Dear Birmingham City Council,

On 4 of November 2009 made FOI request to the Communities and Local
Government (CLG) of the central government about the Working
Neighbourhood Fund in Birmingham (WNF).

On 3 December 2009 the CLG response told me that CLG has allocated
the WNF exclusively to Birmingham City Council (BCC) and that
remains entirely responsible for the whole of the WNF in Birmingham
even where the Council use the Strategic Partnership to allocate or
distribute it.

The CLG also told me that WNF main purpose is to tackle
worthlessness.

Please can BCC provide the Following information on WNF in
Birmingham under the FOI request.

This Freedom of Information request is made in public interest for
reasons of Transparency, Accountability, Equality and Best Value
for Money.

The Department of Communities and Local Government has given
significant amount of WNF public money to BCC.

Below is the extract of the text from page 13 of the statutory Code
of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality.

Statutory - CODE OF PRACTICE ON THE DUTY TO PROMOTE RACE EQUALITY

Private or voluntary organisations carrying out a public
authority's functions - on page 13

2.9 When a public authority has a contract or other agreement with
a private company or voluntary organisation to carry out any of its
functions (see the glossary), and the duty to promote race equality
applies to those functions, the public authority remains
responsible for meeting the general duty and any specific duties
that apply to those functions. The authority should therefore
consider the arrangements it will need. If the authority’s race
equality duties are relevant to the functions it is contracting
out, it may be appropriate to incorporate those duties among the
performance requirements for delivery of the service. For example,
a contractor could be required to monitor service users by their
racial group, to make sure the authority is meeting its duties.
This would not involve requirements concerning the contractor’s
internal practices. Whatever action the authority takes, it must be
consistent with the policy and legal framework for public
procurement.

According the Statutory code of practice on the duty to promote
race equality BCC responsible for the Transparency, Accountability
and Best Value for money and race equality to do with WNF.

1 From the start of the WNF please give amount of WNF money in each
named financial year BCC has received.

2 Please give details of the statutory race equality impact
assessments done to decide which thematic functions such as
unemployment, education and so on in Birmingham to to fund with
WNF.

3 Please give the amount of WNF money that has already been spent
in each financial year on each thematic function in Birmingham such
as unemployment, education and so on and give the details of the
race equality impact assessments done in each year for each theme.

4 Please give evidence (in percentages) of the race equality
impacts assessment showing the total population of the different
racial groups such as Pakistanis and so on, who could be potential
customers for each WNF thematic function in Birmingham such as
unemployment, education and so on in each financial year, which
should have been already done by BCC because they are statutorily
required by the public duty in the Race Relations Act.

5 Please give evidence (in percentages) the inequality gaps between
different racial groups such as Pakistanis and so which BCC
identified from the impact assessments of each WNF thematic
function in Birmingham such as unemployment, education and so on in
each financial year.

6 Please give evidence of the actions that have been taken and the
amount of WNF funding proportionately allocated for each financial
year by BCC to reduce inequality gaps between the different racial
groups such Pakistanis and so on identified by the impact
assessments of each thematic function such as unemployment,
education and so on.

7 Please give evidence (in percentages) the different racial groups
such as Pakistanis and so assisted (outputs) so far by WNF in
Birmingham in each financial year and in each thematic function
such as unemployment, education and so on.

8 Please provide evidence in percentages of the different racial
groups such as Pakistanis and so on, directly employed by the
organisations (please name the organisations) to whom BCC has given
the WNF money.

9 Please give the number of complaints BCC has received from
individuals and from organisations about WNF in Birmingham. Please
break the number of complaints into different racial groups such as
Pakistanis and so on.

10 Please explain the extent to which BCC consider the Councillors
and officers who break the statutory law in relation to the
statutory race equality public duty to do with BCC WNF activities
is a breach of Confidence and Trust.

11 Please give the name of the persons in BCC whose job is to check
that Councillors and officers comply with statutory race equality
public duty in relation BCC WNF activities.

12 please give details of the sanctions policy BCC can use against
BCC Councillors and officers when statutory law is broken by them
to do with BCC activities.

Yours faithfully,

Luqman Khan

Dear Mr Khan

Please see the attached for your Freedom of Information request.

