MTUA accuse politicians of ‘U-turn’ on Mersey Tunnel tolls promises
MTUA accuse politicians of ‘U-turn’ on Mersey Tunnel tolls promises
For those not from Merseyside and reading this in far-flung lands, I had better first explain what the Mersey Tunnels are. Anyone local to Merseyside reading this can skip the next paragraph.
Liverpool is separated from the peninsula of the Wirral by the River Mersey and beneath the River Mersey are two road tunnels and a railway tunnel (the railway tunnel that opened in 1886 is not the focus of this article). One road tunnel connects Liverpool to the town of Birkenhead (called the Queensway Tunnel) and the other with the town of Wallasey (called the Kingsway Tunnel). The Birkenhead Tunnel opened in 1934 and the Wallasey Tunnel in 1971. Both road tunnels are tolled with the current cash toll for cars being £1.70 (different rates apply for those who pay by Fast Tag or different sizes of vehicles).
The issue of the tunnel tolls has been a long running political issue locally and each year the tunnel tolls are set by local politicians. For years the local transport body called Merseytravel (which was then eighteen councillors from the various parts of Merseyside) decided on the Mersey Tunnel tolls. As the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) was created in April 2014, it meant that this year the tolls decision was made by the LCRCA (on a recommendation from the Merseytravel Committee).
The LCRCA comprises the elected leaders of each Council on Merseyside, the elected Mayor of Liverpool, the Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Leader of Halton. The Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (as detailed in the LCRCA’s constitution) doesn’t have a vote when the Mersey Tunnel tolls are set and the Leader of Halton abstained in the vote this year because Halton’s not part of Merseyside.
Earlier this year, in the lead up to the 2015 General Election (to elect MPs) and 2015 local elections (to elect local councillors) politicians from both the Labour and Conservative parties made soothing noises to the public about the issue of tunnel tolls.
Once the running costs of the tunnels and debt repayments are paid out of the money received through tolls, there is now a surplus of around £16 million. The generally accepted position is that legislation, in this case the Mersey Tunnels Act 2004 means that any surplus tolls are only spent on transport projects that are in the Local Transport Plan.
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting of the 13th February 2015 which should start at agenda item 7 (2015/16 Mersey Tunnel Tolls which starts at 1h 3m 4s)
However returning to February 2015 (see video of that meeting above which should start at the right point) politicians on the LCRCA agreed to a freeze in toll charges.
Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson speaking on a motion on the Mersey Tunnels at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 13th February 2015
The Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson, seconded by the Chair of the LCRCA Cllr Phil Davies moved the following motion (agreed at February’s meeting of the LCRCA as you can read in the minutes):
The Combined Authority (CA) calls on:
The Chair of the CA to set up a task group to consider options open to the CA to reduce costs of tunnel tolls and its impact on infrastructure and transportation;
The Head of Paid Service of the CA to produce a report for discussion to inform the setting of tunnel tolls for 2016/17;
The CA to press for a review of the Mersey Tunnel Act in any on-going devolution negotiations.
John McGoldrick, secretary for the Mersey Tunnel Users Association (MTUA) stated,
"Assuming that the politicians meant what they said earlier this year, then it looks as if they have done a u-turn and the users of the Tunnels are to be sold down the river. Instead of stopping the profit taking and reducing tolls, it seems that the City Region’s aim is to use the tolls profits on economic development or infrastructure "across the city region". The people who voted in the May elections have been duped over what Labour’s tolls policy was.
The Conservative party also made promises about reducing or abolishing tolls. It is not yet clear what the Government is going to do and whether they will honour what the Chancellor and others said before the May elections. We urge all drivers and businesses to raise this issue with their MP and local councillors."
Each of the constituent councils in the LCRCA are Labour controlled and those that make these decisions on this matter on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are all Labour politicians.
It remains to be seen what the Conservative government’s response will be to the request for greater flexibility on what surplus tunnel tolls can be spent on.
However the MTUA is also against the spending of tunnel tolls on transport projects. John McGoldrick of the MTUA added "Obviously the MTUA aim is no tolls, but as a minimum we want a stop to the use of tolls for non Tunnels purposes."
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Below are ten more A4 pages of expense claims submitted by councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority for the 2014/15 financial year. It’s pages twenty-one to thirty of eighty-nine pages and each thumbnail below should link to a more high-definition (and therefore readable) image for each page.
The councillors these pages are for are Cllr Dave Hanratty, Cllr Leslie Byrom, Cllr Linda Maloney and Cllr Ted Grannell.
HQ stand for headquarters, LGA means Local Government Association, FIG (also known as FIGUK) means Fire Information Group and I’ve no idea what SRB refers to.
Cllr Dave Hanratty October November 2014 car mileage taxis page 1 of 2Cllr Dave Hanratty taxi receipt £13 page 2 of 2Cllr Leslie Byrom October 2014 car mileage taxi trainCllr Leslie Byrom Virgin Trains receipt £8 page 1 of 3Cllr Leslie Byrom Virgin Trains receipt £12 page 2 of 3Cllr Leslie Byrom receipt taxi £20 page 3 of 3Cllr Linda Maloney October November 2014 car mileage taxis and meal page 1 of 3Cllr Linda Maloney taxi receipt £23 page 2 of 3Cllr Linda Maloney Jacques Wine Bar receipt £12.50 page 3 of 3Cllr Ted Grannell taxi September to November 2014 £63
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Labour use casting vote to delay decision on Saughall Massie fire station land
Labour use casting vote to delay decision on Saughall Massie fire station land
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Cllr Chris Blakeley addressing Wirral Council Regeneration and Environment committee about a new fire station in Saughall Massie September 2015
Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee meeting of the 15th September 2015 (Part 1 of 4) who discussed a notice of motion about a proposed new fire station in Saughall Massie
Now as you’re reading the same blog a week later you can read what happened next, in what’s rapidly becoming a saga. If you’ve written as much on this issue as I have, you’d find it’s become a saga longer than the epic poem Beowulf (but not as exciting). Bonus marks to those leaving comments if they can tell me who the Grendel character is in this matter. However literary references aside here’s what happened next.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Thank you Councillor Blakeley. Is there any questions from any Members? No? No?
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson): Yeah, thanks Chair. As there are no questions regarding this, I’m happy to move that the three points I can only go along with to maintain the green belt, not to give, sell or lease the land and to remain to ask officers to continue to try and find an alternative solution which Councillor Blakeley’s has just said he believes that there is.
Sorry I’ll put the mike on. In view of that if I can move that the notice of motion be agreed in its entirety.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Does anybody want to …, I’d just like to say that this is a planning issue and I think if it goes to Planning [Committee], I mean I’m not, am I correct to say that it hasn’t, there’s no plans been submitted yet to planning?
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson): Yeah if I can assist there Chair, yes the outcome may be a planning permission and there hasn’t been any application that we’re aware of yet but this Notice of Motion is as Cllr Blakeley said prior to that and we’re asking that these three issues be taken into place which doesn’t concern planning.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): OK Steve, I take that on board but what I’d like to suggest, just let me finish Chris and then you can come in, what I’d like to suggest is, that rather than have a Notice of Motion that Steve and Gerry has seconded, if we get the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service to come and explain why they’ve identified this site, as opposed to any other site.
I don’t think it’s particularly fair that we have Councillor Blakeley’s, that side of the argument, without having the fire, somebody from the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority to come and explain their position.
Cllr Chris Blakeley: Why didn’t the Council invite them?
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Well hang on, I’ll take, if you can be quiet from the floor please Councillor Blakeley, err Chris? And then I’ll take Steve and then Dave.
