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.