(See attached file: FOI 3642 Luqman Khan.doc)

Yours sincerely

Corporate Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

1) I am not happy with Birmingham City Council (BCC) response dated
21 December 2009 to my Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 7
December 2009.

2) BCC response is inadequate and it demonstrates BCC lack of
helpfulness and lack of co-operation and lack of compliance with
the spirit and substance of the Freedom of Information Act.

3) Your response informs me that if I agree in advance to pay £25
per hour then BCC will provide the information I requested, that
which amounts to more than 18 Hours. However you very unhelpfully
omit to tell me how much money in total will BCC wanting me to
agree to pay. No one can be expected to agree to an open cheque
book payment. That is ridiculous and BCC knows very well that it is
being unhelpful. This shows BCC senior Managers and senior
Councillors contempt for the Freedom of Information Act and
contempt for the Public Duty in the Race Relations Act.

4) Please give me the number of hours and the amount of money BCC
expects me to pay for the information I requested and I will then
consider it.

5) The statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act not only
requires the public authorities to collect and monitor the level
and quality of services provided to the different racial groups but
the Public Duty also requires the public authorities to place and
publish all that information where the public can easily access all
the information.

6) All the Information I have requested should already be available
and easily accessible to the public under the statutory Public Duty
in the Race Relations Act. There is no question of anyone been
asked to pay for it.

7) All the information I request in my FOI request dated 7 December
2009 is within the scope of the statutory Public Duty in the Race
Relations Act. The law requires BCC to make it available and easily
accessible free of charge.

8 In any case please provide me any amount of the ethnicity
information I requested without BCC requiring me to pay for it.

9) Please provide the exact details of the place on BCC website and
the postal address of where I and others can access all the
information I requested in my FOI on 7 December 2009.

10) Please Note that the Leader of the Council and the Chief
Executive of BCC have recently made much of the fact that for cost
saving reasons members of the public would not get the papers on
the meeting Agenda because they can get them from BCC website when
they attend any council Wards, Constituencies, Cabinet and full
Council meetings. So at least all the information I have request
should be available of BCC Website But I can't find it because I
believe it is not there.

11) Please explain why BCC failed to take into consideration all of
the above before responding on 21 December 2009 to my FOI request
and demanding that I agree to pay the undisclosed amount of money
before BCC will provide the information. Senior managers and Senior
Councillors should be held accountable for their contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and for their contempt for the Race
Relations Act. I and other will contemplate taking legal action
against Birmingham City Council failure to comply with the
statutory Race Relations Act which is most like incurring
discrimination against service users.

13)Please do not give me any more run around. Just treat the law
with the respect that it deserves.

14)Please provide the information I requested.

15) The pending legal action against senior managers and senior
Councillors and BCC from me and others campaigners for equal
justice will take its own course.

Yours faithfully,

Luqman Khan

Dear Mr Khan

Please see the attached letter for your Freedom of Information request.

(See attached file: FOI 3642 Luqman Khan1.doc)

Yours sincerely

Corporate Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

1) I refer to Birmingham City Council (BCC) response to my follow
up FOI request of 5 January 2010 as BCC failed to adequately
respond to my earlier FOI request of 7 December 2009.

2) BCC have failed to deal with the FOI Items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8
and 9 and 10 and 11. Below I have set them out again for you to
respond to.

3) Yet again the Birmingham City Council (BCC) response clearly
demonstrates top Managers and top Councillor contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and contempt for the Statutory Public
Duty in the Race Relations Act because BCC attempts not to comply
with the law and tries to hide the information and attempts to give
misinformation.

4) In the response of 18 January 2010 BCC demands from me £9,775 to
provide me the information, which I have already pointed out to BCC
that BCC should have produced and publicly published in order to
comply with the Statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act.
Please see items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI
dated 5 January 2010 and, which are set out again below for your
convenience.

5) I would like BCC to specifically reply to items 5 and 6 and 7
and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010 and, which
are set out again below.

6) BCC response of 18 January 2009 to my FOI of 7 December 2009
question 3 says - “We can provide information on spend thematic
function. To provide details of the race equality impacts this
would require talking to 7 thematic partnerships and at least 5 non
thematic programme leads in the first instance and potentially up
to around 150 project officers and reviewing every project proposal
form. This would also require speaking to 10 constituencies re
almost 2000 projects with around 200 project officers. Estimated
time 30 hours minimum”

7) Under the FOI I am entitled to receive up-to £450 worth of free
information. This entitle me to 18 hour of free information. In
paragraph from BCC above I request approximately half of
everything, which should be 15 hours of information free of charge.

8) I request Race Equality Impact information for 3 thematic groups
of which one should be Worklessness and any other two.

9) I request Race Equality Impact information for any two non
thematic programme leads.

10) I request Race Equality Impact information for 75 project
officers reviewing project proposal forms.

11) I request Race Equality Impact information for Speaking to 5
Constituencies re 1000 projects with 100 project officers. The 5
Constituencies should be – Ladywood, Hodgehill, Perry Barr, Hall
Green and Sutton Coldfield.

!2) BCC is giving out misinformation to hide what ever it wants to
hide.

13) BCC is demanding £9,775 from me to meet my FOI request. BCC
demands £25 per hour in excess of 18 hour for all FOI requests. Yet
the employees who produce the information are already employed and
would be producing the information during normal Council hours, by
paid Council employees and, as such, the Council would not incur
any additional costs this is according to the wisdom of BCC Chief
Legal Officer.

14) Below I set out what the Stirrer reported that the BCC Chief
Legal Officer said to www.thestirrer.co.uk on 4 December 2007

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Stirrer www.thestirrer.co.uk

Brum Council Racism Case 1, 04-12-2007

On this site yesterday, we raised questions about the true cost of
Birmingham Council defending itself against former employee X – a
victim of local authority racism. The city’s Chief Legal officer Mr
Y replies.

Our article was prompted by an anonymous emailer who circulated all
120 councillors with the suggestion that the true cost of mounting
a defence was around £200,000

This is far in excess of the figure of £43,000 in legal fees given
to The Stirrer, and dutifully reported in last week’s Birmingham
Mail column .

We gave Mr Y the right to reply on the subject, and also invited
him to take part in an unedited interview with Stirrer TV.

Here, in full, is his reply: “The Chief Legal Officer has already
given full details of Counsel's costs in this case.

“In terms of internal lawyer time, the handling of this case has
been conducted, during normal Council hours, by paid Council
employees and, as such, the Council has not incurred any additional
costs of handling the Paul Samuels case, save for the Counsel fees
already indicated”.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

15) The remainder of the Legal Chief Officer reply was not about
cost so I have left it out.

16) I set out below items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and
11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010

5) The statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act not only
requires the public authorities to collect and monitor the level
and quality of services provided to the different racial groups but
the Public Duty also requires the public authorities to place and
publish all that information where the public can easily access all
the information.

6) All the Information I have requested should already be available
and easily accessible to the public under the statutory Public Duty
in the Race Relations Act. There is no question of anyone been
asked to pay for it.

7) All the information I request in my FOI request dated 7 December
2009 is within the scope of the statutory Public Duty in the Race
Relations Act. The law requires BCC to make it available and easily
accessible free of charge.

8 In any case please provide me any amount of the ethnicity
information I requested without BCC requiring me to pay for it.

9) Please provide the exact details of the place on BCC website and
the postal address of where I and others can access all the
information I requested in my FOI on 7 December 2009.

10) Please Note that the Leader of the Council and the Chief
Executive of BCC have recently made much of the fact that for cost
saving reasons members of the public would not get the papers on
the meeting Agenda because they can get them from BCC website when
they attend any council Wards, Constituencies, Cabinet and full
Council meetings. So at least all the information I have request
should be available of BCC Website But I can't find it because I
believe it is not there.

11) Please explain why BCC failed to take into consideration all of
the above before responding on 21 December 2009 to my FOI request
and demanding that I agree to pay the undisclosed amount of money
before BCC will provide the information. Senior managers and Senior
Councillors should be held accountable for their contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and for their contempt for the Race
Relations Act. I and other will contemplate taking legal action
against Birmingham City Council failure to comply with the
statutory Race Relations Act which is most like incurring
discrimination against service users.

17) I request that the BCC and its Chief executive provide details
of any BCC policies that explains why BCC demand to charge £25 per
hour for FOI request and why BCC Chief Legal Officer gave
information to the public on the Stirrer website that information
produced during normal Council hours, by paid Council employees
does not incur any additional costs to BCC.

18) Also I request that BCC provide full and detailed response to
items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5
January 2010 and, which are set out again above.

19) Also I request that BCC provide the 15 hour Race Equality
Impact information set out above.

Yours faithfully,

Luqman Khan

Dear Mr Khan

I am writing further to your email dated 21st January 2010. We have noted
your comments and have referred your request back to the service area. As
soon as we hear from them we will contact you regarding your Freedom of
Information request.

Yours sincerely

Corporate Information Governance Team

Luqman Khan
<request-24340-18
517c6d@whatdothey To
know.com> [email address]
cc
21/01/2010 11:15
Subject
Re: Freedom of Information request
- Working Neighbourhood Fund (WNF)
in Birmingham City Council

Dear Birmingham City Council,

1) I refer to Birmingham City Council (BCC) response to my follow
up FOI request of 5 January 2010 as BCC failed to adequately
respond to my earlier FOI request of 7 December 2009.

2) BCC have failed to deal with the FOI Items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8
and 9 and 10 and 11. Below I have set them out again for you to
respond to.

3) Yet again the Birmingham City Council (BCC) response clearly
demonstrates top Managers and top Councillor contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and contempt for the Statutory Public
Duty in the Race Relations Act because BCC attempts not to comply
with the law and tries to hide the information and attempts to give
misinformation.

4) In the response of 18 January 2010 BCC demands from me £9,775 to
provide me the information, which I have already pointed out to BCC
that BCC should have produced and publicly published in order to
comply with the Statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act.
Please see items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI
dated 5 January 2010 and, which are set out again below for your
convenience.

5) I would like BCC to specifically reply to items 5 and 6 and 7
and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010 and, which
are set out again below.

6) BCC response of 18 January 2009 to my FOI of 7 December 2009
question 3 says - “We can provide information on spend thematic
function. To provide details of the race equality impacts this
would require talking to 7 thematic partnerships and at least 5 non
thematic programme leads in the first instance and potentially up
to around 150 project officers and reviewing every project proposal
form. This would also require speaking to 10 constituencies re
almost 2000 projects with around 200 project officers. Estimated
time 30 hours minimum”

7) Under the FOI I am entitled to receive up-to £450 worth of free
information. This entitle me to 18 hour of free information. In
paragraph from BCC above I request approximately half of
everything, which should be 15 hours of information free of charge.

8) I request Race Equality Impact information for 3 thematic groups
of which one should be Worklessness and any other two.

9) I request Race Equality Impact information for any two non
thematic programme leads.

10) I request Race Equality Impact information for 75 project
officers reviewing project proposal forms.

11) I request Race Equality Impact information for Speaking to 5
Constituencies re 1000 projects with 100 project officers. The 5
Constituencies should be – Ladywood, Hodgehill, Perry Barr, Hall
Green and Sutton Coldfield.

!2) BCC is giving out misinformation to hide what ever it wants to
hide.

13) BCC is demanding £9,775 from me to meet my FOI request. BCC
demands £25 per hour in excess of 18 hour for all FOI requests. Yet
the employees who produce the information are already employed and
would be producing the information during normal Council hours, by
paid Council employees and, as such, the Council would not incur
any additional costs this is according to the wisdom of BCC Chief
Legal Officer.

14) Below I set out what the Stirrer reported that the BCC Chief
Legal Officer said to www.thestirrer.co.uk on 4 December 2007

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Stirrer www.thestirrer.co.uk

Brum Council Racism Case 1, 04-12-2007

On this site yesterday, we raised questions about the true cost of
Birmingham Council defending itself against former employee X – a
victim of local authority racism. The city’s Chief Legal officer Mr
Y replies.

Our article was prompted by an anonymous emailer who circulated all
120 councillors with the suggestion that the true cost of mounting
a defence was around £200,000

This is far in excess of the figure of £43,000 in legal fees given
to The Stirrer, and dutifully reported in last week’s Birmingham
Mail column .

We gave Mr Y the right to reply on the subject, and also invited
him to take part in an unedited interview with Stirrer TV.

Here, in full, is his reply: “The Chief Legal Officer has already
given full details of Counsel's costs in this case.

“In terms of internal lawyer time, the handling of this case has
been conducted, during normal Council hours, by paid Council
employees and, as such, the Council has not incurred any additional
costs of handling the Paul Samuels case, save for the Counsel fees
already indicated”.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

15) The remainder of the Legal Chief Officer reply was not about
cost so I have left it out.

16) I set out below items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and
11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010

5) The statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act not only
requires the public authorities to collect and monitor the level
and quality of services provided to the different racial groups but
the Public Duty also requires the public authorities to place and
publish all that information where the public can easily access all
the information.

6) All the Information I have requested should already be available
and easily accessible to the public under the statutory Public Duty
in the Race Relations Act. There is no question of anyone been
asked to pay for it.

7) All the information I request in my FOI request dated 7 December
2009 is within the scope of the statutory Public Duty in the Race
Relations Act. The law requires BCC to make it available and easily
accessible free of charge.

8 In any case please provide me any amount of the ethnicity
information I requested without BCC requiring me to pay for it.

9) Please provide the exact details of the place on BCC website and
the postal address of where I and others can access all the
information I requested in my FOI on 7 December 2009.

10) Please Note that the Leader of the Council and the Chief
Executive of BCC have recently made much of the fact that for cost
saving reasons members of the public would not get the papers on
the meeting Agenda because they can get them from BCC website when
they attend any council Wards, Constituencies, Cabinet and full
Council meetings. So at least all the information I have request
should be available of BCC Website But I can't find it because I
believe it is not there.

11) Please explain why BCC failed to take into consideration all of
the above before responding on 21 December 2009 to my FOI request
and demanding that I agree to pay the undisclosed amount of money
before BCC will provide the information. Senior managers and Senior
Councillors should be held accountable for their contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and for their contempt for the Race
Relations Act. I and other will contemplate taking legal action
against Birmingham City Council failure to comply with the
statutory Race Relations Act which is most like incurring
discrimination against service users.

17) I request that the BCC and its Chief executive provide details
of any BCC policies that explains why BCC demand to charge £25 per
hour for FOI request and why BCC Chief Legal Officer gave
information to the public on the Stirrer website that information
produced during normal Council hours, by paid Council employees
does not incur any additional costs to BCC.

18) Also I request that BCC provide full and detailed response to
items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5
January 2010 and, which are set out again above.

19) Also I request that BCC provide the 15 hour Race Equality
Impact information set out above.

Yours faithfully,

Luqman Khan

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Khan

We have passed your comments below back to the service area that handles
the information you have sought, please see the response below.

Response
2) BCC have failed to deal with the FOI Items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and
10 and 11. Below I have set them out again for you to respond to.

3) Yet again the Birmingham City Council (BCC) response clearly
demonstrates top Managers and top Councillor contempt for the Freedom of
Information Act and contempt for the Statutory Public Duty in the Race
Relations Act because BCC attempts not to comply with the law and tries to
hide the information and attempts to give misinformation.

4) In the response of 18 January 2010 BCC demands from me £9,775 to
provide me the information, which I have already pointed out to BCC that
BCC should have produced and publicly published in order to comply with the
Statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act. Please see items 5 and 6
and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010 and, which
are set out again below for your convenience.

5) I would like BCC to specifically reply to items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8
and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010 and, which are set out
again below.

6) BCC response of 18 January 2009 to my FOI of 7 December 2009
question 3 says - “We can provide information on spend thematic function.
To provide details of the race equality impacts this would require talking
to 7 thematic partnerships and at least 5 non thematic programme leads in
the first instance and potentially up to around 150 project officers and
reviewing every project proposal form. This would also require speaking to
10 constituencies re almost 2000 projects with around 200 project officers.
Estimated time 30 hours minimum”

7) Under the FOI I am entitled to receive up-to £450 worth of free
information. This entitle me to 18 hour of free information. In paragraph
from BCC above I request approximately half of everything, which should be
15 hours of information free of charge.

8) I request Race Equality Impact information for 3 thematic groups of
which one should be Worklessness and any other two.

9) I request Race Equality Impact information for any two non thematic
programme leads.

10) I request Race Equality Impact information for 75 project officers
reviewing project proposal forms.

11) I request Race Equality Impact information for Speaking to 5
Constituencies re 1000 projects with 100 project officers. The 5
Constituencies should be – Ladywood, Hodgehill, Perry Barr, Hall Green and
Sutton Coldfield.

!2) BCC is giving out misinformation to hide what ever it wants to
hide.

13) BCC is demanding £9,775 from me to meet my FOI request. BCC
demands £25 per hour in excess of 18 hour for all FOI requests. Yet the
employees who produce the information are already employed and would be
producing the information during normal Council hours, by paid Council
employees and, as such, the Council would not incur any additional costs
this is according to the wisdom of BCC Chief Legal Officer.

14) Below I set out what the Stirrer reported that the BCC Chief
Legal Officer said to www.thestirrer.co.uk on 4 December 2007

Answer

The service area holding this information have stated that although you
have narrowed down this request to 3 thermatic partnerships, what you have
requested still cannot be provided within the £450.00 limit as explained in
our previous response of the 18th January 2010.

If you are not satisfied with the response you may ask for an internal
review please contact the corporate team at the address below:

Corporate Information Governance Team
3rd Floor, 1 Lancaster Circus
Birmingham
B4 7AB
or
[email address]

If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council’s decision you may
apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO
cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure
provided by the Council. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at
the following address:

The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545745
Web Address: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Corporate Information Governance Team

Re use of Public Sector Information

The information provided is subject to Birmingham City Council copyright,
however, it may be re-used for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes without further reference to the City Council. If the re-use is
for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, you should notify the City
Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms for re-use. Where
Birmingham City Council does not hold the copyright, it has indicated the
copyright holder. Permission for re-use should be sought from them
directly.

Luqman Khan
<request-24340-18
517c6d@whatdothey To
know.com> [email address]
cc
21/01/2010 11:15
Subject
Re: Freedom of Information request
- Working Neighbourhood Fund (WNF)
in Birmingham City Council

Dear Birmingham City Council,

1) I refer to Birmingham City Council (BCC) response to my follow
up FOI request of 5 January 2010 as BCC failed to adequately
respond to my earlier FOI request of 7 December 2009.

2) BCC have failed to deal with the FOI Items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8
and 9 and 10 and 11. Below I have set them out again for you to
respond to.

3) Yet again the Birmingham City Council (BCC) response clearly
demonstrates top Managers and top Councillor contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and contempt for the Statutory Public
Duty in the Race Relations Act because BCC attempts not to comply
with the law and tries to hide the information and attempts to give
misinformation.

4) In the response of 18 January 2010 BCC demands from me £9,775 to
provide me the information, which I have already pointed out to BCC
that BCC should have produced and publicly published in order to
comply with the Statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act.
Please see items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI
dated 5 January 2010 and, which are set out again below for your
convenience.

5) I would like BCC to specifically reply to items 5 and 6 and 7
and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010 and, which
are set out again below.

6) BCC response of 18 January 2009 to my FOI of 7 December 2009
question 3 says - “We can provide information on spend thematic
function. To provide details of the race equality impacts this
would require talking to 7 thematic partnerships and at least 5 non
thematic programme leads in the first instance and potentially up
to around 150 project officers and reviewing every project proposal
form. This would also require speaking to 10 constituencies re
almost 2000 projects with around 200 project officers. Estimated
time 30 hours minimum”

7) Under the FOI I am entitled to receive up-to £450 worth of free
information. This entitle me to 18 hour of free information. In
paragraph from BCC above I request approximately half of
everything, which should be 15 hours of information free of charge.

8) I request Race Equality Impact information for 3 thematic groups
of which one should be Worklessness and any other two.

9) I request Race Equality Impact information for any two non
thematic programme leads.

10) I request Race Equality Impact information for 75 project
officers reviewing project proposal forms.