Cllr Chris Spriggs (Labour): Thanks err Chair. I really want to concur with that, what I was going to suggest that there has been a, so called evidence brought forward there’s just been some emails that have been flipped through. Obviously, to be fair in this situation, I think it would be about having a conversation with the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority and getting to the bottom of some of the remarks that were made rather than going through to this Notice of Motion.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Steve?
Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson): Councillor, you did point before this. Bringing the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service, had this been heard as a normal Notice of Motion in Council, it’s just this new constitutional method that we’re bringing it to here. The [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service wouldn’t be there. We’re not discussing with it, we’ve had the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority have had their meetings, this isn’t for that. This is purely for the three points, items one, two and three which I don’t believe the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service can answer those three anyway.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Dave?
Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem spokesperson): Err, thank you Chair. Apologies for being late, I was stuck in traffic outside Cammell Lairds for forty five minutes, very unfortunate, but I.. that way. I did intend to be here on time to talk through the previous minutes. Unfortunately I missed that.
All I can say is that at the present moment, like Councillor Spriggs, I need to find out more information because stuff comes to light through emails that have been released, you talk about land deals, swaps, all sorts of things. I need to know the background of all this information prior before I make any decision at all in relation to what’s here before us.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Thanks Dave. Rob?
Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour councillor): Thanks Chair, I mean I’m just going to reiterate what was said by comments already made. We’re talking here about response times, we’re talking about a professional judgement and really whereas I do accept the arguments about green belt and the biodiversity of the area, you know and that’s a serious issue that I take seriously Chris as well and you know I’m pleased that you’ve raised that point here but at the same time we’re talking about an emergency service that has made a decision and I really feel that they should come to us and give us the information how they’ve reached that decision and chosen one site over another. Thank you Chair.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): John?
Chair (Cllr John Hale, Conservative): I’m about to say Chairman, that I’m absolutely surprised and amazed that there was a Notice of Motion that has been in existence now for some weeks coming before this Committee and now what someone has been unable to anticipate that there would be suggestions put forward and evidence put forward which would show that the wrong site had been chosen and that’s .. I’m absolutely amazed that nobody made any attempt to bring here tonight the fire officers from the Merseyside Fire Service and Authority which would’ve shortcutted all of this.
We’ve have had a vote which has been referred to us for a vote, a thing that we were denied at Council but it’s come here tonight and I’d certainly like an explanation if not from our fire officers but from the [Merseyside] Fire [&] Rescue Authority, that if you were aware of this why you weren’t here tonight? Because they are simply delaying the right of people to have this examined by the proper body!
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): OK, thanks John I take that on board. So, can we delay the recommendation tonight and we can get the fire officer to come to our next meeting and tell us and maybe the process has moved on from there, there’s no planning application been sent in as yet, so it’s not time that we lack, I think it’s due diligence and we are, I agree with Rob, we are talking about life and death here, it is a very important emotive subject and taking on board the amount of people who attended the meetings and the hostility if you like but I would like to hear from the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Service before we send any recommendations through and we’re not pressured by time.
Cllr Chris Blakeley: Oh we are!
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): Thank you Chair.
Member of the public: Sorry, Greasby was the original preferred site but that was withdrawn.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Can I just say that this is a private meeting held in public and I would ask you not to interrupt please, just listen please?
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): Thank you Chair. I think it’s importantly that we actually look at what’s being asked. I don’t think it’s beyond our remit to ask the Council to protect our green belt or to even to ask our officers to work with the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority. We’re asking them to go and deal with the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority, not for us to make the decision on behalf of the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority. We just want our council officers to go and do that on our behalf and I think that would be something that this Committee could decide tonight.
It’s not for us to decide whether the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority’s professional opinion is right or wrong, it’s just that we ask our officers to engage with them and ask them to think again, I think that’s what the spirit of the Notice of Motion is to ask them to take a look at the decision that they’ve taken and explore some alternatives and I think there’s no reason why we couldn’t make that decision without hearing the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority’s views in person.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Thanks for that, this motion stands and it is the duty of this Committee to look at these things and make recommendations but as I’ve said before, I think it would be wise of this Committee as well as listening to what Councillor Blakleley had to say, to listen to what the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority have got to say and then we make a recommendation. Well it is the responsibility of this Committee to make recommendations and I think it would, it wouldn’t be in our interests or the general public’s interest, or the Council’s interest to make a decision when we’ve only heard one part of the argument.
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): Sorry Chair, can I just come back on that? I don’t think …
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): You can, but then I’m going to wrap it up.
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative): That’s fine, I don’t think I was saying that we’re not making a decision. I think what is in here this does not force a decision on the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority. It would still be for the [Merseyside] Fire [& Rescue] Authority to present their planning application. That was my point.
Chair (Cllr Mike Sullivan, Labour): Right well, I’m going to wrap it up now. If you want to make just a quick comment Gerry? If you’ve made a recommendation and you’ve seconded it we could have a vote on that.
Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative): Well I’m sure that there’s nothing in this resolution here that’s going to stop the process of going as it is. I would think that we should definitely support this resolution.
The voting was as follows.
For the resolution (5)
Cllr Gerry Ellis (Conservative) Cllr John Hale (Conservative) Cllr Tracey Pilgrim (Conservative) Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative) Cllr Steve Williams (Conservative spokesperson)
Against the resolution (5)
Cllr Michael Sullivan (Labour Chair) Cllr Jerry Williams (Labour) Cllr Jim Crabtree (Labour) Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour) Cllr Chris Spriggs (Labour)
Abstentions
Cllr Dave Mitchell (Liberal Democrat spokesperson)
It was therefore a tied 5:5 vote (with one abstention).
The Labour Chair was asked to use his casting vote. He stated that they would invite the head of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service to the next meeting to listen to him before making a recommendation.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Who was paid a £150,707 salary by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority?
Who was paid a £150,707 salary by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority?
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Monty Python’s famous sketch about chartered accountancy (as it’s very hard to make jokes about this subject)
Councillor Phil Davies (Chair of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) shows off the LGC award Wirral Council received for being most improved Council 12th March 2015
As it states in the video above, accountancy can be dull. However I wrote this email below (sent the day before the meeting) about a disclosure mistake in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority accounts for 2014/15. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets this morning to approve the accounts for 2014/15.
It’s quite simple really, about six years ago the law changed so that public sector employees that are paid a salary of £150,000 or more had to be named in the accounts.
For example on page 160 of the accounts for the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority approved last week Dan Stephens, the Chief Fire Officer (on a salary of £170,000) is named. In fact Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority also name the Deputy Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Executive, as despite their salaries being below the £150,000 threshold it is more transparent to do so as the total they receive is over the £150,000 threshold.
The Chief Executive of Merseytravel (David Brown) on a salary of £150,707 should’ve been named in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s accounts. The email below from myself details the reasons why (KPMG are the external auditors for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority). Hopefully this will be sorted out at the meeting and corrected.
Subject: agenda item 7 (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Final Accounts 2014/15) meeting 20th September 2015
To: Cllr Phil Davies
CC: Mayor Joe Anderson
CC: Cllr Barrie Grunewald
CC: Robert Hough
CC: Cllr Andy Moorhead
CC: Cllr Rob Polhill
CC: Cllr Ian Maher
CC: David Brown (Chief Executive/Director General, Merseytravel)
CC: Louise Outram (Monitoring Officer, Merseytravel)
CC: Angela Sanderson (Monitoring Officer, LCRCA)
CC: Stephanie Donaldson (Head of Internal Audit, Merseytravel)
CC: Tim Cutler (Partner, KPMG LLP (UK))
CC: Ian Warwick (Manager, KPMG LLP (UK))
CC: Richard Tyler (Assistant Manager, KPMG LLP (UK))
Dear all,
I am bringing this up in advance of Monday’s meeting, in the hope it can be amended. If it isn’t amended, please class this as a formal objection by a Merseyside local government elector to the accounts of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority for 2014/15.
"(c) the remuneration, set out according to the categories listed in paragraph (d), by the relevant body during the relevant financial year of—
(i) senior employees, or
(ii) relevant police officers,
in respect of their employment by the relevant body or in their capacity as a police officer, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, to be listed individually in relation to such persons who must nevertheless be identified by way of job title only (except for persons whose salary is £150,000 or more per year, who must also be identified by name)."
Clearly, the Chief Executive should’ve been explicitly named and wasn’t. I think everyone I write this email to will know he’s called David Brown, but the draft statement of accounts should be amended to state this.
It’s a basic issue of openness and transparency (which I’m sure you’d expect the press to take a viewpoint on).
Yours sincerely,
John Brace
P.S. I know Merseytravel’s accounts are audited separately to the LCRCA, has the same error been made there too?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Mayor Joe Anderson “my good name [has been] dragged through the mud” over £90,000 legal bill for unfair dismissal case
Mayor Joe Anderson “my good name [has been] dragged through the mud” over £90,000 legal bill for unfair dismissal case
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool City Council meeting of 16th September 2015 Part 1 of 6
Mayor Joe Anderson explains why Liverpool City Council paid a nearly £90000 legal bill over an unfair dismissal battle with his former employer Chesterfield High School
After pledging his full support to the Royal National Institute for the Blind for the Council motion on the “Who Put That There!” campaign, Mayor Joe Anderson used his slot on the Council meeting agenda to give a very detailed explanation to those present about his former employer unfairly dismissing him.
“Joe must go” was a slogan on a protest banner I saw earlier this year, but this story starts with Chesterfield High School. Chesterfield High School told Joe to go, but Joe said no.
Joe (being a staunch trade unionist) felt this wasn’t fair. As His Honour Judge Serota QC put it Joe Anderson was on “a reverse form for a zero hours contract” in that he got to be Mayor, do zero hours of work for his employer yet still be paid by his employer!
However it wasn’t the fact that he was being paid for not working that was Joe’s problem. His employer decided that paying somebody for no work wasn’t “value for money” and that the public would be horrified if they knew so sent Joe a P45 through the post.
This hurt Joe. So Joe asked his friends at Liverpool City Council what they could do.
Sure enough Liverpool City Council got a lawyer for Joe. So it went to an Employment Tribunal.
The Employment Tribunal ruled that yes Joe had been unfairly dismissed but even if he hadn’t been, his employer would have still have sacked him anyway. So no compensation for Joe.
This was not the result Joe wanted, so once again he asked his friends at Liverpool City Council what they could do.
Sure enough Liverpool City Council got a lawyer (again) for Joe. So it went to an Employment Appeals Tribunal and here is the judgement.
Once again the case was lost and the final bill (that fell on the taxpayer) came to just under £90,000.
Mayor Anderson at the Liverpool City Council public meeting on the 16th September gave a detailed defence as to why he had done this.
Called to speak by the other Mayor, having been already embroiled in a trial by media, this was Mayor Anderson’s chance to have his say.
With his head bowed down, the normally confident Mayor seemed crestfallen. He started by referring to the blog of the Lib Dem Leader Cllr Richard Kemp. Mayor Anderson said he was doing this not because of Cllr Kemp’s blog.
He referred to it as “the Council’s legal action” (although as you can read from the Employment Appeals Tribunal judgement Liverpool City Council were not a party to the case).
Mayor Anderson was going to tell people the “full facts” and so that the public could “understand the complexities of this” followed by “I’ve certainly got nothing to hide or wish to disclose, err not disclose” .
Feeling his own collar he explained how he’d been on the radio that very day and dealing with the press detailling with the reasons why.
Joe (because it’s very hard in reporting this to know which bit it in this is Joe the former employee and which bit is Mayor Joe Anderson) said, “When I then became Leader of the Council in 2010, people in the Labour Party certainly know but I made a pledge, a promise that I would become a full-time Leader of the Council and for too long this Council was run like a toy town at Council and officers led the Council by the nose. Councillors weren’t here and decisions were made that were quite frankly not good enough for a Council and a city like Liverpool.”
Joe’s explanation was that when he was Leader of the Opposition on Liverpool City Council that Sefton Council had paid the LEA controlled Chesterfield School “round about £7,000 a year”. That was to pay Joe the 208 hours he was allowed off.
He claimed this cost Chesterfield School “less than £4,000” (although I’ll point out that surely Chesterfield would’ve had to pay both Joe time off to be a councillor and someone else to do his job?) which Joe saw as a “good deal”. Mayor Anderson stated that politicians were all doing this including two former leaders of Liverpool City Council.
Mayor Anderson claimed that the money he was receiving for no work from Chesterfield School he was giving to charity.
The difference however, came when Cllr Anderson became Mayor Anderson. He explained “six or seven weeks before my 55th birthday, Chesterfield High School became an academy and six or seven week before my 55th birthday sacked me without any discussion with me, without any negotiation with me” or as he put it “P45 in the post, you’re sacked”.
For him the fundamental principle as a trade unionist, he would support any councillor of whatever colour political party they may be, as the principle of being sacked for carrying out public service should be something that (saying this while twirling his finger) “we all defend and stand by”.
He said that the decision that that it should be challenged and that the indemnity policy applied was taken by the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer of Liverpool City Council and that the Council’s external auditor and legal advisors were also informed.
In criticism of Councillor Kemp he said, “Let me ask ourselves the question around the politics of this, where it’s getting played out and how it’s disgracefully being played out. Course Councillor Kemp says, ‘Will he pay it back?'” At this point Mayor Anderson just shrugged in reply and then pointed out that former Lib Dem Leaders of Liverpool City Council had had similar arrangements with their employers.
He referred to the trial of former Lib Dem Leader of Liverpool City Council Warren Bradley, that a court had found guilty of perjury followed by saying “I’ve done nothing wrong, I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. The only thing I’ve done wrong, the only thing I’ve done wrong is trusted the School to honour that procedure that we’ve got in place that was costing them nothing but because it went to an academy they decided to sack me. That was the only thing that we did wrong”.
Mayor Anderson continued, “Then you ask yourself the question, ‘Has Councillor Anderson benefitted from this, has he gained from this?’ Well let me tell ye, not only have I not gained, my good name which I am proud of and the hard work that I do for this City has been sullied by individuals in this Council, dragged through the mud by individuals in this Council, for doing nothing more than trying to serve the people of this City.
It’s been estimated that because I’ve been finished in my local government pension that I had for 16 years that I will have lost somewhere estimated to be £134,000 in contributions. If I die now in service or whatever, I’m not in service of course because I’m not in the pension, my wife, my family I get nothing, no protection! No job to go back to! And yet there are councillors in this chamber that want to pay politics with that.”
He said he would support anyone who was sacked for doing public service “because it’s the right thing to do public service and so my conscience on this matter is absolutely 110% clear” because “nothing I’ve done in this matter was for Joe Anderson. Nothing! ” and “never at any time did I seek any personal gain for me”.
Referring to the opposition Mayor Anderson said, “they played dirty politics with it and that shows to me, that shows to me the contempt that they have for the democratic politics that we engaged in over the Mayoral Deal and also the disrespect that they have for this City and for us and the form of governance that we’ve got.”
Mayor Anderson said that the government has accepted and will change through legislation the changes that need to be made to support mayors in the future. If he’d stayed as Leader of Liverpool City Council, he would’ve retained his salary, retained his allowances and retained his pension.
However the City of Liverpool wouldn’t have had the Mayoral Deal, the schools and wouldn’t have had that investment and he wouldn’t have lost out on his pension accruing and the benefits if he was still part of the pension scheme. He finished by saying, “My conscience on this matter is absolutely clear” and received a standing ovation and applause from his Labour councillors.
