Defra involved in Ombudsman scandal
THE Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has refused to supply information it holds relating to the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) Waterways Ombudsman scandal (Sham Ombudsman to remain), writes Allan Richards.
Defra says that it needs up to a further 20 working days in addition to the 20 working days specified in the Freedom of Information Act to respond to a request for information it holds relating to the matter. It cites the Freedom of Information Act section 43(2), commercial interests, as the reason for the delay.
The scandal
Records of a CaRT/Defra Grant Review Meeting held on 7th August 2014 show that the department were aware of the maladministration that had occurred regarding the Trust's Waterways Ombudsman Scheme. On 15 March 2015, Defra were asked to provide any recorded information they held regarding the scandal.
However, after delaying for almost a month, the department now says it needs up to another month to consider if it is in the public interest to disclose this information as it may affect ‘commercial interests'.
Damage CaRT's reputation
Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act might allow Defra to withhold information relating to the Waterways Ombudsman scandal if they believed that it would damage CaRT's reputation to the extent that it would affect commercial activity in a competitive environment.
An example of this might be the release of information stopping potential donors contributing to the Trust and existing regular donors withdrawing from the ‘Friends' scheme due to concerns about honesty and accountability.
However, Section 43(2) is subject to a public interest test and Defra can only withhold the information if the public interest in doing so outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Doing damage
Perhaps Defra needs to consider the damage it is doing to both its own reputation and that of CaRT by delaying its decision. After all, it does have the responsibility of ensuring that the Trust acts in the best interests of the public.
.... and running a sham Ombudsman scheme for years and refusing to be held accountable when found out is certainly not in the public interest!
[Following CaRT's Press release last month which only named five out of eight members of a reconstituted Waterways Ombudsman Committee, the Trust were asked to name the missing three. On 14th April the Trust formally refused to to so despite being aware that it would lead to speculation that the new committee had been formed without the three members who would represent ‘users' of the scheme.]