Freedom of Information requests explained

I THOUGHT your readers might find it helpful if I outlined my view on Freedom of Information (FoI) requests in view of the allegation (Defer proposals says NABO) that I am implicated in the withholding of information, writes John Dodwell, a Canal & River Trust Trustee.

Some information is not available on grounds of commercial confidentiality etc, but I am not referring to that type.

Encourage people

I encourage people to seek information. I suggest to them that they put their queries direct to the relevant Trust staff member and explain why they are asking. This gives the opportunity for the reply to give explanations as well as information. For me, making an FoI request should be the last resort if other attempts to obtain information have failed.

Sarina Young, the Trust staff member who deals with FoI requests, told me that "The FoI procedure is often misunderstood by people who expect to receive explanations, comments and justification. The FoI procedure only obliges the Trust to provide copies of already recorded information. These, on their own, often do not satisfy the requester's wish for knowledge. It can be better to go to the relevant Trust staff member directly. This takes up much less of our time than going through the rigid process associated with responding to FoI requests."

Suggest be withdrawn

In the case your contributor had in mind, I did indeed (bearing in mind the comments above) suggest the FoI request be withdrawn but only on the basis we should see if the information could be provided informally. I also made it clear that it was entirely up to the requester whether he withdrew his FoI request; he chose not to and I defend his right to act in that way.

Consequently, the FoI procedure was followed and the informal approach fell away. It seemed to me that his main concern was what lay behind the South East Visitor Moorings Consultation being launched. Separately, this led to a great deal of information being supplied without going through the FoI process.

I will leave your readers— some know me personally and others will have heard of or read about me—to decide whether I believe in the withholding of information that can validly be provided. Those readers who saw my recent speech (John Dodwell explains) can see my approach to spreading information.

Visitor mooring

May I now turn to the apparent discrepancy about whether the Trust had received any complaints about overcrowding at any of the 22 visitor mooring sites? I was present when, in reply to such a question, Sally Ash referred to complaints being received.

It boils down to 'what is a complaint?' and 'what is a Complaint?'. To me, a 'complaint' is when someone grumbles—use another word, if you wish—about not being able to tie up at visitor mooring sites. I've heard it from others, and I have experienced it myself—and I expect so have a number of your readers. So I have no problem in accepting that people have been grumbling/complaining.

If there had been none about any of the 22 sites (out of 130 in the Trust's South East area; no changes are proposed at the other 108), why would the Trust be spending the time making visitor mooring sites proposals and consulting about them?

No complaints was right

Whereas a 'Complaint' is something different when you enter FoI land. If someone lodges a formal Complaint with the Trust—and they do—then the Complaints Procedure steps in. This is a formal process which is kept in the records. The formal Complaint receives a formal reply. This is a very different process from how grumble/complaints are treated. So the FoI answer that there were no Complaints about the 22 visitor mooring sites was right.

This distinction between a formal Complaint and a grumble complaint was explained by Sarina Young in correspondence on the Whatdotheyknow.com website at

http://www.whatdoestheyknow.com/request. She made it clear that not every expression of dissatisfaction was made as a formal Compliant, nor dealt with as such.

What this shows me is that Sally Ash has no need—as your contributor suggested—to apologise for misleading boaters. Indeed, some of your readers may feel it is she who should now be receiving an apology....