Showing posts with label Debra Norman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debra Norman. Show all posts

Wednesday 31 August 2022

1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s final word on a potentially unlawful contract

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity.

1 Morland Gardens and the community garden, July 2022.

 

Two weeks ago, I shared with you an email I’d sent to Brent’s Legal Director, asking her to reconsider her view that the recent contract awarded for the Council’s proposed Morland Gardens redevelopment was lawful. This was in the light of information I’d obtained under an FoI request.

 

As I think it is important to give the Council a “right of reply” when important points are raised with them and made public, I will ask Martin to publish the full text of the email I received on 25 August. For completeness, I will also include the response I sent on 30 August, and divide the two with an illustration.

 

If you haven’t already done so, it will probably help to read my earlier guest post (see “link” above). The first email, from Brent, is not “light reading”, but it does give anyone who may be involved in similar disputes with the Council a flavour of what they might expect! Here it is:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email of 18 August that was received whilst I was on leave.

 

I have now had an opportunity of reviewing your email.

 

I note that you have helpfully highlighted key parts of your email on which you seek a response from me. 

 

You indicate:

 

I believe that Brent Council has failed to treat those “economic operators equally and without discrimination” as required by Regulation 18(1).

 

This statement relates to the process operated by Council Officers in the direct section of a preferred contractor under Schedule 1 of the Network Homes Framework Agreement.  Paragraph 3.1 reads that:

 

‘Direct selection may be used where the Client or any Additional Client considers that it will demonstrate best value for a Project. Subject to paragraph 3.2, the Client or any Additional Client will make a decision on who to directly appoint for a Project based on a best value assessment using a combination of the Contractor’s tender submissions for the Framework and where relevant the Contractor’s:

3.1.1    knowledge and experience of, or relationship to, the site of a Project;

3.1.2    capacity (quantity of work currently instructed) under the Framework;

3.1.3    previous performance under the Framework; and/or

3.1.4    resources available for the particular Project.’

 

It is clear that under the Network Homes Contractors Framework, “Additional Clients” must carry out an assessment using a combination of the Contractor’s tender submission for the Framework and where relevant the various matters detailed in 3.1.1 – 3.1.4.  Officer’s approach to the best value assessment is contained in the Direct Award Evaluation Process Document, particularly in paragraphs 2.3 – 2.6 and paragraph 2.9.  There is no requirement under the direct award procedure to contact bidders directly in carrying out such assessment.

 

Hill Partnerships Ltd. detailed knowledge of the Morland Gardens site was considered significant and as detailed in paragraph 2.6 of the Direct Award Evaluation Process Document:

 

“It is felt this is a key element of the best value justification as the supplier knows the site and the requirements of the project and would need little time to provide a compliant tender for a call-off from the Network Homes Contractor Framework Lot 3….”

 

 You further state:

 

I also believe that the answer to question 6 of my FoI request, about Brent Council’s contacts with Hill Partnerships Ltd over a possible contract award under the NHCF, shows that there is a clear breach of Regulation 18(3).

 

As you indicate, Regulation 18(3) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) states:

‘For that purpose, competition shall be considered to be artificially narrowed where the design of the procurement is made with the intention of unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators.’

 

I do not consider that Officers selection of the Network Homes Contractors Framework was in breach of Regulation 18(3) of the PCR 2015.  By its very nature, the use of any framework will unduly favour those economic operators on the framework but the use of frameworks is provided for in the PCR 2015.  Indeed the PCR 2015 permits the use of single supplier frameworks.  The selection of a framework of itself is therefore not unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators.

 

From the Direct Award Evaluation Process Document it would appear that Officers followed the direct award process as provided for in paragraph 3.1 of Schedule 1 of the Network Homes Contractors Framework and as such it is not considered that this process unduly favoured or disadvantaging certain economic operators.

 

You state:

 

The procurement process, which Cabinet approved on 20 June, was designed “with the intention of unduly favouring” one particular economic operator, Hill Partnerships Ltd.

 

Cabinet on 20th June 2022 approved the following recommendations:

 

2.1       Approve the inviting of a tender using a direct award process under the Network Homes Contractor Framework agreement on the basis of the pre-tender considerations set out in paragraph 3.6 of the report.

2.2       Delegate authority to award the contract for the Morland Gardens Redevelopment Design and Build contract following the successful outcome of the tender exercise to the Strategic Director, Regeneration & Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Reform.

