The Brent Standards Committee (Chair Cllr James Allie, Vice Chair Cllr Sandra Kabir) will receive a report at its meeting on Thursday 22nd (6pm Civic Centre) of the independent investigation into Philip Grant's misconduct complaint against Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt.
The 'headline' on the agenda and Fiona Alderman's report is:
Mr Penn’s report concludes that there is no evidence to support the complaint and that Councillor Butt did not breach the Members’ Code of Conduct
Richard Penn was an Independent Investigator and we should respect his overall conclusion, but the headline does not tell the whole story. The only major difference with Penn's July report is this paragraph:
4.6 In his written comments on my draft report Philip Grant has set out his reasons why he considers that Councillor Butt has breached the requirements of the Members Code of Conduct in respect of ‘honesty’, ‘’integrity’, ‘openness’ and ‘leadership’. He did not provide any new or additional evidence in support of his compliant but pointed to some of the details of the evidence that I collected through my investigation as supporting his contention that Councillor Butt had breached the Code. I have given his submission careful consideration but have found no reason to vary my finding that there is no evidence to support Philip Grant’s complaint that Councillor Butt has breached the requirements or obligations of the London Borough of Brent’s Members Code of Conduct in respect of ‘honesty’, ‘’integrity’, ‘openness’ and ‘leadership’ .
In introducing his detailed complaint to Mr Penn in a letter on August 25th, Philip Grant had written about the July report:
'Over the next few pages your report sets out seven separate ‘related allegations’, numbered (i) to (vii), and considers the evidence in respect of them, before reaching a conclusion about Cllr. Butt’s actions or conduct on each point.
I agree that those seven ‘related allegations’ did need to be examined as part of your investigation into ‘whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members' Code of Conduct’, but I believe your report to be flawed because it then moves straight on to your finding at para. 4.6:
‘4.6 My finding is that there is no evidence to support this complaint, and that therefore there was no breach by Councillor Butt of the general conduct principles of honesty, integrity, openness and leadership.’
Although there is a reference to Cllr. Butt’s conduct being ‘entirely appropriate’ in the report’s conclusion on item (vi) of para. 4.5, there is no consideration in the draft report of how, on the evidence available to you, Cllr. Butt’s conduct measured up to the standards required by the general conduct principles. I would therefore comment, and ask you please to consider, that this part of your report should be re-drafted so that it does actually do what the Monitoring Officer’s letter requested, and investigate:
‘whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members' Code of Conduct.’ '
Despite Grant pointing out that Penn's did not look at the evidence he had gathered in terms of the requirements set out in the
general conduct principles, Penn does not appear to have taken this on board. In this respect the report going to Standards Committee is still flawed.
In para. 3.5 (evidence given by Cllr. Butt at interview with Richard Penn) on page 20 of the report it records that Penn asked Butt twice why he had involved XX (the Labour Party worker) in enquiries about Tayo Oladapo (which should have been a key point in considering whether Butt had put himself in a position where his integrity could be questioned), but no real answer was given to this question.
In the Findings section, at around page 42, there is an important passage which shows that it was only because there was no clear evidence that Butt knew that Cllr. Oladapo was dead which gives rise to the finding that 'there is no evidence to support the complaint':
'Councillor Butt said that on 2 March 2016 he had asked XX to go to the hospital to enquire about Councillor Oladapo. He contends that he did not know that Councillor Oladapo had died at the end of January 2016 until Mark Walker told him on 7 March 2016, and that he did not say to XX that he believed that Councillor Oladapo had been dead for a month.
However, there is evidence from my investigation that Councillor Butt and others had speculated that Councillor Oladapo might be dead or that he might have been taken back to Nigeria by his mother to die. Councilor Butt did tell XX that he believed Councillor Oladapo might be dead but this appears to have been simply expressing an unsubstantiated possibility. This is very different from knowing that someone had died, and it is clear that Councillor Butt was not prepared to acknowledge this as a fact even after XX had spoken to a receptionist at the hospital who had told her that Councillor Oladapo had died.'
The final paragraph of the report gives the result of the Labour Party enquiry into this matter (Richard Penn had agreed with the Labour Party investigator that they would liaise, in order to avoid embarrassing each other with different conclusions!). This is what the Labour Party investigation found (our highlighting):
'On 6 July 2016 John Stolliday, the Head of the Labour Party Constitutional Unit, wrote to Councillor Butt to inform him that the Labour Party’s investigation to determine the facts around the death of Councillor Oladapo and how the Labour Party and Brent Council had been notified his death had concluded. Councillor Butt was informed by Mr Stolliday that the investigation had found no evidence that he had been aware with any certainty on or before March 2 2016 that Councillor Oladapo had died. Mr Stolliday said that the details of the conversation between Councillor Butt and XX are disputed, but no one else was present during their meeting or privy to the content of the conversation. Given this, and given that no other evidence has been presented, it was impossible to prove XX’s allegations were true beyond doubt, although there is no reason to believe that she doubted the truth of her allegations. The Labour Party had therefore decided that no further action would be taken in this matter and that there is no further case to answer.'
Overall, despite what Cllr Butt and Brent Council may claim, perhaps the verdict should be 'not proven' rather than 'not guilty'.
Following receipt
of Richard Penn's draft report Philip Grant responded:
Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question. (Brent Council General Conduct principle)
1.1 The key issue from my complaint about Cllr. Butt apparently misleading the Council and his fellow councillors about the death of Cllr. Tayo Oladapo is what Cllr. Butt knew, and when he knew it, and whether he was truthful about these matters.
