The Isle of Wight Council has refused to provide information relating to the payout made in respect of the troubled Floating Bridge, claiming an exemption under Freedom of Information laws.
Several individuals have submitted Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to the local authority seeking to obtain information about the amount of money the Council has received from those behind the disaster vessel.
However, details of the settlement between Burness Corlett Three Quays Southampton, Mainstay Marine Solution and the Isle of Wight Council are being kept a secret.
Responding to the FoI request, the Council says that they believe the exemption under Regulation 12(5)e applies to the information.
The regulation allows a public authority to refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentially is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
Explaining further, the Council believes that 4 elements of the exemption are met;
- The information is commercial or industrial in nature – the information relates to a legally binding settlement agreement
- The confidentiality is provided by law – the settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause which specifically states that the information is confidential
- The confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest – the release of the information would cause harm to the Council’s legitimate economic interests int hat the council is contractually bound not to disclose the information
- The confidentiality would be adversely affected by disclosure – a breach of confidentiality may result in the Council being sued for damages and the legal costs associated with any legal action
What is needed here is a whistle blower…
The Council have considered the FoI request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), which are not necessarily correct as these Regulations define environmental information and quote exception 12(5)(E) of the EIR.
All EIR exceptions are subject to the public interest test set out in those regulations. A public authority can only withhold information if the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
I would contend that in this case the public interest outweighs the public authorities refusal to disclose.
There is a more fundamental problem with the citing of 12(5)e and that is that the FOI requests are not being made for environmental information so the EIR does not apply.
The correct legislation is The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance for section 43 of the FOI clearly states that “Public authorities cannot contract out of their statutory obligations under FOIA” (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guidance-index/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/section-43-commercial-interests)
I will be making an FOI request under the FOIA and, should I receive a refusal, will be quoting the above guidance when I refer the matter to the ICO.
No surprises then ….
Our council are a closed shop !!!!
The only time we cash cow’s get any information is when they are pleading poverty and want more money in the form of daylight robbery —— Council Tax ….
It’s so obvious the iw council took a bad deal.That’s why there hiding the truth from us tax payers.low life council scum..
More corrupt than Fifa!
Clearly demonstrates that they have something to hide – had the outcome shown the council in a good light, then they would have published it and shouted about it.
Why should we the public, that live on this Island and pay the council tax, to be able to waste that money on things like this, be told anything, it is only our money they have thrown away… ??? I have always thought UK was democratic, open and free…. but seems this Island is under DICTATORSHIP… from the council and the ferry companies…
Cost me £32 for a period return coming back the next day on wightlinks fastcat day before yesterday, but only £52 for a train return from Pompey travelling 175 miles one way, 26 quid for 175 miles train/16 quid for 6miles on the cat, thats £2.66 per wet mile! how come the government subsidise the scottish ferries but not ours?
Boris actually won the poxy leadership race but Sunak was installed against party wishes, by whom?..dirty politics at its smelliest as the fish rots from the head down, this is a psuedo dictatorship where the dictator is hidden from view,WEF?..remember, it’s not the votes that wins, its who counts the votes that wins/Stalin.
because the scottish ferry would cease to exist without subsidy – it is never profitable.
The floating bridge is a PUBLIC service. It is managed (and mis-managed) by PUBLIC servants who are paid out of PUBLIC funds. It’s maintenance, upkeep, operation and running costs are paid for by the PUBLIC. We, the PUBLIC, need to know just what the Council are hiding from us and why they are hiding it.
Until they tell us, we can only assume corruption is the reason.
For them to be holding back the outcome, is probably because there was no outcome. the builders probably told the Council to get stuffed…
Bearing in mind one of the two Parties put themselves into liquidation just before they finally met with the Council at mediation, it is quite feasible that if the company no longer exists any potential “agreed” value cannot be actually be paid to the Council.
As to be expected, they seem to forget who pays there sometimes exorbitant wages and the fact that they are in their position to represent the public.
But never mind we are appearing to have gone from a total disaster to some sort of resolution, but we will not report back as what it is and will keep the outcome to ourselves.
Sniff sniff? Do I smell something?
I think we can draw our own conclusions from this.
