Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing a religious act to take place during a Council meeting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that during a Council meeting a Councillor was allowed to perform a religious act. Mr B says the promotion of religion, particularly the promotion of a particular religion, is not in line with well-established rules of the separation of church and state. Mr B is concerned that the Council has not done anything significant to make sure this does not happen again. Mr B would like the Council to make a public apology and commitment to prevent such an intervention happening again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has explained this was a singular occurrence arising from a specific request and was not intended to alter the Council’s usual approach to the conduct of meetings. The Council says it does not anticipate a similar occasion happening again, so it is not necessary to recommend any changes to existing arrangements or procedures.
6. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
7. The law allows councils to include prayers or other religious observances during public meetings (Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Act 2015). This is a matter for each council to decide.
8. The Council is aware of Mr B’s concerns about what happened at this meeting and has explained it does not consider changes to arrangements or procedures are needed. If similar acts take place at future Council meetings and Mr B is not satisfied with the Council’s actions, he may complain to us again. But, as it stands, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of this meeting is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman