Did CaRT lie about Todbrook Reservoir?
FOLLOWING a successful information request, Canal & River Trust (CaRT) has made available a further three reports relevant to the causes of the Toddbrook incident and the Trust’s failure to maintain its reservoirs in safe condition.
The reports make a valuable addition to the two reports previously provided by CaRT in response to the request.
Allan Richards, who made the request, recounts the story and leaves it up to the reader to decide if CaRT lied in an attempt to prevent publication of this information.
The Todbook incident
On 1st August 2019, the spillway at Toddbrook reservoir in Whaley Bridge started to collapse following heavy rain on an already full reservoir. Concerns regarding loss of life led to the evacuation of some 1,500 people from homes and businesses in Whaley Bridge.
Drawdown of the water level together with measures to shore up and stabilise the spillway averted what some residents describe as a potential disaster of Aberfan proportions.
The response
Defra, who have ministerial responsibility both for reservoirs and CaRT’s grant funding, quickly announced its intention to commission an ‘independent’ review and published terms of reference. This was swiftly followed by CaRT announcing its own internal review. However, unlike Defra, it provided no terms of reference.
It was subsequently suggested by Defra that the two parties would co-operate and that an interim report would be produced by Christmas.
Independent?
As someone who has worked as a consultant in the past, I freely admit that I consider the use of ‘independent’ alongside ‘consultant’ to be something of an oxymoron when the organisation asking for the report has a vested interest. Sadly, it is often a case of ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’.
What was really needed was a public enquiry.
Those with longer memories will remember the case of Kris Mcdowell who fell to his death from Pontcysyllte Aqueduct. CaRT commissioned an ‘independent’ consultant who exonerated it from blame only to have the coroner reject his report as not ‘independent’. The coroner went on to commissioned his own report...
In the end there was a differences of opinion between Defra’s three experts and CaRT’s single expert. Defra won the war of words by just publishing its own report rather than both.
Both reports relied to some extent on reports based by a local resident, Graham Aldred which had been supplied to CaRT. Not in the pay of either CaRT or Defra, unconstrained by terms of reference and with formidable local knowledge he was to produce credible reports that got to the heart of the the incident.
However, I get ahead of myself…
The request
With no combined interim report appearing and suggestions that all was not well at CaRT’s other 71 reservoirs, I decided at the end of January, six moths after the incident, to ask CaRT for information:
'Please provide all information held relating to:
¶ Causes of damage to the Toddbrook Reservoir Spillway in August 2019.
¶ Any actions taken at other reservoirs as a result of that incident'.
Delay
Despite several reminders, CaRT ignored the request. It was not until I informed them that a complaint of unreasonable delay had been made to the Information Commissioner that it responded.
The response, on 16th March, was that they had now satisfied my request by publishing the CaRT and Defra reports on the Trust’s website. No explanation as to why the two reports constituted ‘all information’ as per part one of the request and simply ignored part two (regarding any actions taken at CaRT’s 71 other reservoirs).
Muted apology
CaRT’s publication of the two reports was accompanied by a muted apology from its chief executive, Richard Parry. He acknowledged that CaRT’s maintenance of its reservoirs fell short of what was needed. He stated that that some £30m would be set aside to remedy the situation and claimed that this would not affect spend on other major works needed over the next three years.
The apology included a vague promise of improved inspections procedures and better vegetation management (which would prevent further damage to reservoirs and allow visual inspections to be carried out properly).
Whilst the two reports remain, it would appear that CaRT has now removed its chief executives apology from its website.
[Late change—as of 24th May 2020, CaRT has removed all reference to the Toddbrook incident from its main page.]
Criminal offence
Under the Freedom of Information Act, knowingly hiding information is a criminal offence . Whilst it is now clear that CaRT did hide the fact that it held three reports from Mr Aldred it is not known if they did this deliberately. Suffice to say, CaRT have never offered an explanation.
Acting on advice from the Information Commissioner, I asked CaRT to hold an internal review and provide the reports I understood they held. Here is CaRT’s response:
Internal review
'While I can confirm that the Trust holds reports by Graham Aldred in relation to the Toddbrook Reservoir these are being withheld in accordance with Regulation 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 on the basis that disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the person who provided the reports on a voluntary basis and has not consented to there release. I have carried out the public interest test in relation to the application of this exception and factors in favour of disclosure include that there is a general presumption in favour of disclosure and in
authorities being open and transparent in their actions.
However, factors against disclosure include the fact that the provision of these reports allows private individuals to express their views in a free and frank manner. The disclosure of this information by the Trust would adversely affect the interests of Mr Aldred because it would be a detriment to his relationships with other parties about, or to whom he has supplied information.
