The Isle of Wight Council leader’s “justification” on secrecy, (CP online, 17-11-22), that they “would not have used a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) if they had not felt it was the only way to get a considerable financial contribution”, does not bear commercial scrutiny. 

After 30 years in the commercial world and writing NDAs, these are normally mutually beneficial agreements safeguarding information between parties and not used to seek an advantage over another party. 

In the Floating Bridge No.6 (FB6) mediation, the Isle of Wight Council was potentially the sole financial beneficiary with the two parties comprising the designers and builders defending their positions. 

The designers then put themselves into liquidation just days before the meeting. 
It could be argued that the builders were the secondary party only building what was designed. 

READ MORE: Isle of Wight Council Floating Bridge legal bill revealed

As the main party no longer exists as a legal entity raises questions on exactly how any settlement would be paid, plus exactly what information the Isle of Wight Council — as the party seeking a settlement against the other two — would need closely safeguarding. 

The question remains why the council undertook to sign an NDA at all in the full knowledge that any information demanded by the public would be legally subject to the “public interest test”. 

This states that a public authority can only withhold information if the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing that information. 

The council now states as they signed an NDA they cannot release any information. 

READ MORE: Isle of Wight Floating Bridge FOI requests

The public have endured over five-and-a-half years of continued FB6 problems, lack of service and additional rectification costs and as a publicly funded project providing a public service, it would be obvious that questions would be asked.

The current Freedom of Information requests over the mediation outcomes have resulted in “Refusal Notices” from the council, of which mine has now gone to the appeal process and I am aware of others that will also be appealed.

This will certainly not be the end of the matter we can then go to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a final ruling on information being released.

  • Read more letters sent to the County Press here. Do you have a view on this or any other subject? Send us a letter – under 350 words if possible - to editor@iwcp.co.uk