BILL Norman, Wirral's borough solicitor, has tonight admitted he does not know precisely who has read the top secret draft report of the local inquiry into the now-scrapped library closure programme.

Mr Norman, Wirral's director of law, has also apologised for "omitting" the name of a barrister employed by the council at the inquiry from a circulated list of those who had access to the report.

He also reveals that the QC, Richard Clayton, cost Wirral council tax payers £31,161.88 plus VAT - as against the £15,000 previously reported without challenge.

Mr Norman was replying to questions from Tory group leader Cllr Jeff Green, who had demanded to know why he was left out of a list of 'appropriate' people to be given access to the draft report for 'fact checking', sent to Mr Norman on July 27.

The Globe has persistently been asking similar questions for the last ten days without reply.

The ruling Lib-Lab cabinet committee announced it was scrapping the library closures on September 30.

Mr Norman's email makes clear that a decision on how the council had acted over the closures had been "imminent" at the end of September.

In response to Cllr Green's question over who had seen the draft report, and if they themselves had shared it, Mr Norman admitted he had "not checked" - but declares that he knows of at least one senior officer who had shared its details with others.

He writes: "All persons provided with copies of the draft report by me were made aware of the obligation of confidentiality attached to it.

"I have not checked with everybody listed in my previous email whether they have shared the draft report or its recommendations with anyone.

"I am aware, however, that at least one officer has shared the draft report with those very senior colleagues in their department from whom they required advice or assistance, but always subject to the obligation of confidentiality.

"Breach of the obligation by an officer would potentially be a disciplinary matter," he added.

Cllr Green had asked what criteria Mr Norman had applied when considering who was appropriate to receive the draft copies of the report by Sue Charteris, the Government-appointed inspector who held a two-day inquiry into the library closure programme in June.

He was specifically concerned about the input of deputy Lib-Dem group leader Gill Gardiner, who is the ruling cabinet committee spokesman for environment, and the council's tourism and marketing chief Emma Degg, who heads the borough's public relations team.

Mr Norman replied: "I listed the members and officers to whom I circulated the draft report... I also explained that my response to Sue Charteris was a combination of factual corrections, clarifications and legal arguments: as such, it was wider ranging than mere 'fact checking'.

"The officers who were provided with a copy of the draft report were those colleagues most involved in the preparation of the council's case for the public inquiry, plus the chief executive and deputy chief executive.

"Emma Degg’s involvement was as a second tier officer and she made a major contribution to the factual corrections and clarifications contained in my response.

"Those members who were provided with copies of the draft report received them in their capacity as senior cabinet members."

He adds: "I must add at this point that in my previous email I inadvertently omitted one name from the list of persons to whom I copied the draft report.

"The list was accurate and complete regards members and officers.

"However, the draft report was also sent by me to Richard Clayton QC for clarification of some of the legal matters he had raised during the public inquiry. (He was not asked to advise on the issues of confidentiality or disclosure of the draft Report.)

"I can only apologise to you and all other recipients of my previous email for my omission of Richard’s name."

Cllr Green claims he was told by several senior officers that they had not seen the report, when in fact it transpired they had.

In response to that, Mr Norman wrote: "In your email you asked me for guidance regarding officers who have told you direct untruths.

"Under the Officers’ Code of Conduct, employees are required to perform their duties ‘with honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity’.

"Telling a direct untruth clearly conflicts with the requirement for honesty.

"Equally, however, all of us who have received copies of the draft report have been conscious of the exceptional obligation of confidentiality attached to it.

"I do not say this to justify the telling of an untruth: it does not."

Council leader Steve Foulkes insists the decision to reverse the library closures was because the time for making savings to reinvest in new services had passed, because of the length of the public inquiry.

Cllr Green told the Globe tonight: "I am absolutely astonished.

"The borough solicitor decided that I was not, as leader of the largest group on Wirral Council, an appropriate person to be allowed access to this still secret report.

"In the same email, he admits he has not checked which individuals may have shared the report, and indeed confirms that he knows of at least one senior officer who has indeed shared it - but who to, we do not know.

"What else is there that we are still to find out?"

* STAY WITH GLOBE ONLINE FOR ONLINE BREAKING NEWS