 

For the reasons detailed above, the selection of the Network Homes Contractor Framework agreement of itself is not considered to be unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators contrary to Regulation 18(3).

 

Further it was indicated to Cabinet in the report that a contractor would be selected to tender based on a best value assessment.  Cabinet in making its decision did not therefore know which organisation would be identified for direct award.

 

In view of the above, I do not consider that there has been an unlawful contract awarded for the Morland Gardens project.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra Norman

 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit and Investigations’

 

Regulation 18, Public Contracts Regulations 2015. (From the Government website)

 

This was my response to Debra Norman’s email of 25 August:

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 25 August. Your response was not unexpected, as I know that you will always seek to defend Brent Council and its staff.

 

I will not prolong this correspondence unnecessarily. You have set out your position, and we will have to agree to disagree.

 

It is quite clear from the evidence (especially the answer to question 6 of my FoI request) that when Council Officers realised, at the end of May 2022, that they would not be able to award the Morland Gardens contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd under the Notting Hill Genesis Framework, they were looking for a way to award the contract, to that contractor, as quickly as possible by another means.

 

The Network Homes Contractor Framework provided the means, as it allowed for the direct award of contracts, and Hill Partnerships Ltd were one of the approved contractors under its Lot 3. The Direct Award Evaluation Process was carried out, as required under the Framework, but in such a way (because of the timeframe constraints imposed) that there was only one possible outcome.

 

That is why I still consider that the procurement process, approved by Cabinet on 20 June, was designed “with the intention of unduly favouring” Hill Partnerships Ltd, so that it breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Question 6 and Brent’s response, from my Freedom of Information Act request.

 

You can make up your own minds as to whether or not Brent Council’s 1 Morland Gardens contract was awarded unlawfully!


Philip Grant.

Tuesday 8 June 2021

EXCLUSIVE: Wembley's famous football mural will remain on public view until at least August 2024 after Philip Grant's tenacious campaign wins public support

 

The mural beneath Bobby Moore Bridge, Olympic Way, Wembley Park

 
It  turned out that  Debra Norman's letter to Philip Grant LINK  cutting off any further correspondence about the campaign to keep the football mural on permanent public view  was not quite the last word. Following Philip's persistent correspondence and forensic analysis of Brent Council planning documentation. along with emails of support from residents, Brent Council Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, has written to Philip. 

Although the email still claims to uphold the Council's view over advertisement consent, Ms Downs has now asked for, and received, Quintain's promise that they will not cover the "footballers" mural with adverts for the rest of their lease (up to August 2024).

Dear Mr Grant,

I have spoken to both the Leader of the Council and Councillor Nerva before responding to you, as you requested.

The Council has taken your representations on this matter very seriously. It is not just Brent’s lawyers but also external legal advice which aligns with that of the council regarding Quintain’s right to advertise over the football mural.

Because the Council values the mural very much and because we have requested of Quintain that it remain on view, and because they too value it, it has now been on display for a considerable period of time and has not been covered by advertising. Furthermore Quintain have confirmed to me in writing that they do not intend covering the mural for the remaining period of the lease. 

I concur with Ms Norman that we have spent enough time corresponding with you on this matter particularly given that the mural will remain on view and that is what you have sought to achieve.

Yours sincerely,

Carolyn Downs
Chief Executive

Congratulations Philip!

 

Tuesday 13 April 2021

Bobby Moore Bridge “footballers” mural – Why won’t Brent concede?

In this guest post, written in a personal capacity, Philip Grant returns to the the contentious planning issues surrounding the placement of advertising over the Bobby Moore murals at the Olympic Way underpass. It may be long but makes for rewarding reading as it reveals meticulous research and the polite but unapologetic logic of Philip Grant's position.

 

On 1 March, Martin posted a “guest blog” from me which included an update on the dispute over whether Quintain has the right to cover the “footballers” mural, in the Council-owned subway near Wembley Park station, with adverts on “event days”, including the Euros football matches this summer. It included the text of a message I’d sent to Carolyn Downs, Brent’s Chief Executive, on 25 February, showing how the dispute could be resolved immediately. Six weeks later, it has still not been resolved. Why?

 

The footballers tile mural, with the lights of “light boxes” just visible at either side of it.

 

Quintain had agreed in 2019 that this mural would be put back on permanent public display, even though the other mural scenes on the walls of the subway would be covered over with “light boxes” on which advertising material could be displayed. But the secret deal by Brent Council officers, extending Quintain’s Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease until August 2024, included a clause which said that they were entitled to cover this tile mural with adverts on a number of stadium “event days”.

 

 

An officer had replied on 25 February, on Ms Downs behalf, to say she would ‘ensure you are provided with a response as soon as possible.’ When I’d heard nothing more two weeks later, I decided that a letter to our local newspaper might encourage the Council to “do the right thing”, and the “Brent & Kilburn Times” kindly published it (the headline was not mine).

 


 

The following day (Friday 12 March), the Council officer emailed to say that I would receive a response ‘early next week’. More than a week later, this is what I received:

 

 

'I apologise again for the delay.  We are in the process of obtaining external advice in respect of the issues you have raised.  We will be able to send you a substantive response once we have received that.'

 

Why were Brent Council paying an outside lawyer for more advice, when I had already given them a clear explanation of the answer to this point, with full supporting evidence, for free?

 

 

When I received the “substantive response”, as part of an email from Carolyn Downs on 30 March, the Council did at last agree that the 2019 advertising consent ‘does not extend over the Footballers’ Mural.’ Hooray! They’d finally accepted the facts I set out to them more than a year earlier.

 

 

But there was a sting in the tail. There had been an original advertisement consent application, made in 2013, but not dealt with by Brent’s Planning Department until August 2017. Ms Downs said: ‘I am therefore advised that advertisement consent 13/2987 remains in place for the display of vinyl adverts attached to the tiles surface of the Footballers’ Mural provided they are attached to the tiles.’

 

It did not take me long to dispose of that point, and I replied later the same day: ‘I have to tell you that whoever is giving you advice on this planning matter has got it wrong, again.’ I explained in detail why that was the case, and summarised the position as follows:

 

 

Application 19/1474 was made, dealt with and approved on the basis that the advertisement consent 13/2987 was replaced, as far as the Bobby Moore Bridge parapets and subway walls were concerned. The consent until 24 August 2022 under 13/2987 only applies to covering the tile murals on the flanking walls outside the subway.

 

There was ample supporting evidence for my statement, including this section from the agent’s letter of 18 April 2019, submitting the advertisement consent application (19/1474):

 

 

I thought that should be enough to settle the matter, but no. On 9 April, I received an email from Brent’s Legal Director, Debra Norman. It claimed that the consent under application 13/2987 still allowed Quintain to cover the “footballers” mural with vinyl advertising sheets:

 

 

Officers have considered the elevation drawings referred to in the Consent and are satisfied that they show the east and west walls of the underpass and adjoining Olympic Way which are tiled. In consequence, the Council does not agree with your contention that the consent only applies to the tile murals outside the subway.’ … and further:

 

‘… there is nothing in the later consent (19/1474) which prevents continued reliance on the Consent to the extent that the two consents are compatible.’

 

 

Well, actually, there IS something in consent 19/1474 which means that consent 13/2987 no longer applies to the “footballers” mural. I agree that both consents applied to that tile mural, but the later consent specifically replaced the original consent, for the whole of the Bobby Moore Bridge and its subway! Again, I replied on the same day to explain the correct position.

 

I will ask Martin to attach the documents showing the two exchanges of views (30 March and 9 April), so that anyone who is interested can read them, and draw their own conclusions on their respective merits.

 

 

But why are Brent Council, and its top officials, so desperate to claim that Quintain can put adverts over the “footballers” tile mural?

 

 

Are they afraid to tell Quintain the truth? Well, they shouldn’t be, because under the conditions of the advertising lease (as extended) it is Quintain’s responsibility to obtain any consents they need in order to display advertisements on the Bobby Moore Bridge, and Quintain have failed to do that for the “footballers” mural.

 

 

Are they embarrassed because Brent’s own property lawyers failed in their “due diligence” over clause 10.3 of the extended lease, which claimed to entitle Quintain to cover that tile mural with adverts on “event days”? That was an error on Brent’s part, particularly as they had allowed Quintain’s property lawyers, Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP, to draw up the “Deed of Variation”.

 

 

Is Brent’s top lawyer determined not to concede a legal argument to an ordinary member of the public? Anyone can get things wrong (I do myself, occasionally), but when you are left “clutching at straws”, perhaps it is best not to embarrass yourself further! [If it is any comfort, although I do not have any formal legal qualifications, I have the experience of a working life dealing with complex legal points, and preparing cases for tribunal and court hearings.]

 

 

Or is it that Brent does not want to give up the chance of potentially earning “a few dollars more”, from the share of profits it might receive from Quintain, if it can sell the “footballers” tile mural advertising space for big events at the stadium?

 

 

Who knows why (and I don’t suppose they will ever tell me)? I hope that Brent Council will now concede this point, agree that Quintain does not have advertisement consent for covering the “footballers” mural, and that it will not waste further time, effort and money (your and my Council Tax money!) in pursuing an argument it knows it has lost.

 


Philip Grant

 

 THE EMAILS - FIRST EXCHANGE  (Click Bottom right for full page view)

 

 

 THE EMAILS - SECOND  EXCHANGE (Click Bottom right for full page view)

 

 

 

 

 

Friday 19 March 2021

Brent public not allowed to see report of investigation into Brent Council leader's conduct

 


 Cllr Muhammed Butt (Photo: London Councils)

 

I thought the Brent electorate would like to know (be entitled to know?) the outcome of the recent complaints about Brent Council leader's conduct.  I requested a copy of the report on the investigation by Brent Monitoring  Officer, Debra Norman.  The investigation would have sought to establish if the behaviour cited infringed the Members Code of Conduct.

My request received this terse response:

Decisions notices relating to complaints under the Brent Members Code of Conduct are only published by the council where a serious complaint has been upheld and the sanction of public censure has been imposed.  That is not the case in respect of the complaints to which I believe you are referring.  I am therefore not able to provide you with a copy of the decision notice.

This suggest the complaints were not upheld but we, the electorate, cannot see the evidence that was presented and the response of Cllr Butt himself.

Clearly we are not thought capable of reaching our own conclusions based on the evidence that Debra Norman collected.

Without seeing the Decision Notice I cannot be certain of the basis of the complaints but I assume they were connected with the articles posted on this blog:

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/02/lib-dem-councillor-complains-to-brent.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/02/cllr-butt-leader-of-brent-council.html

Wednesday 4 November 2020

Cllrs Butt and Sangani blame their confusion over Covid restrictions for breach when they attended a place of worship

Debra Norman has issued the result of her investigation of a complaint by former Brent Council Liberal Democrat leader Paul Lorber about the conduct of  Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council and fellow Labour councillor Cllr Trupti Sangani in attending a place of worship during Covid19 restrictions. Norman partially upheld the complaint.

Cllr Anton Georgiou, the sole Lib Dem currently on Brent Council has called for Butt's resignation as a consquence of the findings:

Muhammed Butt today posted a message on the Brent Council website urging residents to comply with the new restrictions that come info force tomorrow. LINK

 

The Decision Notice:

 

MONITORING OFFICER DECISION NOTICE
Brent members’ Code of Conduct
Complaint about the conduct of Councillors Butt & Sangani

The Complaint

A complaint about the conduct of Cllrs Butt & Sangani has been considered under the Council’s procedure for considering complaints that the Members’ Code of Conduct has been breached. The complaint was received from Mr Paul Lorber and contained 5 allegations:

1.     That 2 days before the COVID related restrictions on members of the public attending places of worship were lifted, Cllr Butt and other unspecified Labour Councillors attended prayers at the Ealing Road Temple.

2.    That Councillor Sangani shared a recording of the occasion on Twitter and referred to Councillor Butt as the Leader of Brent Council.

3.    That Councillor Butt publicly criticised other members of the public for breaking lockdown and social distancing rules after his own alleged breach.

4.    That Councillor Butt and the other Labour Councillors, by their actions, failed to show leadership and placed Brent Council in an impossible position in undermining the authority and the credibility of the Council in trying to send out important health and safety messages and insisting on public acceptance and compliance with the rules.

5.    That Councillor Butt has failed to make an unreserved apology for his actions.

The complaints allege that the above actions have breached the following provisions / obligations of the Members’ Code of Conduct:

1.     a)  Para 5 – In particular, you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1, including:

·  Leadership: you should promote and support these principles by leadership and by example and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

·  Integrity: You should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

2.    b)  Para 12: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute.

The Facts

On the 11 June 2020, Cllrs Butt and Sangani attended a small, socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. Both state that they

understood that the gathering was to be held outdoors, but it transpired that the gathering in fact took place inside. At the time, lockdown restrictions required that places of worship should be closed to worshippers. This situation was amended on the 13 June so that individual prayer could resume in places of worship and socially distanced communal worship was allowed from the 4 July onwards.

An article appeared in the Newham Recorder on the 6 July 2020 which stated that Brent Labour councillors had attended a prayer service in a place of worship before lockdown restrictions were relaxed. The article contained a photograph in which six individuals could be seen sitting in a socially distanced formation. The article also reproduced a tweet from Cllr Sangani referring to the event and an attached video she had posted, which also showed a small number of people sitting in a socially distanced formation. Cllr Sangani subsequently amended the privacy settings on her Twitter account which limited access. An article also appeared in the Kilburn Times on the 3 August which reported that an opposition councillor had called for an apology from Councillor Butt for attending a joint prayer event before restrictions were relaxed. The article alleged that Councillor Butt had attacked others for failing to abide by the rules imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic. A further article published on the 21 August reported that Mr Lorber, a former Leader of Brent Council, had also called on Councillor Butt to apologise.

Councillor Butt made a statement to the Kilburn Times which contained the following comments: “I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. It was subsequently suggested that the impromptu event might have inadvertently pre-empted by a couple of day’s government advice on religious activities. I do believe that the lack of consistent clarity from Whitehall during lockdown meant that people were unsure what they could and could not do.

I see now that we were mistaken as to how our moment of joint prayer and reflection for all the people who tragically lost their lives during this pandemic aligned with that sanctioned by government and hope that our positive example of community cohesion does not get lost in any ensuing noise. I know that forum members have come under intense pressure during this period from local journalists and I can only apologise to them for the unpleasant inconvenience. I do hope that this excessive media intrusion will not diminish your willingness to remain part of this important movement in our borough.”

Response to Complaint

Both Cllrs Butt and Sangani provided written responses to the complaint.

Councillor Butt explained that:

·       He would not describe the event as “organised prayer”. The event had consisted of a brief moment of quiet refection amongst people of different faiths, intended as a simple act by and for people who were looking for small comfort in what was a distressing time. The actions were intended as a positive demonstration of well- intended community leadership.

·       He accepted that a mistake was made regarding the time between what happened and what was sanctioned at the time. There was, however, a degree of uncertainty at the time in terms of when places of worship would re-open as the Prime Minister had talked of an earlier re-opening. The contradictory statements which were in the public domain at the time, and the time lags between announcements and implementation had led to an honest mistake being made in good faith at a very confusing time.

·       He offered an unreserved apology for not having thought that his actions could cause upset to anyone.

·       He provided correspondence from the editor of the Kilburn Times which confirmed that the paper accepted that it had erred in two ways in reporting that, in relation to the inference of his attacking others for breaches, he had commented that "people disregarding social distancing guidance was 'not acceptable and heightened risk'". In fact his comment had been: “Of course the parties and the use of outdoor gyms we saw during lockdown are not acceptable given the heightened risk, but when you have such mixed messages from central government on what can and can’t be done, you can see why people were confused and were restless and frustrated after so many weeks of lockdown."

·        He confirmed that he had not received any formal invite to the event but had, he recalled, been verbally invited by Cllr Sangani with whom he had been visiting a food bank earlier in the day.

Councillor Sangani responded that:

·  She accepted that she had posted the Tweet in question

·  She attended the small socially distanced gathering at Ealing Road Temple in support of the Multi Faith Forum and had also been of the understanding that it would be held outdoors.

·       There had been confusion as a result of government announcements which led to a mistake being made in attending the event.

·       She understood why the complainant felt aggrieved and offered an apology for having made an honest mistake, with the best intentions.

·       She did not recall having received any formal invite to the event, but rather became aware of the time, date and place via conversations.

The Chief Executive and the council’s Head of Communications have both stated to the Council’s Monitoring Officer that they do not consider that the incident and the reporting of it has undermined the authority and the credibility of the Council in trying to send out important health and safety messages and insisting on public acceptance and compliance with the rules. Other than this complaint, they are not aware of any communication or other evidence which suggests this is the case.

The Scope of the Members’ Code of Conduct

All local authorities are required to adopt a code of conduct “dealing with the conduct that is expected of members....of the authority when they are acting in that capacity” (s27(2) of the Localism Act 2011).

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct states that “This Code applies to you as a member of Brent Council” (para 1(1) and sets out its scope at para 2(1):

“You must comply with this Code whenever you –

1.     a)  Conduct the business of the Council (which in this Code, incudes the business of the office to which you are elected or appointed); or

2.    b)  Act, claim to act, or give the impression you are acting as a representative of the Council,

And references to your official capacity are construed accordingly.”

I take the view that the words “a representative of the Council” should be broadly understood and that acting or giving the impression of acting as a councillor should be equated with acting as a representative of the Council, which maintains the important distinction between councillors’ personal and public actions.

Decision

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, before deciding the outcome of this complaint, I consulted the Council’s Independent Person and have taken his views into account.

Neither councillor has disputed that they attended the event on the 11 June 2020, which they both accepted was, in fact, in breach of the restrictions in place on that date. They both accepted that, therefore, a mistake had been made on their parts. It seems clear to me, given their responses and given that Cllr Sangani’s Tweet referred to the fact that they were both councillors, that their attendance was as representatives of the Council. As such I have determined that the breaches fall within the scope of the Code.

In accordance with the Assessment Criteria set out in section 2 of Annex 1 to the Code of Conduct Complaint Assessment and Determination Procedure, I have been able to conclude that there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct without an investigation.

Turning now to consider whether specific provisions of the Code have been breached:

Para 5 – In particular, you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1, including:

 

·       Leadership: you should promote and support these principles by leadership and by example and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

 

·        Integrity: You should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

 

Leadership:

Both councillors have acknowledged that they were confused about the specific restrictions which were then in place in relation to attendance in places of worship and as a result of that confusion, inadvertently breached the restrictions which were in place at the time. I find that the error could have led to a reduction in public confidence at a difficult and confusing time.

Integrity:

Attendance at the event was reported unfavourably in the press subsequently as a result of the fact that this amounted to a breach of restrictions then in place, which corresponds to both councillors placing themselves in a situation where their integrity could be questioned, despite their stated good intentions in attending the event.

In respect of both findings, I have given additional consideration to the fact that both councillors state they had been of the understanding that the event was to be taking place outside, rather than inside. However, I have concluded that on the 11 June 2020 the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which, at regulations 6 and 7 imposed restrictions on movement and participating in a gathering in a public space, had not yet been amended to allow for gatherings outside in these circumstances. As such, the fact that the gathering in fact took place inside, rather than outside made no difference to the fact that, either way the attendance at the event would still have been in breach of the restrictions then in place.

Para 12: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute.

Although the attendance at the event received adverse publicity in the press, I do not consider that it has brought the Council into disrepute, given that the wider intention behind the attendance was to provide comfort at what was a very distressing time for many. Further, the Kilburn Times has since acknowledged that Councillor Butt had been wrongly quoted as attacking members of the public for breaches of the rules and as such I find that there has been no suggestion of his having acted in a hypocritical manner which might have brought his office into disrepute.

In conclusion therefore, whilst I have found that there has been a breach of para 5 of the Code of Conduct in that the attendance at the event could have threatened public confidence / led to both councillors’ integrity being questioned, I do accept the good intentions behind the decision to attend the event (which Councillor Butt described as a quiet moment of reflection, as opposed to an organised prayer session). I do not consider that on the facts para 12 of the Code of Conduct has been breached.

Sanction

In considering the appropriate sanction it is relevant to take note of the actions already taken by both councillors to seek to remedy the breach, specifically:

·  Councillor Sangani restricting access to her Twitter account

·  Both councillors offering apologies

·  Both councillors acknowledging their error

·  Councillor Butt contacting the press to seek confirmation that a specific quote alleging that he had criticised others who breached the rules was incorrectly recorded.

In all the circumstances, I consider that the appropriate sanction in this instance to be as follows:

1.     Both councillors to be advised to ensure that appropriate and up to date advice is sought in advance of any intention to attend an event, to ensure that current coronavirus restrictions are accurately followed

2.    Apologies from both councillors based on those provided as part of their responses to the complaint, to be published on the Council’s website for 6 months.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, as far as the complainant is concerned my decision is final and there is no right of appeal or right of internal review against my decision.

As far as Councillor Butt and Councillor Sangani are concerned, they may request in writing within 10 working days of receiving this decision notice that I review my decision that they breached the Code of Conduct and/or the sanction imposed. The reasons for requesting a review must be given and any new supporting documentation provided.

Debra Norman
Monitoring Officer, Brent Council 19 October 2020.