Wirral Council U-turns on refusal of FOI request for values and culture presentation

Over a year ago (3rd July 2014) I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council using the excellent whatdotheyknow.com website for an email (and an attached Powerpoint presentation to the email) sent by Surjit Tour on Thursday 24th April 2014 with the subject of L&MS – Values and Culture Presentation. L&MS stands for Legal and Member Services (Member meaning councillor in local government jargon).

On the last day of July (31st July 2014) I got a reply. Mr Tour had considered the FOI request and refused it. His response referred to section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information 2000. For those familiar with this part of the Freedom of Information Act this is one of the parts that is subject to a public interest test.

Surjit Tour (left) at a recent meeting of Wirral Council's Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee — Surjit Tour (left) at a recent meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee

Mr. Tour (who made the first decision on this request) claimed in refusing the request that releasing his email (and attachment) would:

(b) inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views;
or
(c) otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

Further detail was given about why this request was refused “The information requested was used as an integral part of a management meeting where a corporative initiative was openly discussed and debated” and “The Council has held/is holding a series of management meetings where there must be a safe space to share corporate initiatives and openly discuss and debate any issues arising in these meetings. It is also my reasonable opinion that if the requested information were to be disclosed, it would likely have a “chilling effect” that would inhibit the free and frank discussion and debate on matters of importance to the Council and its workforce. Any disclosure is likely to undermine the ability of officers to express themselves in a frank and open manner.”

It was further claimed that “disclosure would restrict the free and frank exchanges of views”, “disclosure would stifle debate at such meetings and could lead to poorer decision making” and “disclosure would have a potential detrimental effect on future management meetings” although “transparency in disclosure of the content of the management meeting” was given as a factor in favour of disclosure. Also stated in the response was “I consider it is crucial that officers are able to engage in discussion and exchange views in an open and frank manner.”

At the time I got this response I didn’t request an internal review. I’d requested internal reviews before when Mr. Tour had claimed section 36 applied to the information requested. You can see an example of a request here for minutes of the Standards Working Group meeting of the 17th December 2013 where Mr. Tour refuses it based on section 36 and at internal review the former Chief Executive of Wirral Council Graham Burgess agrees with Mr. Tour.

At the time I probably thought it pointless to request an internal review as I thought the Chief Executive would just agree with Mr. Tour.

In February 2015 councillors at Wirral Council appointed a new Chief Executive Eric Robinson. So I submitted an internal review request on the 25th March 2015.

The new Chief Executive Eric Robinson on the 21st April 2015 agreed with Mr. Tour.

His responses were as follows, first to my point about whether it was a conflict of interest for Mr. Tour to decide on whether to release his own email:

“I do not agree that Mr. Tour would have been conflicted when he gave careful consideration to and applied the Section 36 exemption.”

In response to the point that the email and attachment was sent before the meeting, didn’t detail what was debated at the meeting therefore how could it “stifle debate at such meetings”?

“The contents of the attachments still remain current and topical to the Council. Officers who took part in this management meeting and those who will be present at further meetings, must be afforded a safe space in which they can openly discuss and debate these corporate initiatives.”

Finally responding to my point “well surely if Wirral Council is “open and transparent” then being “open and transparent” here about a very important aspect of the organisation (values and culture) would demonstrate to the public that Wirral Council has changed?” he replied:

“The Council is committed to openness and transparency and communicates this to the public in many ways. As well as the consultation exercises the Council has been involved in with members of the public; we also publish information and communications via our web pages.”

He included various links to the Council’s website to the Corporate Plan, a page on the Transparency Code and a page on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 & the Data Protection 1998.

Finally he stated:

“To summarise, as the Reviewing Officer, I have carefully considered the original response provided by the Monitoring Officer and my reasonable opinion is that I fully concur with his initial response. I am of the opinion that the exemption contained within Section 36 of The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been correctly and appropriately applied. As the Reviewing Officer, I believe I have considered all relevant and material factors and issues.”

and

“After taking all factors into account, it is my reasonable and considered opinion that the reasons and rationale provided by Mr. Tour are valid and robust in nature. I do not consider I need to add anything more in this regard and I am satisfied that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest for disclosure.”

So on the 19th May 2015 I appealed this decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office. On the 11th August 2015 Wirral Council supplied the attached Powerpoint presentation but stated that the email had since been deleted.

Shortly after I received an email from the Information Commissioner’s Office stating that the case was now closed, although I have emailed them this morning asking them to clear up that the Chief Executive at internal review stated “The contents of the attachments still remain current and topical to the Council.” which would suggest more than one attachment to the email, yet only one attachment was supplied.

So what is in this eighteen slide Powerpoint presentation that Mr. Tour and Mr. Robinson seemed so keen to prevent being released?