Likewise, the future supply of information by third parties to the Trust would be undermined because the Trust would not be able to maintain the necessary confidentiality that the suppliers of the information would expect. Disclosure would therefore stem the flow of information supplied, to the detriment of the Trust. I have therefore concluded that the public interest falls in maintaining this exception and withholding the information you have requested'.
Graham Aldred responds:
One of the advantages of using the whatdotheyknow website for requesting information is that it provides a complete history of a request and response which is publicly available. Anyone can access the whatdotheyknow website. Embarisingly for CaRT, Mr Aldred read its grounds for refusal. I reproduce the email he sent below:
Date 12/05/2020 09:49
From Graham Aldred <xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
To: Information Request <
bcc: Allan Richards <xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
Subject: Causes of damage to the Toddbrook Reservoir Spillway and resulting actions
'Dear Sirs
I am emailing you concerning the information request at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
On 16 April 2020 you wrote:
While I can confirm that the Trust holds reports by Graham Aldred in relation to the Toddbrook Reservoir these are being withheld in accordance with Regulation 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 on the basis that disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the person who provided the reports on a voluntary basis and has not consented to there release
....(It) would adversely affect the interests of Mr Aldred because it would be a detriment to his relationships with other parties about, or to whom he has supplied information. Likewise, the future supply of information by third parties to the Trust would be undermined because the Trust would not be able to maintain the necessary confidentiality that the suppliers of the information would expect. Disclosure would therefore stem the flow of information supplied, to the detriment of the Trust. I have therefore concluded that the public interest falls in maintaining this exception and withholding the information you have requested. I would suggest, given you appear to know the publisher of these reports, that you request them from him directly.
A casual reader would be misled into believing that I have withheld my consent for the reasons given. This is not the case. I have not withheld my consent. Indeed, the CRT has never asked for it or consulted me on this matter.
Suffice to say, I would have expected you to provide my reports alongside the two other reports you provided in response to Mr Richards' request. My reports are equally valid, have a wider scope and contain material that does not appear in the other two issued reports. Both the official reports which are a source of additional important information, were published much later, but the authors both reach to the same conclusion as to the cause of the near catastrophe last August. The official authors have referred to my reports and quoted from them.
Part 3 of my report, alone from the other authors, constructively provides a detailed description of a safe and viable modification plan which addresses all the failures and design errors currently at Toddbrook, some but not all of which are described or acknowledged by the expert authors. This plan deserves wide exposure beyond the CRT. It must be included along with any modification schemes that the CRT may invent which should all be critically reviewed by an independent technical panel. For this obvious reason the three parts of my report should be published or made accessible as widely as the other reports.
I am concerned that this thread reveals more evidence of the systemic defensive antagonism at large within the CRT. I believe that the Public have a right to ask questions and hold Government funded bodies to account. The CRT are the temporary custodians of National Assets, many of which are dangerous to life and property. The CRT cannot be blamed for disastrous technical constructions installed before 2012, therefore should be open to questions.
Cooperation with the general public should be straight forward and amicable. Those who live downstream of a dangerous dam are entitled to be made aware of it.
Wrote to Allan Richards
Finally you wrote to Mr Richards:
...I would suggest, given you appear to know the publisher of these reports, that you request them from him directly.
I have circulated my reports to those I know who are interested in the Toddbrook incident and many will have forwarded them on, but this is a very limited circulation compared with the two other reports. I do not know Mr Richards other than, like many, through following his reasonable requests for information which are always denied.
Mr Richards was not asking me for a copy of these reports. He was asking you for information relating to causes of damage to the Toddbrook Reservoir Spillway in August 2019. In the first instance, you failed to disclose that you held my reports that were pertinent to his request. In the second instance you admitted to holding them but refused to provide them, wrongly suggesting that I had asked that they remain confidential because they would adversely affect my interests.
In the circumstances, I would suggest that you immediately provide Mr Richards with these reports..
To avoid any doubt whatsoever:
Disclosure of my reports will not adversely affect my interests.
I consent to disclosure for the important reasons given above.
When publishing my reports please remove my email address.
Yours Sincerely
Graham Aldred'
Desperate to withold reports
Based on Mr Aldred’s email, I asked CaRT to provide his reports within five working days. The Trust ignored this resulting in a second complaint to the Information Commissioner. However, a chase up email resulted in them finally publishing the reports that they were so desperate to withhold.
Of course, they provided absolutely no explanation for what had taken place.
As stated above, I will leave it to the reader to decide if, and to what extent, CaRT lied in order to withhold these reports from public scrutiny.
Full history of the information request
Graham Aldred’s three reports can be found via the above. For ease of access the following direct links, in chronological order, are as follows:
Preliminary report (September 2019)
Main report—Analysis of the Damage to the Toddbrook Dam