11) I request Race Equality Impact information for Speaking to 5
Constituencies re 1000 projects with 100 project officers. The 5
Constituencies should be – Ladywood, Hodgehill, Perry Barr, Hall
Green and Sutton Coldfield.

!2) BCC is giving out misinformation to hide what ever it wants to
hide.

13) BCC is demanding £9,775 from me to meet my FOI request. BCC
demands £25 per hour in excess of 18 hour for all FOI requests. Yet
the employees who produce the information are already employed and
would be producing the information during normal Council hours, by
paid Council employees and, as such, the Council would not incur
any additional costs this is according to the wisdom of BCC Chief
Legal Officer.

14) Below I set out what the Stirrer reported that the BCC Chief
Legal Officer said to www.thestirrer.co.uk on 4 December 2007

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Stirrer www.thestirrer.co.uk

Brum Council Racism Case 1, 04-12-2007

On this site yesterday, we raised questions about the true cost of
Birmingham Council defending itself against former employee X – a
victim of local authority racism. The city’s Chief Legal officer Mr
Y replies.

Our article was prompted by an anonymous emailer who circulated all
120 councillors with the suggestion that the true cost of mounting
a defence was around £200,000

This is far in excess of the figure of £43,000 in legal fees given
to The Stirrer, and dutifully reported in last week’s Birmingham
Mail column .

We gave Mr Y the right to reply on the subject, and also invited
him to take part in an unedited interview with Stirrer TV.

Here, in full, is his reply: “The Chief Legal Officer has already
given full details of Counsel's costs in this case.

“In terms of internal lawyer time, the handling of this case has
been conducted, during normal Council hours, by paid Council
employees and, as such, the Council has not incurred any additional
costs of handling the Paul Samuels case, save for the Counsel fees
already indicated”.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

15) The remainder of the Legal Chief Officer reply was not about
cost so I have left it out.

16) I set out below items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and
11.in my FOI dated 5 January 2010

5) The statutory Public Duty in the Race Relations Act not only
requires the public authorities to collect and monitor the level
and quality of services provided to the different racial groups but
the Public Duty also requires the public authorities to place and
publish all that information where the public can easily access all
the information.

6) All the Information I have requested should already be available
and easily accessible to the public under the statutory Public Duty
in the Race Relations Act. There is no question of anyone been
asked to pay for it.

7) All the information I request in my FOI request dated 7 December
2009 is within the scope of the statutory Public Duty in the Race
Relations Act. The law requires BCC to make it available and easily
accessible free of charge.

8 In any case please provide me any amount of the ethnicity
information I requested without BCC requiring me to pay for it.

9) Please provide the exact details of the place on BCC website and
the postal address of where I and others can access all the
information I requested in my FOI on 7 December 2009.

10) Please Note that the Leader of the Council and the Chief
Executive of BCC have recently made much of the fact that for cost
saving reasons members of the public would not get the papers on
the meeting Agenda because they can get them from BCC website when
they attend any council Wards, Constituencies, Cabinet and full
Council meetings. So at least all the information I have request
should be available of BCC Website But I can't find it because I
believe it is not there.

11) Please explain why BCC failed to take into consideration all of
the above before responding on 21 December 2009 to my FOI request
and demanding that I agree to pay the undisclosed amount of money
before BCC will provide the information. Senior managers and Senior
Councillors should be held accountable for their contempt for the
Freedom of Information Act and for their contempt for the Race
Relations Act. I and other will contemplate taking legal action
against Birmingham City Council failure to comply with the
statutory Race Relations Act which is most like incurring
discrimination against service users.

17) I request that the BCC and its Chief executive provide details
of any BCC policies that explains why BCC demand to charge £25 per
hour for FOI request and why BCC Chief Legal Officer gave
information to the public on the Stirrer website that information
produced during normal Council hours, by paid Council employees
does not incur any additional costs to BCC.

18) Also I request that BCC provide full and detailed response to
items 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and 11.in my FOI dated 5
January 2010 and, which are set out again above.

19) Also I request that BCC provide the 15 hour Race Equality
Impact information set out above.

Yours faithfully,

Luqman Khan

show quoted sections