Ironically (considering what I’ve just written above) slide 10 on integrity states

“We communicate & are open and honest in what we do.”

However that point aside, the slides are about “organisational vision”, “values” and “culture”.

Slide 7 states that Wirral Council’s vision is:

“Wirral should be a place where the vulnerable are safe and protected, where employers want to invest and local businesses thrive and an excellent quality of life is within the reach of everyone who lives here.”

Slide 9 introduces Wirral Council’s values which are:

“integrity, efficiency, confidence and ambition”.

Slides 10 to 13 define each of these values.

“Integrity

We treat everyone with respect
We are accountable and take responsibility for our actions & decisions
We communicate & are open and honest in what we do

Efficiency

We seek innovative & creative solutions
We work effectively together to make the most of our resources
We proactively look for ways to improve

Confidence

We fully use the skills, talents & assets of our partners, communities and organisation
We take decisions and deliver
We learn from & share knowledge and expertise with others

Ambition

We deliver with energy and pace
We are risk aware, not risk averse
We have pride in our place and our people striving to be the best we can for Wirral”

The last slide refers to “support & change agents to be allocated”. If anyone would like to explain to me what a “support & change agent” is please leave a comment!

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

Allegations in eviction court case started by Wirral Council were struck out by Judge

Those with long memories might remember reading a story on this blog a month ago headlined Why did residents endure 11 years of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour from “hell” before Wirral Council took legal action to try to have a tenant evicted? which detailed a legal case where Wirral Council (acting on behalf of Leasowe Community Homes) had tried to have a former Leasowe Community Homes tenant called Danielle New evicted.

Sadly not all the court orders were sent to me. I emailed the Birkenhead County Court on the 13th July (using the email address on their letter) pointing out that a court order dated 9th October 2013 had not been included, only to receive an automated reply stating “The recipient’s e-mail address was not found in the recipient’s e-mail system.”

I tracked down the correct e-mail address, resent the email, but pointed out the incorrect e-mail on the letter. Birkenhead County Court have written to me in a letter received today apologising for the incorrect email address and have pointed out that both the email address and fax number for Birkenhead County Court have recently changed.

The letter also included a copy of the court order dated 9th October 2013 which is below. Interestingly this court order shows that District Judge Peake struck out the schedule of allegations filed by letter dated 26^th September 2013 as it didn’t comply with the court’s directive of the 12th September 2013 that it should be reduced to no more than 12 individual allegations. Unusually this was a court order made without a hearing and without service on the other party.

Birkenhead County Court order Leasowe Community Homes v Danielle New 9th October 2013

The invoice below shows that the allegations in a letter dated 26^th September 2013 struck out by the Judge were sent on the instructions of a solicitor working at Wirral Council to Paul Burns of Exchange Chambers.

Wirral Council invoice Paul Burns Exchange Chambers 22nd November 2013 Page 1 of 2 £4210 115

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

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service pay a consultant £2,500/day + expenses?

Principea Consulting Ltd Training Expenses invoice £2901 06p Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

The above invoice was paid by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for a speaker from Principea Consulting Limited for a training event called Exercise Black Swan.

The first part £401.06 is for travel expenses that break down to these categories on the invoice.

£11.60 Single fare on hovercraft to Southsea
£80.00 taxi to/from Southampton Airport
£136.96 Air Fare return to Manchester
£166.50 Two nights in the Premier Inn in Liverpool
£6.00 Single return on fast catamaran

Total £401.06

The second part of the invoice is £2,500 for Speakers Fee for presentation on 3^rd of May 2013 (although this might be a typo and possibly should read 2014) and detailed as for the development and leadership of Exercise Black Swan. The rest of the invoice deals with VAT.

So, if I’ve read this invoice correctly Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid for someone to speak at a one-day training event the sum of £2,500, plus their travel and accommodation expenses of £401.06? Does anyone reading know what Exercise Black Swan was?

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

REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

REVEALED: Minutes of the "secret" public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

A long time ago, in a county far,
far away….

It is a period of strife.
The rebel Conservative
and Lib Dem parties,
have won their first General
Election victory against
the Labour government.

During the battle, rebel
parties managed to steal secret
plans to the Labour government’s
ultimate weapon, private finance
initiatives, a financial device
with enough power to
cause mass privatisation.

Pursued by no one,
John Brace races home aboard a train,
with the secret plans that show
the Merseyside people which Labour
councillors signed up to this.

A long time ago there was a public meeting of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. This meeting took place on Tuesday 21st September 2010. However you won’t find this meeting on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s website and even the minutes of this meeting are on the instructions of councillors are to be kept a big secret.

So for the first time, in an exclusive for this blog here are partial minutes of that meeting when councillors agreed to a massive PFI contract for many of Merseyside’s fire stations (Belle Vale, Birkenhead, Bootle & Netherton, Formby, Kirkdale, Newton Le Willows & Southport). Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would pay the PFI contractor not just for rebuilding these fire stations, but for running these fire stations for many years after. The payments to the contractors made by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority increase each year under a formula linked to the rise in the Retail Price Index. The contracts that councillors agreed to at the meeting below make up the first three boxes on the left of the photo below.

The three boxes on the left comprise the PFI fire stations contract

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972

MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY

SPECIAL MEETING

21^st September 2010

PRESENT: Councillors Tony Newman (Chair), Jimmy Mahon, Dave Hanratty, Sharon Sullivan, Les Byrom, Colin Strickland, Robbie Ayres, Barbara Murray, Ted Grannell, Denise Roberts, Linda Maloney, Lesley Rennie, Gerry Ellis, Martyn Barber, Steve Niblock and Eddie Clein.

Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Jimmy Kendrick and Andrew Blackburn Independent Member Keith Pickup

1. Preliminary Matters

The Authority considered if there were any declarations of interest, matters of urgency or items that may require the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.

(a) The following declarations of interest were made in relation to items of business on the agenda:

Councillors Linda Maloney and Robbie Ayres declared an interest in Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off, as they both sit on St Helens Council Planning Committee.
Councillor Mahon also declared an interest to this item as he sits on Sefton Council’s Planning Committee.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(c) the following items of business required the exclusion of the press and public because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information:

Agenda Item 3 – CFO/138/10 – PFI Project Final Sign Off.
This report contains EXEMPT information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Authority, held on 24^th June 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed accordingly by the Chair.

3. PFI Project Presentation

It was requested by the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer that Mr Skarratts – Fire Brigades Union representative be permitted to stay for the presentation and discussion of this item.

The Assistant Chief Executive and Treasurer and Mr. Schofield – PFI Project Manager gave a Power Point presentation to the Authority explaining the history of the Project from conception to the current day.

During the presentation Members were asked if they had a preference when building work was to commence as the building trade closes down for two weeks over the Christmas period.

Resolved that:

(a) Members had no preference when the building work was to commence as it would seem pointless to start work mid December then to close it down again.

(b) Noted that Balfour Beatty had confirmed they would do their utmost to drive the work forward to catch up and meet the deadline.

4. PFI Project Final Sign Off
(CFO/138/10)

This Minute is EXEMPT under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Members considered Report CFO/138/10 of the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer concerning the Final Sign Off of the North West Fire & Rescue Services Private Finance Initiative Project.

Resolved that:

(a) The Final Business Case be noted and endorsed, and its submission to CLG be approved;

(b) Arrangements for the North West Fire & Rescue Services PFI Project be approved on the basis of the financial terms and general principles contained within the report;

The Project Agreement and its Schedules, being the principal agreement to be entered into between the Authority, Cumbria County Council and Lancashire Combined Fire Authorities (“the Authorities”) and Balfour Beatty Fire and Rescue NW Limited (“Project Co.”);
The Direct Agreement, being the agreement entered into between the Authorities, Nord LB and Dexia (“the Funders”) and Project Co. (“the Direct Agreement”);
The Collateral Agreements to be entered into between the parties set out below:
– The Authorities, Mansell Construction Services and Project Co.;

– The Authorities, Border Construction and Project Co.;

– The Authorities, Balfour Beatty Workplace and Project Co.;

– The Authorities, Blue Sky Architects and Project Co.;

– The Authorities, and any other principal building sub-contractors or relevant members of the professional team; and

– Any other Collateral Agreements required under the terms of the Project Agreement.
The Independent Certifier Deed of Appointment to be entered into between the Authorities, Project Co., the Funders and Gleeds;
The Co-operation Agreement being the agreement being entered into between (1) the Authority, (2) Cumbria County Council, and (3) Lancashire Combined Fire Authority in relation to the relationship between the Authorities for the duration of the Project (“the Co-operation Agreement”); and
Any other agreements, certificates, acknowledgements, waivers, notices, letters or other documents incidental to the documents listed above or otherwise necessary or desirable in connection with the Project.