1.2 As your report says, at item (i) of para. 4.5:
‘He [Cllr. Butt] contends that he did not know that Councillor Oladapo had died at the end of January 2016 until Mark Walker told him on 7 March 2016, and that he did not say to [XX] that he believed that Councillor Oladapo had been dead for a month.’
1.3 Your report goes on to say:
‘However, there is evidence from my investigation that Councillor Butt and others had speculated that Councillor Oladapo might be dead or that he might have been taken back to Nigeria by his mother to die. Councilor Butt did tell [XX] that he believed Councillor Oladapo might be dead but this appears to have been simply expressing an unsubstantiated possibility. This is very different from knowing that someone had died …. My conclusion is that there is no evidence to support the allegation that Councillor Butt knew that Councillor Oladapo had died before he was advised of this by Mark Walker on 7 March 2016 following [XX]’s visit to the hospital on 4 March.’
1.4 Cllr. Butt had a duty to be truthful in his Council work, and there is a clear difference between himself and [XX] over the truth of what was said at the meeting between them on 2 March. In the circumstances, I accept that you had little choice but to give Cllr. Butt the benefit of the doubt in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
1.5 However, it is also a requirement and obligation of the “Honesty” general conduct principle that councillors must ‘avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.’ Over the next few paragraphs I will provide examples, from the evidence available to you in your draft report (and first report) of what appear to be various versions of “the truth” given by Cllr. Butt in this matter. These show clearly that Cllr. Muhammed Butt was the main source of information about Cllr. Oladapo’s condition for both Brent Council and its Labour Group councillors. I would ask you to consider whether the differing versions of this information created a situation where Cllr. Butt’s honesty might be called into question.
1.6 At para. 2.9 (Interview with Chief Executive) of your first report to the Council of 4 July 2016, the following account of what the Council Leader told the Council is given:
‘The Chief Executive told me that the report to Full Council on 18 January 2016 had requested approval for further absence by Councillor Oladapo as he had been expected to attend that meeting following an organ transplant, but the week before the Council meeting the Council Leader had told her that Councillor Oladapo had been readmitted to hospital. The next Council meeting was on 22 February 2016 and the ‘pre meeting’ with the Mayor, the Leader and Opposition members was on 17 February 2016. At this pre meeting the Leader referred to Councillor Oladapo’s further absence saying that he had not heard from Councillor Oladapo or his family, but that he had become aware that Councillor Oladapo was no longer at the Royal Free Hospital. Councillor Butt said that he understood that Councillor Oladapo’s health had deteriorated and that his mother had taken Councillr Oladapo to Nigeria to die. The Chief Executive advised that she considered that the Council should now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a further report should not be submitted to the Council. However, the others present at the meeting considered that this would appear inappropriately harsh for a dying man ….’
1.7 Para. 3.4 of your draft report contains a long written statement from Cllr. Butt, which he provided to you in advance of your interview with him. His statement includes the following passage (on page 15 of the draft report):
‘At the full council meeting in February apologies for absence for Tayo were given and for his absence due to ill health were tabled. This was done in absolute good faith either that he was recovering somewhere here in the UK or that he had flown out with his mother to recover at the family home in Nigeria.’
1.8 Para. 3.10 of the draft report records what Cllr. Kabir, the Labour Group Chief Whip, told you at interview, including the following (at page 35):
‘In the early part of this year the Group Executive did not know what was happening in relation to Councillor Oladapo, except that he was in the Royal Free Hospital in Camden and that he was still ill. Councillor Butt had told her that he had been to see Councillor Oladapo and had been shocked at his appearance. A number of people wanted to go to the hospital to see him but were told that he did not want to see anyone. In February this year Councillor Butt was telling anyone who asked that Councillor Oladapo was still in hospital so far as he knew.’
1.9 Para. 3.14 of the draft report contains the text of an email sent by Cllr. Janice Long to the Labour Party internal investigation into this matter, which she provided you with a copy of. It includes the following passage at page 37 (presumably referring to an message which Cllr. Butt had sent to Labour councillors about the circumstances surrounding Cllr. Oladapo’s death):
‘Cllr Muhammad Butt stated 'after December we lost contact with him.’ I could comprehend Tayo dying and our not knowing for a few days as there was not daily contact. But not knowing for 5/6 weeks is unfathomable. And the statement was wrong as we had been told that in January that he was getting better although he had had to be readmitted to hospital. So there was still contact after December.’
1.10 A final point on “honesty” which you may wish to take into account, in weighing up the balance of probabilities in this matter, is a comment made by Cllr. Pavey in his written statement to you at para. 3.7 (on page 33 of the draft report). Although I am not a member or supporter of any political party, and was not involved in any way with the campaign for leadership of the Labour Group between Cllr. Butt and Cllr. Pavey in May 2016, I am aware that such views might be coloured by that rivalry, just as Cllr. Butt’s close supporters also appear to have “rallied round the Leader” and stood up for him in your investigations. Despite this, I still think the following is a fair point:
‘However I also see detailed allegations from a very credible witness – which Cllr Butt has not produced evidence to rebut. I also see a potential motive for Cllr Butt to act in a cynical way – but I can see no reason for [XX] to act cynically. If it is one person’s word against another’s, I only see a motive for one of them to lie.’
On the matter of witness credibility, as para. 4.8 of your draft report says, the Labour Party’s own internal investigation into this matter found that:
‘ … it was impossible to prove [XX]'s allegations were true beyond doubt, although there is no reason to believe that she doubted the truth of her allegations.’
This is the written statement Muhamed Butt provided to Richard Penn ahead of his interview:
