On the 23 December 2011, just after the deputation, and the vote in Full Council to bring the closing date forward to the 8th January we submitted three Freedom of Information requests to the City of Edinburgh Council.
Splashback has now received answers from the Council to our three requests, and in the spirit of openess we would like to share these with you... see below for 'Under the surface' - Parts I, II, III...
Think of this one like a swan - on top serene, whilst underneath frantically scrurrying away
In the Chamber on the 22 Dec Splashback requested that a proper Equalities Impact Assessment be carried out, as per the £9m funding agreement between Edinburgh Leisure and CEC, looking at the impact of closure on different user groups. In the amendment to the Chamber, put forward by the SNP/Lib Dem administration, it was stated that "that a draft Equalities Impact Assessment had been submitted to the Council and was currently being assessed.'
So the next day we asked to see all correspondence between CEC and El regarding the EqIA, and here is what we received.
Some things we'd like to draw your attention to:
1. Unless we have been given incomplete information, the first mention in this financial year (eight months after the funding agreement was signed off) the 1st mention between EL and CEC was the day after we visited Councillor Brock (also Vice-Chair of EL )at her 7 Dec surgery to request the EqIA. (p1)
2. On the 8 Dec, the Chief Exec of EL is quoted (regarding the closure) as saying, "Given that it is clearly a done deal – it seems a futile too spend a lot of time on the EqIA." (p3)
3. The Head of Sport at CEC wrote on 15 Dec (7 days before the motion)"I have told them [the Splashback campaign group] that it wasn't required at the time when the decision was taken. However in discussing with Cllr Brock, she feels having an EqIA would be helpful at this point..." (p13)
4. An unnamed official notes, “I attended the Splashback public meeting last night with Cllr Brock. The meeting itself was very civilized” (p20) Thank you!
5. An unnamed EL staff member writes on the 19 Dec, “Got to say it is all too late for my liking... an EqIA needs to be built in, not bolted on (etc.etc.etc) (p23)
6. CEC Head of Sport writes on 19 Dec, “ I don't think that splashing around in LWW will actually have that much of a positive impact on health... kids maybe active but it is a leisure/fun pool and not necessarily increasing heart rats in the same way that doing 10 lengths of a traditional 25m pool would... " Ummm,
FOI Reply Re EQIA
Think of this one, like the Titanic - we know it's down there, but we can't get it out!
Much was made in the Chamber on the 22 Dec of the amount of subsidy required to keep Leith Waterworld open, the high staff costs and the high energy costs...
So the next day, we asked CEC for a full breakdown of these costs. EL has refused us these on two occasions in the run-up to the motion. We presumed Councillors had sight of these, given the decision on the future of the pool was being taken by them... apparently not - "this information is not held by the Council". We have still been unable to get a full breakdown of the operating costs from EL.
Under the surface - part III Think of this like an iceberg - we can see some of whats there, but aren't sure what size it is underneath!
Following the decision to bring forward the closure of LWW on 22 Dec, our minds turned to what might be there if it was sold and no longer a leisure pool.
We asked to see “all correspondence between CEC and Tesco (or a party
acting on Tesco’s behalf) regarding the Leith Waterworld site, either received
or sent over the last year (1 December 2010 – 22 December 2010). We were interested to receive the following response
In this instance, the Council is applying Commercial Interests and the Economy,Section 33 (1) (b) disclosure would (or would be likely to) prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person or organisations.We believe that it would significantly harm and substantially prejudice the company concerned with regard to any future tenders they pursue"
Not a refusal on the basis that there isn't any correspondence but a refusal that it might prejudice commercial interests - We have, of course requested a review of this, citing public interest, which as the Scottish Information Commissioner notes, over-rides this exemption.
