Dear Mr Luqman Khan

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Request for
Information

Thank you for your recent enquiry for information held by the Council
under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We
acknowledge receipt of your request dated 19 September 2009, which was
received in our office and we will be touch with you again in due course.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, we
will let you know. A fees notice will be issued to you and you will be
required to pay before we will proceed to deal with your request.

If you require any further information or are not happy with our response
please do not hesitate to contact a member of our team on 0121 303 4876.

Yours sincerely

Corporate Information Governance Team

Data Protection Act 1998
The information you have provided within your Freedom of Information
request will be held on our database and may also be held within manual
records for a period of 2 years from the date Birmingham City Council
received your request. Any personal data that you provide to Birmingham
City Council will be held in line with the requirements set out within the
Data Protection Act 1998.
Re Use of Public Sector Information
Where Birmingham City Council is the copyright holder of any information
that may be released, re-use for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes is permitted without further reference to the City Council. Where
the re-use is for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, the applicant
should notify the City Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms
for re-use.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Luqman Khan
With reference to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, please find attached our response. We note your email
dated 18 October which states that "Birmingham City Council has failed to
comply with statutory legal requirement to provide information at the
latest by 16 October 2009". Your request was received by our office on 21
September 2009, the response date is 19 October 2009, this being 20 days
from the date of receipt of request. Therefore, this response is within
the statutory period of 20 days.

With kind regards
Savita Summan
Corporate Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Khan

Thank you for your email dated 22 October and your request for an internal
review. Please see attached our letter.

With kind regards
Corporate Information Governance Team

Luqman Khan To FOI requests at Birmingham City
<[FOI #18244 email]> Council
<[Birmingham City Council request email]>
22/10/2009 21:21 cc
Subject Internal review of Freedom of
Information request -
Preventing Violent Extremism
grants

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Birmingham City
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Preventing Violent Extremism
grants'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

[1]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...

I am not satisfied with Birmingham City Council (BCC) reply on 19
October 2009 to my Freedom of Information (FOI) request) regarding)
the Preventing Violent Extremism grants.

BCC response say that the Cabinet Member for Equality and Human
Resources is responsible for the BCC Preventing Violent Extremism
grants and so is the BCC Head of Equalities. Also because my
enquiry concerns BCC compliance with statutory law the Leader and
Deputy leader of BCC and the Chief Executive of BCC are also
responsible.

I request that BCC undertake an internal review of its response to
my FOI request and clarify and provide the following further
information.

1. My enquiry One was - Name the people/ organisations Birmingham
City Council (BCC) consulted before deciding to use the Preventing
Violent Extremism grants provided by government. Provide detailed
evidence.

1a) BCC response says - BCC did not create a record of attendance
at the meetings of 1 February and 20 February 2007. Please explain
why BCC failed to create the record of attendance given that
community involvement is a statutory public duty and BCC has a duty
to to able to show evidence to the public of its activities in
relation to expenditure of public money and given that BCC has a
statutory race equality public duty to publish in public the
relevant race equality information.

1b) Please provides me copies of the Notes taken by BCC at the
meetings on 1 February and 20 February 2007

1c) Please provides me copies of the Notes taken by BCC at the
meetings in March 2007 with British Muslim Forum.

2. My enquiry Two was - How did BCC carry out the consultation
about Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide detailed
evidence.

2a) BCC response says - BCC held community consultation events
31/01/07, 01/02/07 and 20/02. Please provides me copies of the
Notes taken by BCC at the meetings on 31/01/07, 01/02/07 and 20/02.

3 My enquiry Three was - What information did BCC give to the
people/ organisations consulted about the Preventing Violent
Extremism grants. Provide detailed evidence. Provide detailed
evidence.

3a) BCC response says - Attendees were supplied with a presentation
of the PVE project proposals and informed of the city council***s
intention to bid for funding for a Pathfinder pilot. Please provide
me with the copy of BCC presentation of the PVE project proposals
presented to the attendees.

4. My enquiry Four was - What feed-back did BCC get from the
people/ organisations consulted about Preventing Violent Extremism
grants. Provide detailed evidence.

4a) BCC response says - Projects suggested in these consultation
meetings fell under 5 themes of Reclaiming Islam, Media, Women,
Young People and Cross Cutting Projects. No feedback was initiated
at this point - as the project was developed in partnership with
Government Office West Midlands it was considered sensible to allow
the Department for Communities and Local Government an opportunity
to provide an initial assessment of viability. Please explain in
detail what was the point of consulting and wasting public money to
consult the communities and then not initiating feedback from
consultation.

4b) Please explain how the communities influenced the Preventing
Violent Extremism grants proposals when BCC did not initiating
feedback from the communities as part of the consultation with
them.

4c) Please provide evidence how BCC came to the conclusion that the
communities wanted BCC to apply for Preventing Violent Extremism
grant when BCC did not initiate feedback from the communities as
part of the consultation with them.

4d) Please provide evidence how BCC came to the conclusion that the
Muslim communities in Birmingham wanted BCC to apply for Preventing
Violent Extremism grant when BCC admits that BCC did not initiating
feedback from the communities as part of the consultation with
them.

4e) Please clarify that BCC response is saying that the Government
Office West Midlands and the Department for Communities and Local
Government assessed the viability of Preventing Violent Extremism
grant knowing that BCC had not initiated feedback from the
communities as part of the consultation with them.

4f) Please provide detailed evidence of each and every occasion BCC
did not record the opinions of the communities over the last five
years and also identify the subject matters of each of these
consultations and also give the date of each consultation.

4g) Please provide detailed evidence of each and every occasion
over the last five years how the communities consultations
influenced BCC in situations whereby BCC did not record the
opinions of the communities BCC consulted.

5. My enquiry five was - What impact assessment of the outcomes to
be achieved did BCC carry out before inviting people/ organisations
to apply for the Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide
detailed evidence.

5a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a copy of
the impact assessment for the PVE Delivery Plan and is attached for
reference. There is nothing in the BCC attachment that shows the
evidence of the outcomes to be achieved from impact assessment or
evidence that impact assessment was carried out. Please can BCC
extract the relevant information and provide it under this enquiry
or inform me which BCC attached document and which pages and which
paragraphs in the documents BCC say is the BCC information in
response to my enquiry five.

6. My enquiry Six was - How did BBC determine which people/ groups
were/are suitable for Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide
detailed evidence.

6a) BCC response says - The city council***s commissioning framework
requires the completion of an application form. The form has set
criteria for funding and engagement. Each form is then scored using
a scoring matrix and signed off by the PVE Steering Group. A copy
of the form is attached for reference. Please provide detailed
evidence how BCC determined which people/ groups are not suitable
for the grant as they may be extremists even though they may fill
in the application form to meet all the criteria.

6b) Please provide detailed evidence of what information other than
the application form BCC has used to determine whether certain
people/ groups are not suitable to be given Prevention Violent
Extremism grants as they may be extremists.

7. My enquiry Seven was - Provide the details of the outcomes
achieved for each completed year of Preventing Violent Extremism
grants.

7a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a copy of
the independent evaluation report for the Pathfinder (07/08) and NI
35 self assessment for 08/09. There is nothing in the BCC attached
documents that provides adequate information for my enquiry Seven.
Please provide the relevant information under enquiry Seven showing
the detailed evidence of the outcomes achieved for each completed
year for each of the projects funded by Preventing Violent
Extremism grants. Please Note that outcomes would show specific
evidence of all that has been specifically achieved by the grant to
prevent Violent Extremism and would show evidence of how the
outcomes has prevented Violent Extremism.

7b) In how many BCC Schools is the National Indicator (NI) 35
subject relating to Preventing Violent Extremism practised/used.

7c) What is the Muslim religion make-up of each school in which NI
35 subject of Preventing Violent Extremism is practised/used.

7d) How many of the schools consulted the parents before the School
started to discuss in class the matters relating NI 35 Preventing
Violent Extremism.

7e) Provide details of the consultation responses from the parents
broken down by religion.

7f) Provide copy of the details parents were given about NI 35
Preventing Violent Extremism.

7g) How many children have so far have been identified to be cause
for concern as a result of the NI 35 practice/use in School and
what number of these children belong to which religion.

7h) How many children or their parents have for far been reported
to the Police or the security services as a result of the NI 35
related discussions in the school and what number of these children
or parents belong to which religion.

8. My enquiry Eight was - Provide the details of the outputs
achieved for each completed year of Preventing Violent Extremism
grants.

8a) BCC response says - This is a repetition of question 7. BCC
know very well that in performance measurement and in value for
money terms outcomes are not the same as outputs. Outputs
measurement for public expenditure is an audit requirement and
under the race equality public duty it is a statutory requirement
and also the publication of the information is a race equality
public duty statutory requirement. BCC has failed to provide the
detailed evidence I requested. BCC has failed to comply with the
law.

9. My enquiry Nine was - Provide the details of the regular
monitoring for each completed year of the Preventing Violent
Extremism grants.

9a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a copy of
the monitoring form used within the PVE Programme. Each
commissioned service is required to complete this on a monthly
basis. There is nothing in the BCC attached documents than shows
the monitoring actual figures from the projects funded by the
Preventing Violent Extremism grants. BCC has failed to provide the
information requested. BCC has broken the law.

10. My enquiry Ten was - Provide details of the people/
organisations to be given Preventing Violent Extremism grants for
this year.

10a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a listing
of grant recipients so far for 2009-10. BCC has not provided the
detailed evidence of what each recipient will use the grants for
and who by religion and ethnicity each recipient clients will be
and what specifically each recipient is expected to achieve. BCC
has failed to provide the information requested. BCC has broken the
law.

11. My enquiry Eleven was - Provide details of the amount of
Preventing Violent Extremism grants of which BCC has already
decided to use for future years.

11a) BCC response says - The full funding amount for 2008 to 2011
is **2.4 million. All PVE spend will conclude on 31 March 2011. The
information BCC has provided is inadequate and is not easily
understood. Please Provide details of the total Preventing Violent
Extremism grant used in 2007/8 and 2008/9n and allocated to 2009/10
and to be allocated to 2010/11.

12. My enquiry Twelve was What ongoing consultation is there about
the Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide detailed evidence.

12a) BCC response says - A number of community representatives are
members of the PVE Steering Group. A document containing the full
membership is attached for information. I ask BCC to please provide
minutes/ notes of each meeting of the PVE steering group from their
first meeting onwards to the present date 22 October 2009.

13. My enquiry Thirteen was - Who are the people/ organisations
involved in the ongoing consultation of the Preventing Violent
Extremism grants. Provide detailed evidence.

13a) BCC response says - Additional to the PVE Steering Group there
are elected member forums in Hodge Hill, Hall Green and Perry Barr.
Please explain why there is no elected members forum in Ladywood.
Also please provide the minutes/ notes of the elected member forums
in Hodge Hill, Hall Green and Perry Barr.

14. My enquiry Fourteen was - The people/ organisation consulted
about Preventing Violent Extremism grants did BCC tell them that in
January 2007 The Commission for Racial Equality issued enforcement
order on BCC because BCC was not complying with the Race Relations
Act and that in February 2007 the Audit Commission CPA report said
that BCC was not complying with the Race Relations Act. Provide
detailed evidence.

14a) BCC response says - This was not communicated at any
consultation meeting as the city council did not receive an
enforcement order by the Commission for Racial Equality for non
compliance. BCC has not been open and transparent with the people/
organisation in failing to inform them that in February 2007 the
Audit Commission CPA report said that BCC was not complying with
the Race Relations Act. Provide detailed explanation why BCC FOI
response to me avoided to mention the Audit Commission Report.

14b) BCC Chief Executive told an Employment Tribunal in 2007 that
the Commission for Racial Equality has threatened BCC with an
enforcement order if BCC did not improve race equality. In a letter
dated 17 August 2006 to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)
the BCC Head of Equalities confirmed that CRE had issued a a letter
to BCC to start formal legal enforcement proceedings against the
City Council by serving a Compliance Notice (the Notice) in
accordance with the powers granted to the Commission under s.71D of
the Act. Does BCC deny any of this?

14c) In February 2007 BCC head of equalities in a note to staff
refered to the fact that the Commission For Racial Equality (CRE)
had issued enforcement order on BCC. Does BCC deny any of this?

14d) Please provide copies of all the correspondence from 17 August
2006 onwards to the present date of 22 October 2009 from the
Commission for Racial Equality or its successor the EHRC to BCC in
relation to the formal legal enforcement proceedings against the
City Council by serving a Compliance Notice (the Notice) in
accordance with the powers granted to the Commission under s.71D of
the Act .

Yours faithfully,

Luqman Khan

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Khan

Further to your request for an internal appeal please see the attached
letter in response.

(See attached file: Appeal Decision Letter.doc)

regards

Corporate Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Khan

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - FOI 3578

Further to our email of the 19th November 2009, please see below the
outstanding responses from the outcome of your appeal and further FOI
questions.

1. My enquiry One was - Name the people/ organisations Birmingham City
Council (BCC) consulted before deciding to use the Preventing Violent
Extremism grants provided by government. Provide detailed evidence.

1a) BCC response says - BCC did not create a record of attendance at
the meetings of 1 February and 20 February 2007. Please explain why BCC
failed to create the record of attendance given that community involvement
is a statutory public duty and BCC has a duty to able to show evidence to
the public of its activities in relation to expenditure of public money and
given that BCC has a statutory race equality public duty to publish in
public the relevant race equality information.

Our response is to advise that we have no further information around the
record of attendance for the meetings as stated within our previous reply.

1b) Please provides me copies of the Notes taken by BCC at the
meetings on 1 February and 20 February 2007

REPLY: Equality and Diversity did not record any notes from the meeting as
it was not a consultation meeting but a promotional presentation designed
to encourage stakeholder groups to apply for funding.

1c) Please provides me copies of the Notes taken by BCC at the
meetings in March 2007 with British Muslim Forum.

REPLY: The event was organised and run by the British Muslim Forum and
supported by Equality and Diversity. As the British Muslim Forum
facilitated the event no notes were taken by BCC staff.

2. My enquiry Two was - How did BCC carry out the consultation about
Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide detailed evidence.

REPLY: See response to Question 1b.

2a) BCC response says - BCC held community consultation events
31/01/07, 01/02/07 and 20/02. Please provides me copies of the Notes taken
by BCC at the meetings on 31/01/07, 01/02/07 and 20/02.

3 My enquiry Three was - What information did BCC give to the people/
organisations consulted about the Preventing Violent Extremism grants.
Provide detailed evidence. Provide detailed evidence.

3a) BCC response says - Attendees were supplied with a presentation of
the PVE project proposals and informed of the City Council’s intention to
bid for funding for a Pathfinder pilot. Please provide me with the copy of
BCC presentation of the PVE project proposals presented to the attendees.

(See attached file: Pathfinder Projects Proposal Overview 07-08.pdf)

REPLY:

4. My enquiry Four was - What feed-back did BCC get from the people/
organisations consulted about Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide
detailed evidence.

4a) BCC response says - Projects suggested in these consultation
meetings fell under 5 themes of Reclaiming Islam, Media, Women, Young
People and Cross Cutting Projects. No feedback was initiated at this point
- as the project was developed in partnership with Government Office West
Midlands it was considered sensible to allow the Department for Communities
and Local Government an opportunity to provide an initial assessment of
viability. Please explain in detail what was the point of consulting and
wasting public money to
consult the communities and then not initiating feedback from consultation.

REPLY: Whilst we followed the reference to consultation we have to
reiterate that there were in fact presentation events. Third party feedback
was received via the proposals for funding.

4b) Please explain how the communities influenced the Preventing
Violent Extremism grants proposals when BCC did not initiating feedback
from the communities as part of the consultation with them.

REPLY: We are unable to respond to this question as it does not relate to
any information that is held around the PVE Programme

4c) Please provide evidence how BCC came to the conclusion that the
communities wanted BCC to apply for Preventing Violent Extremism grant when
BCC did not initiate feedback from the communities as part of the
consultation with them.

REPLY: Birmingham City Council like other local authorities were invited by
the government via the Department for Communities and Local Government to
bid for funding.

4d) Please provide evidence how BCC came to the conclusion that the
Muslim communities in Birmingham wanted BCC to apply for Preventing Violent
Extremism grant when BCC admits that BCC did not initiating feedback from
the communities as part of the consultation with them.

REPLY: This is repeat of question 4c)

4e) Please clarify that BCC response is saying that the Government
Office West Midlands and the Department for Communities and Local
Government assessed the viability of Preventing Violent Extremism grant
knowing that BCC had not initiated feedback from the communities as part of
the consultation with them.

REPLY: We have a query with the above question and would request that it be
clarified and restated.

4f) Please provide detailed evidence of each and every occasion BCC
did not record the opinions of the communities over the last five years and
also identify the subject matters of each of these consultations and also
give the date of each consultation.

REPLY: This question is beyond the scope of the time in which the PVE
Programme has been operating. Our previous responses confirm the dates when
the city council promoted the programme to stakeholders.

4g) Please provide detailed evidence of each and every occasion over
the last five years how the communities consultations influenced BCC in
situations whereby BCC did not record the opinions of the communities BCC
consulted.

REPLY: This question is beyond the scope of the time in which the PVE
Programme has been operating. Our previous responses confirm the dates when
the city council promoted the programme to stakeholders.

5. My enquiry five was - What impact assessment of the outcomes to be
achieved did BCC carry out before inviting people / organisations to apply
for the Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide detailed evidence.

5a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a copy of the
impact assessment for the PVE Delivery Plan and is attached for reference.
There is nothing in the BCC attachment that shows the evidence of the
outcomes to be achieved from impact assessment or evidence that impact
assessment was carried out. Please can BCC extract the relevant information
and provide it under this enquiry or inform me which BCC attached document
and which pages and which paragraphs in the documents BCC say is the BCC
information in response to my enquiry five.

REPLY: Please find attached the most recent impact assessment for the PVE
Programme.

(See attached file: EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Prevent Strategy.pdf)

6. My enquiry Six was - How did BBC determine which people/ groups
were/are suitable for Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide detailed
evidence.

6a) BCC response says - The city council’s commissioning framework
requires the completion of an application form. The form has set criteria
for funding and engagement. Each form is then scored using a scoring matrix
and signed off by the PVE Steering Group. A copy of the form is attached
for reference. Please provide detailed evidence how BCC determined which
people/ groups are not suitable for the grant as they may be extremists
even though they may fill in the application form to meet all the criteria.

REPLY: The application form (attached) makes specific reference to the
observation and compliance with set criteria of the PREVENT Strategy.
Organisations are asked to demonstrate this within their project
application. Checks are undertaken as part of the assessment process and
form part of the consideration and scoring of each application.

(See attached file: PvET08_APPFORM1.pdf)

6b) Please provide detailed evidence of what information other than
the application form BCC has used to determine whether certain people/
groups are not suitable to be given Prevention Violent Extremism grants as
they may be extremists.

(See attached file: privacy notice.doc)(See attached file: Consent for
Police Check Letter Template (no sig).doc)

REPLY: Please refer to the attached Privacy Notice and Consent letter.

7. My enquiry Seven was - Provide the details of the outcomes achieved
for each completed year of Preventing Violent Extremism grants.

7a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a copy of the
independent evaluation report for the Pathfinder (07/08) and NI 35 self
assessment for 08/09. There is nothing in the BCC attached documents that
provides adequate information for my enquiry Seven. Please provide the
relevant information under enquiry Seven showing the detailed evidence of
the outcomes achieved for each completed year for each of the projects
funded by Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Please Note that outcomes
would show specific evidence of all that has been specifically achieved by
the grant to prevent Violent Extremism and would show evidence of how the
outcomes has prevented Violent Extremism.

REPLY: The current funding arrangements for PVE are not constrained to
financial years. As such the majority of funded projects under the
programme are still in operation.

7b) In how many BCC Schools is the National Indicator (NI) 35 subject
relating to Preventing Violent Extremism practised/used.

REPLY: Birmingham Schools donot use NI 35 as part of its curriculum.

7c) What is the Muslim religion make-up of each school in which NI 35
subject of Preventing Violent Extremism is practised/used.

REPLY: Refer to our response in Question 7b.

7d) How many of the schools consulted the parents before the School
started to discuss in class the matters relating NI 35 Preventing Violent
Extremism.

REPLY: Refer to our response in Question 7b.

7e) Provide details of the consultation responses from the parents
broken down by religion.

REPLY: Refer to our response in Question 7b.

7f) Provide copy of the details parents were given about NI 35
Preventing Violent Extremism.

REPLY: Refer to our response in Question 7b.

7g) How many children have so far have been identified to be cause for
concern as a result of the NI 35 practice/use in School and what number of
these children belong to which religion.

REPLY: Refer to our response in Question 7b.

7h) How many children or their parents have for far been reported to
the Police or the security services as a result of the NI 35 related
discussions in the school and what number of these children or parents
belong to which religion.

REPLY: Refer to our response in Question 7b.

8. My enquiry Eight was - Provide the details of the outputs achieved
for each completed year of Preventing Violent Extremism grants.

8a) BCC response says - This is a repetition of question 7. BCC know
very well that in performance measurement and in value for money terms
outcomes are not the same as outputs. Outputs measurement for public
expenditure is an audit requirement and under the race equality public duty
it is a statutory requirement and also the publication of the information
is a race equality public duty statutory requirement. BCC has failed to
provide the detailed evidence I requested. BCC has failed to comply with
the law.

REPLY: Measurement of output and outcomes of the PREVENT Programme are
measured via the NI 35 assessment framework. Currently value for money is
not an indicator within the NI 35 framework. Project compliance falls under
the PVE Programme Manager and is reported to the PVE Programme Board. The
project evaluation report provided within our previous reply responds to
the question around details of outputs achieved. Attached for reference is
the guidance around the NI 35 assessment framework.

(See attached file: NI 35 Self Assessment.pdf)

9. My enquiry Nine was - Provide the details of the regular monitoring
for each completed year of the Preventing Violent Extremism grants.

9a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a copy of the
monitoring form used within the PVE Programme. Each commissioned service is
required to complete this on a monthly basis. There is nothing in the BCC
attached documents than shows the monitoring actual figures from the
projects funded by the Preventing Violent Extremism grants. BCC has failed
to provide the information requested. BCC has broken the law.

REPLY: The submitted question asked that details be provided of the regular
monitoring for each completed year. Evidence of the mechanism in which that
monitoring is undertaken was provided. Requesting copies of the monitoring
for each commissioned service for each completed year is an entirely
different question. Additionally the monitoring would focus on the agreed
outputs of the project not any associated costings as these would have been
presented as part of the initial project proposal by the applicant.

10. My enquiry Ten was - Provide details of the people/organisations
to be given Preventing Violent Extremism grants for this year.

10a) BCC response says - Attached within our response is a listing of
grant recipients so far for 2009-10. BCC has not provided the detailed
evidence of what each recipient will use the grants for and who by religion
and ethnicity each recipient clients will be and what specifically each
recipient is expected to achieve. BCC has failed to provide the information
requested. BCC has broken the law.

REPLY: The submitted question asked for details of people/organisations
that were commissioned as part of the PVE Programme. This was supplied.

11. My enquiry Eleven was - Provide details of the amount of
Preventing Violent Extremism grants of which BCC has already decided to use
for future years.

11a) BCC response says - The full funding amount for 2008 to 2011is
£2.4 million. All PVE spend will conclude on 31 March 2011. The information
BCC has provided is inadequate and is not easily understood. Please Provide
details of the total Preventing Violent Extremism grant used in 2007/8 and
2008/9n and allocated to 2009/10 and to be allocated to 2010/11.

REPLY: 2007-08 = £525k 2008-09 = £645k 2009-10 = £818,292k 2010-11 =
£1,031,830k

12. My enquiry Twelve was What ongoing consultation is there about the
Preventing Violent Extremism grants. Provide detailed evidence.

12a) BCC response says - A number of community representatives are
members of the PVE Steering Group. A document containing the full
membership is attached for information. I ask BCC to please provide
minutes/ notes of each meeting of the PVE steering group from their first
meeting onwards to the present date 22 October 2009.

REPLY: Paul, please provide

13. My enquiry Thirteen was - Who are the people/ organisations
involved in the ongoing consultation of the Preventing Violent Extremism
grants. Provide detailed evidence.

13a) BCC response says - Additional to the PVE Steering Group there
are elected member forums in Hodge Hill, Hall Green and Perry Barr. Please
explain why there is no elected members forum in Ladywood. Also please
provide the minutes/ notes of the elected member forums in Hodge Hill, Hall
Green and Perry Barr.

REPLY: We are unable to respond to the specific question around ladywood as
it does not relate to any information that is held. We need confirmation as
to whether notes of all forum meetings are being requested or just those
that make reference to PVE.

14. My enquiry Fourteen was - The people/ organisation consulted about
Preventing Violent Extremism grants did BCC tell them that in January 2007
The Commission for Racial Equality issued enforcement order on BCC because
BCC was not complying with the Race Relations Act and that in February 2007
the Audit Commission CPA report said that BCC was not complying with the
Race Relations Act. Provide detailed evidence.

14a) BCC response says - This was not communicated at any consultation
meeting as the city council did not receive an enforcement order by the
Commission for Racial Equality for non compliance. BCC has not been open
and transparent with the people/organisation in failing to inform them that
in February 2007 the Audit Commission CPA report said that BCC was not
complying with the Race Relations Act. Provide detailed explanation why BCC
FOI response to me avoided to mention the Audit Commission Report.

REPLY: We are unable to respond to the specific question as it does not
relate to any information that is held.

14b) BCC Chief Executive told an Employment Tribunal in 2007 that the
Commission for Racial Equality has threatened BCC with an enforcement order
if BCC did not improve race equality. In a letter dated 17 August 2006 to
the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) the BCC Head of Equalities
confirmed that CRE had issued a a letter to BCC to start formal legal
enforcement proceedings against the City Council by serving a Compliance
Notice (the Notice) in accordance with the powers granted to the Commission
under s.71D of the Act. Does BCC deny any of this?

REPLY: We are unable to respond to the specific question as it does not
relate to any information that is held.

14c) In February 2007 BCC head of equalities in a note to staff
refered to the fact that the Commission For Racial Equality (CRE) had
issued enforcement order on BCC. Does BCC deny any of this?

REPLY: This is a repetition of Question 14b which has been responded to.

14d) Please provide copies of all the correspondence from 17 August
2006 onwards to the present date of 22 October 2009 from the Commission for
Racial Equality or its successor the EHRC to BCC in relation to the formal
legal enforcement proceedings against the City Council by serving a
Compliance Notice (the Notice) in accordance with the powers granted to the
Commission under s.71D of the Act .

REPLY: Attached are letters received by Birmingham City Council by the CRE
in regards to their enquiry around legislative compliance with the Race
Relations (Amendment) Act.

(See attached file: CRE Query re RES.pdf)

If you are not satisfied with the response you may ask for an internal
review. 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.

show quoted sections