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.
