountney referred to Mr. Tour’s witness statement and that for two to three lives it had been a priority to address the issues which were compounded by two public interest reports. One of the issues had been called in and at the time it was described as a “dysfunctional Council” and a damaging place to those who brought grievances over whistleblowing complaints.

Mr Tour said he was aware of the issues of Martin Morton and other whistleblowers. That they were linked was not something he was sure of. However he said, “it was a challenging time”.

Mr Mountney referred to another public interest disclosure and asked if it was resolved to which Mr Tour said it was still ongoing.

Mr Mountney asked when the second note was made? Mr Tour answered that the public interest report by the Audit Commission was in June 2012 and that it had been prior to this.

Mr Mountney asked if that was before it was published in June 2012. Mr Tour answered 5 years but it was not resolved, but that wasn’t through lack of trying.

Mr Mountney asked how many employees Wirral Borough Council had to which Mr Tour responded four thousand.

Mr Mountney asked if the HR department had eighty staff? Referring to paragraph 23, he asked Mr Tour to clear up a date which had been referred to also in Kate Robinson’s witness statement. He asked if it referred not to February 2012, but December 2011?

Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall. Mr Mountney again referred to that Mr Tour had told Kate Robinson he could not recall, but this didn’t mean he hadn’t been told?

Mr Tour said that he genuinely didn’t recall. Mr Mountney asked another question to which Mr Tour answered that he didn’t recall. Mr Mountney asked if he [Mr Tour] was told or made aware of Alison Mountney’s whistleblowing? Mr Tour said that he didn’t recall, but that if it had been raised with him that he would have been addressing it. Mr Mountney referred to page 28. Someone asked if he meant paragraph 28 to which Mr Mountney replied yes.

Mr Mountney asked a question about Mr Bradfield to which Mr Tour replied with a comment about Mr Bradfield and part responsibility.

Mr Mountney referred to page 10. EJ Robinson said, “What?” to which Mr Mountney replied 6.10. He referred to the bottom appearing above the reference to poll clerk and other posts and asked if it wasn’t up to Alison Mountney, it was up to Kate Robinson?

Mr Tour referred to promotions. He said that Alison Mountney couldn’t remove where an appointment had been made.

Mr Mountney asked another question about staff to which Mr Tour answered no.

Continues at Employment Tribunal Day 6 of 10: Cross-examination of Surjit Tour (Part 2).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What’s in a ~500 page contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and CRG for a private company to provide detained persons and officers healthcare and medical services?

What’s in a ~500 page contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and CRG for a private company to provide detained persons and officers healthcare and medical services?

What’s in a ~500 page contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and CRG for a private company to provide detained persons and officers healthcare and medical services?

                                

I have a big red box file in my office.

What’s in the box you may ask?

Here’s a sample.

letter Police Crime Commissioner for Merseyside citizen audit 2015-16 page 1 of 2
letter Police Crime Commissioner for Merseyside citizen audit 2015-16 page 1 of 2
letter Police Crime Commissioner for Merseyside citizen audit 2015-16 page 2 of 2
letter Police Crime Commissioner for Merseyside citizen audit 2015-16 page 2 of 2

Well it’s the result of my citizen audit of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside for the financial year 2015-16.

Just to show how long I’ve been a journalist for, you will find on this blog reports of public meetings of the Merseyside Police Authority. A few years ago the coalition government abolished the Merseyside Police Authority and replaced it with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.

In the box are copies of 49 invoices and details of 10 contracts.

The largest contract at ~500 pages is a contract between the Police and Crime Commissioner and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t/a CRG for the “Provision of Forensic Medical and Healthcare Services for the period, 21st January 2015 – 20th January 2017 with an option to extend by a further 2 years.“ which is reference PCCM / PD / 026 – Bluelight ref. 9KBD-BXVLMV .

This is perhaps the most interesting document although like many of the documents is redacted in part.

There’s also a service level agreement with Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and a secondment agreement with Liverpool City Council.

Some of the redactions were later challenged by myself and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner agreed with me that they didn’t have a legal basis to do so and released further information.

It is somewhat strange however that myself a journalist seems to have a better knowledge (from a legal perspective) over what can be redacted than the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. However I shouldn’t be too harsh on the OPCC for Merseyside as legal advice is a matter contracted under a SLA out to Knowsley Council (but don’t get me started on Knowsley Council and flawed legal advice!)

However the public sector as a whole has a tendency to for want of an expression take the mickey with me over redactions.

Although thankfully I rarely have to involve the judiciary in such matters.

Anyway going back to the large contract, due to its size from a time element it would take some considerable time to scan in, resize, compress and publish on the blog.

Those of a more political bent, may point out that in the public sector paying a private company for medical and healthcare services, that this falls into the political arguments over whether public services should be provided by the public sector. If provided by the private sector, ultimately less is spent on the service as a proportion ends up in profit (and presumably a different amount in taxes). For example 20% of all the money spent on CRG goes on VAT.

However, from CRG‘s last published accounts for 2015-16, they have a turnover of £34.3 million with a gross profit of 23.1%.

So out of £100 spent by the public sector with CRG, I estimate £16.69 will go on VAT, £23.10 on profit, leaving ~£60 out of every £100 on providing a service.

The contract is signed by Jane Kennedy (the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) and Laura Hale (a director of Castlerock Recruitment Group Limited).

Moving on to the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire it states that it’s for the provision of forensic and healthcare services (excluding SARCS).

SARC refers to Sexual Assault Referral Centre.

It explains that police forces and NHS Local Area Teams are working towards the transfer of commissioning responsibility for healthcare in police custody from the Home Office to the Department of Health and that the work of these Police/NHS Partnerships sits within the National Police Transition Programme.

If this happens during the life of the contract it is anticipated that the commissioning authority changes from Merseyside Police to the NHS England Lancashire Area Team and the contract will be novated.

However police forces and the NHS share contract governance, even after this change. This is done through the Strategic Healthcare Joint Partnership Board, at the time chaired by Chief Superintendant Carl Krueger, with representatives from NHS England Lancashire Area Team and NHS England (Merseyside).

PCC in the contract refers to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.

The background explains that Merseyside Police was formed in 1974, serves a population of ~1.5 million people, covering an area of 647 sq km and five Metropolitan Borough Areas (Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and Wirral).

It then describes the BCUs (Basic Command Units) in operation at the time, which was one for each borough except Liverpool split into two.

The contract refers to the three universities, two premiership football teams (Tranmere Rovers doesn’t get a mention or maybe its fans are better behaved), a rugby league team and two major racecourses. It states that in 2013, Liverpool received 57 million visitors to the region (referring to tourism). At the time of writing Merseyside Police employed over 6,000 people (*although technically police officers aren’t employees but officers of the Crown) ranging from police officers, PCSOs, support staff, Special Constabulary Officers and volunteers).

The custody suites are listed as follows (five in total) with 131 cells. There are also two mothballed custody suites which can be opened for pre-planned events and operations (which is an extra 32 cells).

Here is the list in the following format
location – BCU – Cells – Current operation

St Anne Street – Liverpool – 33 – 24/7
Wavertree – Liverpool – 20 – 24/7
Copy Lane – Sefton – 24 – 24/7
Wirral – 32 – 24/7
St Helens – 22 – 24/7 (Mothballing or reduced opening hours are currently being considered for this suite)
Southport – 12 – Mothballed
Belle Vale – South Liverpool – Mothballed

The contract states that services at the time of the contract award were provided by Medacs Healthcare (contact details Helen Kelly (Director of Managed Healthcare)) and that staff employed by Medacs may need to be TUPEd over to the new provider.

There is a list of how many detainees there are for each month from April 2013-14, how many calls there were for a healthcare professional, along with a percentage of HCP calls vs No of detainees.

The total number of detainees varies from 3,510 in April to 3,927 in July. The number of HCP calls varies from 1,698 in March to 2,217 in July. The percentage varies from 46.3% in March to 56.5% in July.

There is then a table for December 2013 of various categories of call out, split by custody suite location with totals.

For example one of the categories, category 6 is Death (All) of which there were 4 in December 2013. This is 4 out of a total of 2,011 calls for a healthcare professional.

The six major categories (all with totals over 100 call outs in that month across Merseyside) in order of calls were:

Injuries (All) – inc Officer Injury,
Fitness to – Detain, Interview, Release, Court, Travel etc,
Medication Administer / Review,
Drink / Drug Withdrawl,
Reassessment / Mental Health Reassessment,
Detainee’s Request / Complaint against police

There were also 27 listed as Taser Removal / self harm / suicide risk.

Below are the first pages of the contract that I’m referring to. Are people interested in the rest or is police officer healthcare and detained persons’ healthcare an issue you assumed was provided by the NHS?

Just to be clear, these pages are published relating to rights in the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015, Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, Data Protection Act 1998 and Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 1
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 1
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 2
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 2
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 3
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 3
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 4
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 4
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 5
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 5
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 6
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 6
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 7
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 7
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 8
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 8
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 9
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 9
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 10
contract Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and Castlerock Recruitment Group LTD t a CRG 10

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What did councillors recommend Mersey Tunnel tolls should be for 2017-18?

What did councillors recommend Mersey Tunnel tolls should be for 2017-18?

What did councillors recommend Mersey Tunnel tolls should be for 2017-18?

                                     

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

In the video footage above of the Merseytravel Committee (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) Budget Meeting held on the 2nd February 2017 the Mersey Tunnel Tolls 2017-18 agenda item starts at the 1m 54s point

Cllr Jerry Williams (foreground, right) at the Merseytravel Committee meeting (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) held on the 2nd February 2017 agenda item 5 Mersey Tunnel Tolls 2017-18
Cllr Jerry Williams (foreground, right) at the Merseytravel Committee meeting (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) held on the 2nd February 2017 agenda item 5 Mersey Tunnel Tolls 2017-18

Councillors on the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority today met and decided on their recommendation for Mersey Tunnels tolls for 2017-18. Mersey Tunnels is the name for the two tolled road tunnels between Wirral and Liverpool under the River Mersey known as the Kingsway (Wallasey) and Queensway (Birkenhead) tunnels.

Three of the four councillors appointed by Wirral Council (Cllr Steve Foulkes (Labour), Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour) and Cllr Ron Abbey (Labour)) were at the meeting and agreed to the recommendation for Mersey Tunnel tolls. Their recommendation was made to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority that meets tomorrow on the 3rd February 2017 to make a final decision.

The recommendation for tunnel tolls (subject to approval by the Mayor of Liverpool and Council Leaders tomorrow afternoon) will take effect from the 1st April 2017.

Tolls are agreed in four classes which are set out below.

Class 1
(a) Motor cycle with side car and 3 wheeled vehicle
(b) Motor car and goods vehicle up to 3.5 tonnes gross weight
(c) Passenger vehicle other than a motor car with seating capacity for under 9 persons

Class 2
(a) Motor car and goods vehicle up to 3.5 tonnes gross weight, with trailer
(b) Goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross weight, with trailer
(c) Passenger vehicle with seating capacity for 9 or more persons, with two axles

Class 3
(a) Goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross weight, with three axles
(b) Passenger vehicle with seating capacity for 9 or more persons, with three axles

Class 4
Goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross weight, with 4 or more axles

Councillors recommended that all liveried emergency services vehicles (such as marked police cars, fire engines and ambulances) continue to be allowed free travel through the Mersey Tunnels in 2017-18.

Free travel for all classes of vehicle was also recommended from 10 pm on the 24th December 2016 to 6 am on the 26th December 2016.

Below is a table of the tolls recommended by councillors at the Merseytravel Committee meeting today from the 1st April 2017 to the 30th March 2018 for each class of vehicle for both the cash toll and Fast Tag toll.






 Vehicle Class  2017-18 Cash Toll  2017-18 Fast Tag Toll 
 1 £1.70£1.20
 2 £3.40£2.40
 3 £5.10£3.60
 4 £6.80£4.80

Further details of how to apply for a Fast Tag can be found on the Mersey Tunnel website.

There is also a concession scheme for Mersey Tunnel tolls for some people with a disability, again details of eligibility and how to apply can be found on the Mersey Tunnels website.

The tolls are opposed by the Mersey Tunnel Users Association who were also present at the public meeting to observe what was decided.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.