The council has lost a lot of our money.
Just about says it all, the crooks we have in County Hall. Why the secrecy? Probably got a massive payback due to FB6 not being fit for purpose. They won’t tell us islanders, but I bet we’ll still be expected to pay increased Council Tax next year.
If this went to a legal proceeding the council would lose hands down. The pathetic excuses they give for withholding information is quite simply taking the piss. Is there anyone within the council who has the balls to “whistle blow” on this matter or not. Maybe people should march on county hall and make all this public, I’m sure the BBC and Sky News would love this one.
A good investigative journalist would flush out the facts in the public interest perhaps a crowd funding cause to help pay for such a journalist .. facts matter and the IWC must not get away with this .. those responsible should be prosecuted.( past & present )
This Alliance group need voting out at the next opportunity. They ignore democracy and just treat majority as cash cows for there benefit buddies.
Is the secrecy being used to hide mediocrity and poor performance?
Still silence on the Float pig, but soon be putting up the council tax to cover the dead loss rubbish.
These people are laughing in our faces as once again the incompetence and behaviour of public sector bureaucrats escapes proper scrutiny and their actions are placed beyond challenge, whilst the taxpayer is forced to pick up the tab and also the bill for funding their colossal salaries and even more colossal pensions
The corrupt council probably didn’t make much out of it but enough to pay for they Xmas party with champagne top notch food and limos ,
It is all going pear shaped this council was going to be all about “honesty and integrity”but then we all knew that this was just a joke on us
Why would telling us, the people who are forced into paying council tax ,affect anything?. Unless council have something to hide,like colluding in falsely claiming liquidation. Or covering up corruption in original purchase – did it go out to tender and was choice of company to build legal in first place. Someone has too much to hide for what reason. Any will show up in public accountants pay in or payout.
https://www.change.org/p/our-floating-bridge-taxpayers-money-we-need-answers/dashboard?source_location=user_profile_started
i started this when the story was first broke, i now feel after the FOI requests have gone unanswered people need to sign so that we can force the council to give us the information that we need to know
Still waiting for one of the concerned councillors to come on here and tell us what options we have to hold the council to account over this. Is there a higher authority it can be referred to or an independent arbitrator/tribunal?
The floating bridge settlement document is a clear example of public interest so whoever signed that NDA was acting outside of their authority and, as such, that document is almost certainly invalid.
The problem is that if the council are willing to ignore FOI requests which have legal weight behind them they will certainly take no notice of any petitions.
Unfortunately, the only way we will ever find out what is in the deal is through the courts and that will take a lot of money.
What part of Freedom of information does this useless excuse for a council not understand ?????
Well, what a surprise eh?
IWC can’t use a contract to get out of FOI. FOI is the law. There is a public interest test for the exemption they are using. You don’t have to just accept their refusal, there are more steps you can take.
Write back to IWC with your counter argument. Read the ICO guidance first at https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guidance-index/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/section-43-commercial-interests/#publicinterest. If you get a further refusal or they give you something redacted to the extent that it still does not satisfy the spirit of the FOI, then escalate it to the ICO. Its free. Nothing to lose!
Get MP to disclose it in the House of Commons,
The council recieved full cost of ferry plus £1.8 million compensation (I know someone at mainstay)
The BBC have been notified, let’s see if anything happens now.
“I refer to the local story of the Isle of Wight Councils cover up of the whole floating bridge fiasco. A public service that is paid for from the tax paying people of the island. Many here believe that this council are hiding something that should be made public and there is a strong feeling of wrongdoing here in not allowing and refusing a Freedom of Information request. I feel this needs to go wider, so I am contacting you, the BBC to see if you can get to the bottom of this local scandal.”
Links have been sent to the BBC as well.
The Isle of Wight Council. Transparent. Honest. Open. Try hiding things about your finances from them when they ask probing questions. Likely just the tip of the iceberg.
Leaving aside whether they have even used the right legislation, I would have thought that a legitimate commercial interest has to be shown to be legitimate for reasons other than wanting to hide the information. Otherwise it would be a completely redundant test.
The council on the Isle of Wight need to be held accountable for their actions On so many things Infrastructure housing . But it never happens.