(d) The Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins), or in his absence, the Director of Finance (Ian Cummins), be authorised to certify that the following contracts are intra vires in accordance with the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997:

the Project Agreement and its Schedules; and
the Direct Agreement

(e) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Office (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagan) or the Assistant Chief Fire Office (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) be authorised to execute the Agreements under seal on behalf of the Authority and agree that their execution of the Agreements should conclusively demonstrate approval by the Authority of the Agreements in their final form;

(f) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer (Anthony McGuirk) or the Deputy Chief Executive & Deputy Chief Fire Officer (Michael Hagen) or the Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Daniel Stephens) or the Assistant Chief Executive & Treasurer (Kieran Timmins) or the Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Office (Janet Henshaw) or the Deputy Clerk (Sarah Bourne) (“the Relevant Officers”) as appropriate be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the agreements, in consultation with Dickinson Dees LLP, the Authority’s legal advisers in relation to this Project; and in consultation with the Chairman of the Authority, or in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of the Authority;

(g) the Authority will indemnify any of the Relevant Officers in respect of any claims and costs relating to the contract arragements, provided that the Relevant Officer has acted reasonably and within the ordinary course of their duties.

(h) the Authority request the PFI Project Team to monitor the use of local economy and report back.

(i) Members placed their appreciation on record to the PFI Project Team for seeing the project through for the Authority.

(j) the Chief Executive & Chief Fire Officer placed his thanks on behalf of Officers to the Authority for supporting the PFI Project.

(k) noted that Kensington Fire Station was now complete; and

(l) requested information regarding Toxteth Community Hubs to be circulated to Members.

3. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 30^th December 2010.

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

Which Wirral councillor claimed £50 on taxis to and from a public meeting?

I wrote recently to some of the councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority expressing my concern that there were two expenses systems.

The first involved amounts where councillors had paid out expenses and claimed the money back. The totals for each councillor are published annually and you can see the list for 2014/15 on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s website. This list also includes the extra £8,070 a year that each councillor on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority receives with some receiving more on top of this (such as the Chair receives an extra £16,140 on top of the £8,040). These amounts are in addition to what they each receive for being a councillor from their own councils.

However there is a “secret” expenses system for councillors where Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service is invoiced directly. These amounts are not in the list above. My letter expressed the view that such expenses should be included and the reply I received is below.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue service letter about councillor expenses page 1 of 2

Merseyside Fire and Rescue service letter about councillor expenses page 2 of 2

As you can see above, the letter refers to the Local Authorities (Members Allowances) (England) Regulation 2003 and Regulation 15 means the financial records of payments to do with councillors have to be open to inspection.

So I recently went to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s headquarters in Bridle Road, Bootle and inspected these records. Below are two pages of an invoice for taxi rides by councillors that because Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service are invoiced directly don’t get included in the annual published lists.

Cabfind.com invoice taxis for councillors page 1 of 2 — Cabfind Ltd invoice taxis for councillors page 1 of 2

Cabfind.com invoice taxis for councillors page 2 of 2 — Cabfind Ltd invoice taxis for councillors page 2 of 2

I was astounded to find that a councillor from Wirral (Cllr Steve Niblock who is one of the three Labour councillors from Wirral on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) had taken a taxi from his home to the Fire and Rescue Service headquarters for a public meeting that cost £25 and then a taxi back costing a further £25 (total £50)!

The letter from Janet Henshaw stated “It was not possible to show travel & event bookings made directly by MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] (as opposed to members paying and then claiming back their allowances) due to the fact that this Authority uses an electronic software system to make each booking at the cheapest possible price for both members and officers.” and “MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] does not use any taxi firms“.

Cabfind Limited isn’t a taxi firm, but based on this statement you’d expect that taxi journeys made by councillors using Cabfind Limited would be the same or cheaper than paying for it themselves?

Below is an expense claim submitted by Cllr Steve Niblock for a journey when he has paid the taxi fare himself and claimed it back. The journey to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service headquarters is from and to the same address as the Cabfind Limited invoice above.

Councillor Steve Niblock expenses claim taxi journeys

The taxi journeys above were for £18.60 and £20.00. This is for exactly the same journey that when booked through Cabfind Limited (which Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service claim is “at the cheapest possible price”) was £25.00 and £25.00.

Had Councillor Steve Niblock walked to the nearest train station (Bebington) and got the train to the nearest train station to Merseyside Fire and Rescue headquarters (Aintree) the fare would’ve been only £3.85 each way (total £7.70). However there is nothing in the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority expense rules that states that councillors claiming back travel expenses have to travel by the cheapest route possible (such as by public transport).

Councillor Steve Niblock recently voted to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations and is part of the ruling Labour Group on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority that claims that the Conservative government doesn’t give the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority enough money.

Continues at Which St Helens councillor claimed £12 for a salmon dinner and a drink of Coke?.

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

Wirral Council U-turns on refusal of FOI request for values and culture presentation

Share this:

Allegations in eviction court case started by Wirral Council were struck out by Judge

Share this:

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service pay a consultant £2,500/day + expenses?

Share this:

REVEALED: Minutes of the “secret” public meeting that privatised 7 of Merseyside’s fire stations

Share this:

Which Wirral councillor claimed £50 on taxis to and from a public meeting?

Share this: