Appendix 3

Item 18 – Consideration of an Investigation Report

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I would like to welcome Claire Lefort who is the author of the investigation report that we have here. Fiona [Ledden] is going to help us but I believe that the first decision that we need to make is that we agree to do this consideration in open session. Do we agree to do that?

Committee Members: Yes.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Good, thank you very much. Fiona, I would like you to guide us through what we need to do now.

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): Very briefly, we have the investigation report for you. I, as Monitoring Officer, recommend the report and the conclusions to you. What you now need to do is you need to consider the recommendation and then you need to decide, on the basis of the recommendation, whether you accept it or whether you reject it and whether you follow the recommendations. Then following what you do I can then take you through the further steps.

In your considerations I am sure you may well have some questions for Claire Lefort and you may want to explore whether or not there are any things that would be useful even if you decided that, on following the recommendation, this matter was not to go to a hearing. There may be issues that you think would be useful, such as training, to be undertaken so it is a matter for you to consider and discuss those items. I do not think that I will take any more of your time in taking you through. As we reach each decision then I will come back to you, Chair, if I may.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Thank you, but it is your strong recommendation to accept the conclusions to the investigation report that there has been no failure to comply with the code of conduct?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): Indeed, Chair. If I just might add; you may want to just explore the issue of scope, which perhaps is not quite as full in the report, or you may not, you may be very satisfied on the issue of whether or not it falls within the scope whether or not the Member was acting as a Member in this particular instance.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Well, we are being asked whether we accept recommendations to the investigator or not, so I am not entirely sure that that is one of the options that is open to us at the moment unless the investigator raises it. That must be right, isn’t it?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Yes.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Claire, as I say, welcome. Thank you very much for doing this piece of work on our behalf. I am sure that all of my colleagues have read the investigation report and probably actually turned to this first

39

on the agenda in terms of making sure that we did read it. So, I guess what we are going to want to do is actually ask you questions principally but I think it would be great if you could perhaps spend, say, five minutes just introducing it to us and then I will invite my colleagues to ask you questions and then we will take discussion after that, OK?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Thank you very much for inviting me today. I will be very brief because it is all very clear in the report. It is perhaps helpful just to go back to see what the original allegation was. The allegation was made by Assembly Member Mr Cleverly that Mr Barnbrook had failed to comply with paragraph 6.2 of the code of conduct. It was in relation to the literature which was produced which was a leaflet headed ‘London’s Mothers Against Knives’. This was alleged to have been circulated during a by-election in Bexley.

My investigation has covered whether or not I thought there was a failure to comply both with paragraph 6(b)(i) and (ii) as well as 6(c) which was the result of your deliberations when you considered it at assessment. My conclusion, as you can see, is that there has not been a breach of those particular paragraphs and I suppose that is as much of the outline that I could give which would assist you and I am more than happy to answer any questions on my report.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Thank you very much, Claire. Colleagues, the floor is open now to questions to Claire on why she has reached her conclusions and why she is making recommendations that she is.

Murad Qureshi (AM): I think the most interesting thing is actually seeing a copy of the flyer in the back of the document. I always thought there were actually quite strict rules about the use of GLA resources on clearly party-political material and campaigns, when he is using a phone number which is a GLA one and using the address of the GLA to organise this campaign. My understanding of the rules, as an Assembly Member, was that it was something my officers in the Labour group have made quite clear, that it is not custom and practice here, so I am surprised you have seen it fit to say it is within the code of conduct.

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): My view on the telephone number - I did actually review this before I came - is it is directly in Richard Barnbrook’s office, answered, as far as I understand it, by him. When we went to Emma Colgate [Richard Barnbrook’s research assistant], we interviewed her in Richard Barnbrook’s office and when she rung that number it was direct to his line.

As far as I understand, I have no detail expressly as to how many telephone calls have been made by people who have responded to this document and I think that would be very difficult to actually identify in any event. The other issue about using the address of City Hall; I could not see anything specifically in the literature which said that you could not use the address of City Hall on a leaflet such as this. What I saw was that you could not produce it at City Hall, you could not send it from City Hall, and you could not use any of the officers’ time and trouble in perceiving it, producing and sending it out.

As far as my investigation went I could not see any of that happening and that is why I came to the conclusions I did. I did actually say within the report that I felt that there was some ambiguity over what the rules said about the use of the address of City Hall.

40

Murad Qureshi (AM): Can I just follow that up, Chair?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Yes, of course you can.

Murad Qureshi (AM): OK. There is a distinction between phone calls that come direct to an Assembly Member and those that go to their staff, whether it be a personal assistant (PA) or a researcher - but that is a distinction I could not make in my head. What you were saying - you could see that it was coming into the GLA. I would actually imagine that you can assume very well that it also came out of the GLA if he is using the resources to receive the material. Did you investigate that at all?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): As far as my investigation, in terms of where it was sent from, they were not printed at GLA at all. There was no detail of it being printed. There was a receipt that 5,000 of them were actually printed by Richard Barnbrook’s colleague in Leeds; others of them, he does have - I cannot remember the specific word that was used - a lino printer that he has at his home that he has used to print a lot of these and my report refers to leaflets being handed out by British National Party (BNP) activists.

Effectively London’s Mothers Against Knives is Richard Barnbrook’s campaign and BNP activists have produced those. There is no information that I have that post, stamps or other equipment of the GLA has been used to send this out.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Yes, so you did investigate that. Just a final thing: this kind of material is clearly used for electoral purposes and we are told quite clearly that we have got to go out and do that kind of stuff outside of this building when it is a GLA election, European election or whatever. Are there different rules in different contexts as well, whether it is a local election, a European or a GLA election?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): I think my report actually refers to whether there is a question whether this is actually a political leaflet in any event. When I interviewed Richard Barnbrook and Emma Colgate their view was that actually this was not a political leaflet and the only statement that it refers to the British National Party is the very fact that Richard Barnbrook is a British National Party Assembly Member.

The statement, in my view, and I appreciate there may be differences, that individuals are asked to sign is that there is a growing problem about knife crime and new measures are demanded. That does not specifically refer to BNP or any of the policies or BNP and I think perhaps most political parties would have a similar concurring view on that.

I did not find either that Mr Barnbrook had specifically printed these leaflets for the purposes of an election. They were printed originally back in July 2008 and that was not around the time of the by-election which took place, I believe, in January 2009.

Murad Qureshi (AM): OK, so essentially you are saying your interpretation of political is party political and no other context.

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): As far as I was aware, and it may be helpful to refer to the specific paragraph in my report which is paragraph 29 on page 10, my personal conclusion about the leaflet is that it is not party political and I do

41

not believe that the leaflet is designed to effect support for any one particular political party. That was my view on that leaflet in the way that it was set out.

Sir David Durie (Independent Member): If I may, you say in paragraph 55 that Mr Barnbrook “had effectively lost control of the circulation and distribution of the leaflet”. I am quite interested to know what weight you attach to that conclusion because it is arguable - I am not arguing it - that it was irresponsible to lose control of the distribution of the leaflet during an election; that he should have taken greater care to do so. If in that way he has responsibility still for the leaflet, just accepting this argument, would you have reached a different conclusion? Do you follow what I am asking?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): I do. I think I need to perhaps go back and say that the leaflet, as I said earlier, was originally produced in July 2008 and, as far as I understand, was not produced for any party political election.

Sir David Durie (Independent Member): No, I heard that.

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Therefore, losing control of it during an election; it was not produced during an election process. The purposes of circulating the document widely; it was circulated by way of email and people photocopied it. As far as I understand the purpose of that, from Mr Barnbrook’s point of view, was actually to ensure that the leaflet got as wide a circulation as possible and he had as much support as possible. It was originally said to me that the ambition was to have a million signatures to it and that soon became clear that that was unrealistic and the number was reduced down to 100,000 to 200,000. Even if there was some responsibility for the leaflet I would still have the same view that I have within the report.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Can I make a question/comment, would that be OK?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Well, if people have no more direct questions, yes, let us start the debate, so please do.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Please correct me, and I have read it - and it was not the first thing I turned to -I agree we have to be careful because, and I might get in trouble for saying this but I am going to say it, no matter how odious the perceived views of the British National Party, we live in a democracy. I will leave it there. So, one has to try to stand back from that though one’s emotions run the risk of taking over. I think that is fair to say.

Am I correct in saying then that the principle argument in defence is - or one of them - that though the distribution of this leaflet or part distribution of the leaflet took place during a by-election, so therefore a period of election purdah, and that by-election in terms of imprints and conduct is subject to the representation of the People’s Act - and I am not a lawyer I just was a councillor for ten years and I stood for the odd election - because the leaflet was produced outside that period, and you were satisfied, ie proved to you in terms of your investigation, and a proportionate percentage of the distribution took part before that election then this does not constitute an election leaflet per se. Am I right? I do not know. Am I right? Through you, Chair, can I ask that question?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Yes, of course you can.

42

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Is my understanding correct or am I up the wrong tree?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): I think that is a valid understanding of the position. I would simply say that through Mr Richard Barnbrook, and if we are looking at Mr Barnbrook’s conduct which I believe this is centred on, he has told me, as well as Emma Colgate, that they did not produce this for the purpose or deliver it during the by-election at Bexley. The view that was expressed to me by Emma Colgate was that this document is not explicitly BNP publicity material. It does not flash all over it with the British National Party. So if Mothers Against Knives was British National Party then that would be a different factor because obviously that is the prominent part of the document. Her view is that it would not be the sort of document that they would actively seek to put out in a campaign. However, Richard Barnbrook did not produce or did not leaflet this when he was out campaigning. So it does not directly answer your question but it answers it --

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): It was the East Wickham by- election and they won by eight votes. I am fully aware of it because I used to be the Leader of Bexley Council, and I knew the councillor who died personally who created unfortunately the by-election. It is the site of the BNP bookshop if memory serves me quite correctly.

I can see from an investigation point of view we have to be forensic and have to be reasonable. It is the premise, isn’t it, of innocent until there is a burden of proof that there is an issue around the conduct, so I understand that. What I would say is, being emotive, Mr Barnbrook either thinks we have just dropped off the nearest Christmas tree - and perhaps he does - and I think they have maybe in a way usurped the system. I personally think that, and I have read the papers, I can understand your conclusions because you have to sometimes take things at face value and there is this burden of proof. I think I would ask Members and officers, not necessarily gerrymandering the rules and regulations, but I think we need to learn lessons from this. We definitely need to learn lessons from this.

I remember as a leader of an opposition in an elected council having a real debate and concern around imprints, a real concern about purdah - and we are in purdah now - and a real respect - though, hey, my job was to be political - around those safeguards and those particular, shall we say, lines that we must not cross. I think that I can understand your conclusions but I think I would leave it as saying that we need to go away and have a real think about this because it is not just it being about the BNP.

I would not be happy if this was the Conservatives doing this, I would not be happy if it is Liberal Democrats, Labour or Green. It is not about the fact that I have an issue with the British National Party or Mr Barnbrook as a person. Let that be for the record, Chair. It is that as someone who has earned my spurs in local democracy and served as a councillor for ten years, I have a real issue about the fact that they have usurped and for the want of a better word been very naughty and played fast and loose with this. So, I will just leave it there, Chair.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Just to clarify then, this was produced six months before the election, so, in fairness, the person who died had not died when this leaflet was produced?

43

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): I have to say I am not aware of the person who died so I really cannot comment on that.

Victoria Borwick (AM): No, no, but just going back to Ian, is that correct?

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Yes, Alf Catterall (former Mayor of the London Borough of Bexley).

Victoria Borwick (AM): Right, so in other words we are linking the two now and today.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Sorry, through you, Chair. Where I am coming from is I could have said when I was a councillor, “Oh, we’ve got an election,” or, “Oh, we’re in purdah but hey I’ve got this stock of leaflets that I’ve had knocking around that I’ve lost control of distribution and I’ll just put those out without an imprint.”

Victoria Borwick (AM): No, no, but I just want to clarify for the forensic point that actually when this --

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Of course nobody could predict that a councillor was going to pass away.

Victoria Borwick (AM): No, no, I just want to check from the timings because I do not know about the timings. So, we are just saying from the factoring point of view, when this document was produced there was no suggestion of there being an election.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): No.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): No, that is why I can understand Claire’s point.

Victoria Borwick (AM): OK, that is fine. So, these were produced and then, as you say, they wandered around the place and got stuck in people’s attics and they would bloom at a later date. I just wanted to clarify that.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): You and I would have shredded them and not used them in an election bluntly. We would not have done it. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats; we would not have done it.

Seye Aina (Independent Member): Chair, surely it is when they asked for the advice as well. Apart from that timing it is the timing as to when advice was sought about the appropriateness of it.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Can I just say, Chair? It is all very well we spend hours on having a debate about bollocks but this is quite important to me. This is quite important to me because I am a voter and we either do things the right way or the wrong way. It is nothing to do with the British National Party and it is nothing to do about Mr Barnbrook. I think this is quite a matter of principle and how we do business and how we respect the rules that we work by.

44

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I would like to ask Claire [Lefort] a question about the use of the telephone line. I am slightly confused about that because on the leaflet there are actually two telephone numbers, aren’t there? One appears to be a mobile phone and one appears to be 0207 --

Diane Mark (Independent Member): Is a GLA one?

Murad Qureshi (AM): That is a GLA number. Is the mobile a GLA one as well?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): No, that was apparently not. I think it is personal.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I think we asked that at the Assessment Sub-Committee.

Diane Mark (Independent Member): Yes, we did.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Did we? OK, sorry.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): So the telephone landline is provided by City Hall and funded by City Hall. Is there any charge to City Hall then for incoming calls?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): I would assume there would be but my difficulty in being able to understand how many people have called in response to this document is going to be very difficult to identify, and again, specifically from July 2008 the number of calls that he may well have had to that line.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): That is using the facilities of the GLA, isn’t it? One can only assume that if you put a GLA number on a leaflet and it is a GLA-provided instrument, even albeit provided specifically for Assembly Members, that there is a reasonable expectation that someone who rings that number is actually going to be contacting you through the facilities of the GLA.

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Yes, I understand that. I think the way that I looked at this was that it was actually a contact detail in the same way as City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London was a postal address. I looked at it from the perspective of saying provided that there was no staff use of picking up the call and collecting the post in terms of opening it, collating it and collating the responses then there would not have been an issue with that. Now, there is obviously an alternative argument but that was my perspective and my view on that issue.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): For clarification, Chair, when it rings in my office it is forwarded to my PA.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I just want to leave that issue there for the moment because I just want to clarify your understanding about that. I would like to ask Fiona [Ledden] a question actually. We have had a previous case on this campaign and the decision notice is published so it is actually in the public domain, isn’t it, so we can ask questions about that. The complaint was against Mothers Against Knives and the answer we had was that because Richard Barnbrook was calling it

45

London’s Mothers Against Knives that this was a wholly different campaign and it is his campaign.

The return address at the bottom of the back of one of the leaflets actually just says, “If you would like to join Mothers Against Knives,” not London’s. It is quite obvious that this was a leaflet produced to say Mothers Against Knives and someone has written London’s on it.

Diane Mark (Independent Member): That was referred to in the report, wasn’t it, when he was told he could not use Mothers Against Knives he changed it and got them all back and issued them again.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Is it not changed on the copy of the leaflet that we have got.

Diane Mark (Independent Member): Well, on some it is and some it is not.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): No, no, this box at the bottom - there is no page number - but --

Diane Mark (Independent Member): In the top bit of it though it says Mothers Against and they sort of --

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I can see that. That is not what I am asking. If you let me ask my question. This bottom box twice talks about Mothers Against Knives. I would actually just like to know what the impact is of that on the case that we have already dealt with because I think this is an issue.

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): Yes, it may well be an issue. What my understanding is is that there were some bits that werechanged, as you can see, and some bits that were not, but that bit I note has not been changed. I think the original form pre-dated my meeting because you may recall that the outcome was that I was to then actually speak to Mr Barnbrook, which I did. Actually, I note that those bits were not changed, so it may well have an impact on that case and I would have to reread the decision notice.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Could you look at that for me?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): Yes.

Sir David Durie (Independent Member): I want to go back, particularly in the light of what Ian [Clement] has said, to reformulate my question because the point that worries me - and I agree absolutely with Ian that this has got nothing to do with what party Mr Barnbrook belongs to or whether it was Mr Barnbrook or somebody else, because I think if it had been Assembly person Y belonging to party Z exactly the same issues would arise - that the only change between this leaflet and the Assembly man X and Y leaflet is that whether it was under his control or not is quite an interesting question. Assuming it was under his control, or could have been under his control, what finding would you have made as to whether or not the leaflet was OK for distribution in an election?

46

If your conclusion would be that it was not OK for distribution in an election then I think we do have to concentrate on the issue of whether or not it was responsible to allow this thing to be circulated during the election and on whether any effort was taken to prevent it being circulated. We have not heard that there was any effort to prevent such circulation. So, very important to know what view you take of the appropriateness of this leaflet being circulated during an election. That is Ian’s point I think.

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Yes. I would perhaps go back to my personal conclusion and I understand that people would disagree with that, but my personal conclusion was that the petition itself is a general petition that is not linked directly to the British National Party. It does not state, “We want you all to agree with the British National Party’s manifesto and statement on this particular issue.” It is a very general statement. The front of the leaflet is very, very general. My personal view was that it did not affect public support for any one political party. You could, therefore, say from that that it was not a political leaflet.

I think my other concern is that I have no evidence to say that Richard Barnbrook was aware that this was being circulated during the by-election. There was a question that was asked earlier about the advice and when the advice was obtained to find out whether this was acceptable or not. We could never really get to the bottom of that because there was a disagreement as to whether Mr Williams [Head of Committee and Member Services, GLA] had actually been physically provided with a copy or not, but it appeared from the interviews that it was around autumn 2008.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Are you aware that Mr Barnbrook’s father was the by-electoral candidate?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): No, I was not.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): OK. Just for the record, Mr Barnbrook [Michael Barnbrook] senior also contested the 2006 municipal elections in Bexley as the UKIP [UK Independence Party] candidate for Blackfen and Lamorbey.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Sorry, is he actually called Barnbrook?

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Yes, he is.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I think that puts a slightly different complexion on the matter actually.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Also, can I have a second question, Chair?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Yes.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): You stated that in your view the leaflet did not, and please correct me, constitute support for a particular political party, did I hear that right?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Yes.

47

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): OK. I understand that you are a professional investigator, and I am not being patronising, and I understand that this is your job but just as if I was to appear in court I would not represent myself or if I was doing something where I need professional advice. Have you ever stood for election yourself?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): No, I have not.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): No. Did you canvass then professional opinion as to ascertain and formulate your view that a leaflet of this type did not constitute support for a particular political party, ie a representation from professional agents across the political spectrum, politicians or those who have produced leaflets that do constitute support for a political party or aspiration?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): The simple answer to that is no.

Joanne McCartney (AM): I have two distinct issues really. One is the leaflet itself and what can be done in this building with regards to it. I think there is issue about guidance that was given because we do have in our own group very strict controls as to what we can do; we have to go through a series of our heads of office and then has to be cleared as well when we send things. Certainly there is learning that we should and training that we need to recommend from this report that that should happen with regards as to this candidate and his office as well.

There is also the question as to as this went out in a by-election. I think although Ian [Clement] has asked it in a very roundabout way I do not think from any of us here that there is any doubt that this was designed to illicit party support for the BNP if it was handed out in an election time otherwise what is the point of putting it out at the same time as an election. I think there are obviously issues for the Returning Officer in the borough concerned, whether it is a straight party political leaflet or is a third endorsement and, therefore, has to be in those election expenses.

I think then there is the overriding issue which Sir David has indicated, which is control and have we investigated the control that the Member had over those. We now know about a very strong relationship linked to whoever was running that campaign. Just given that it seems to me there are more questions that need to be asked with regards to that issue.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Can I ask Fiona [Ledden] for some guidance here because actually a number of issues of fact have emerged during the course of this discussion which seem to be fairly significant actually. I think we need some advice as to the best way to proceed. Do we have any alternative if we want to explore some of those facts but to go to a hearing?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): What I was trying to see if we could remember definitely whether or not the regulations allow you to go for an adjournment because I actually think you might need to adjourn this matter so that you can have further investigation on specific facts that have arisen. We actually do think that you can do that.

48

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Well, that is what I am not sure about. In a sense that is what my question is: is there any alternative to going to a hearing in order to establish facts at this point?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): The three of us think there is but I have not got the Regulations in front of me. Would it be helpful if my colleague Helen [Sargeant] went to get the regulations and to check that issue?

Victoria Borwick (AM): Can I ask a question, Chair, while this is happening?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Yes.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Just to clarify because obviously inevitably emotions always run deeply; if someone was running a campaign for saving a local hospital or better disabled access or something of that ilk, in other words something that was possibly less contentious, and they started their campaign when there was no election but the leaflets went out, and inevitably over the months these things were distributed. I am still very concerned that, I have no doubt that my fellow elected members do get involved with campaigns of that sort - saving hospitals, extra care for disabled, step-free access, all those sorts of things that people get involved with - and obviously we put our names to those campaigns and then suddenly there may be a time of purdah which we have not planned for. Your name and my name and others’ names as potential electors would be on leaflets and again, with all the provisos everyone has made, something might appear like this and be still distributed because it is a campaign that is ongoing - and I do not what to confuse the genuine campaigns that we get involved with around London.

Joanne McCartney (AM): Yes, but if an election was called we would stop the distributing of those leaflets.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Yes, but we might not be able to. The point is the first thing to understand is we are talking about six months, aren’t we?

Joanne McCartney (AM): We would try to.

Victoria Borwick (AM): Listen, but we do not know - and we can make a presumption; I absolutely agree --

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Can I just draw this to a close because I am not quite sure where we are going with this line?

Victoria Borwick (AM): Well, I just wondered because I am concerned that we all do put our names to various campaigns.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Let us just pause for a moment because I would just like to recap on what I think the significant facts are that have emerged. One of the things that I am quite concerned about is that the name on the leaflet is the name of a candidate, albeit that the first name is different. I think that is a very significant issue and it is associated with the political party for whom that candidate was standing in the by-election. I am sorry but I do happen to think that that is possibly the most significant matter.

49

I do not know the outcome of the by-election, I do not know when it was called, I do not know the cause of it and actually, as I now think that the focus around what happened in the by-election and who the candidates were is significant we actually need an awful lot more information around that because that - I know having been a Returning Officer myself - would be a breach of the code of conduct in election law and I think we actually need some election law advice on this as well because it is the connection to the publicity code which is explicitly on the face of the code of conduct now but was not before. That was one of the significant changes that came in.

I am sure, Claire [Lefort], you can see that there is a very specific line of both fact that needs to be mined around this and legal advice about the implications particularly of the name on the leaflet. I do not know if other colleagues can see -- Sam you know more about --

Sam Younger (Independent Member): I think the name is a particular issue that we do need to hear more about.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): It is a particular issue, isn’t it?

Sam Younger (Independent Member): In terms of election law, it is the one thing in the context of an election campaign. I think it is very hard to argue that anything that is actively promoted and distributed as a leaflet - if it is actively promoted - whatever the issue, and is then tied to a political party name on the leaflet is not actually something that is construed as a piece of election material.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): It does take on a different complexion if it is distributed at all during an election period.

Sam Younger (Independent Member): Yes, the election period to me is the issue here.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): That is the key issue here, isn’t it?

Sam Younger (Independent Member): Then there is the question, which goes back to what has been investigated about to what extent it was distributed.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Also the use of the telephone during an election period takes on a different complexion as well, doesn’t it?

Sam Younger (Independent Member): I think it is very hard to argue during an election campaign that anything that is on an issue of public importance that then is linked back to a party name has not got an electoral intent.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Assuming that we have a common law right to adjourn this and commission further factual investigation and some legal exposition and stuff around the name of the candidate and so on, I think we would probably need a combination of Fiona [Ledden] and Claire [Lefort] to come back with some advice on that. Are there any other specific questions that Members would like to be addressed?

50

Diane Mark (Independent Member): I just wondered, I know it is not our concern really, to what extent you can attribute the responsibility to which person with that surname and if in fact it was distributed in Bexley by someone who was using the fact that the original person, Richard Barnbrook, had the same surname, to what extent is he culpable and to what extent --

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): We are only investigating this proposed conduct.

Diane Mark (Independent Member): Well, I know.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): We just have to stick to that.

Diane Mark (Independent Member): I know, but I think it is slightly muddied water by the whole --

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Well that is why we need another report, isn’t it? I am not going to draw any conclusions now.

Diane Mark (Independent Member): No, no, I think that aspect of it presumably has to be addressed.

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Can I just comment on that?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Can we not comment. We are going to adjourn and we are going to commission a second report. Can we just stick to the questions that we want to have addressed?

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Yes, can I comment on a question?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I am not asking for comments at the moment, I am actually asking for questions.

Murad Qureshi (AM): My question would be to what extent is this party political given that there is reference made to the established politicians and it is signed off by Richard Barnbrook from the BNP.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): I think that is the interpretation of the publicity code again that we specifically need advice on because it is the publicity code that is specifically the issue that leads you back to the code of conduct. That is right, Claire, isn’t it?

Claire Lefort (Associate, Weightmans LLP): Yes.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): From the debate that we have had with you are there any other questions that you think you would specifically like to address in coming back?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): I think there is one that I need to address in relation to the previous complaint that (several inaudible words).

51

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Yes, I think that would be very helpful. Any other questions from colleagues on the Committee? I will come back to you in a second, Ian. No? OK. In which case assuming that we can adjourn - can we?

Victoria Borwick (AM): Maybe we could just take Ian’s comment while we are waiting?

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Yes. Ian?

Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): I was heavily involved SOS Save Queen Mary’s Hospital which, along with Chase Farm, were two of the district general hospitals included under health reforms in London around downgrading and reconsideration of accident and emergency (A&E) and maternity services. We used that as a political vehicle; I was leader of the council. It was also used to hold a rally next to the hospital during the election period that was attended by the Liberal Democrats candidate and the now Mayor of London.

Previous to that we distributed some publicity which included a poster for SOS Save our Hospital, but once in purdah you do take a responsibility to ensure that distribution stops, and I know one or two may slip through the net, but you do if you are organising and you are responsible for that imprint by having your name on that imprint you are taking a responsibility to ensure that it is distributed in the right way and that distribution is subject to, I believe, the law.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Thank you very much. I am very conscious that we have been sitting in this meeting for a very long time. We need to go into private session for the final item on the agenda which is not an inconsiderable item either. So, Fiona, can we adjourn the meeting and commission the additional facts and advice that we would like before we reach a conclusion here?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): I am really clear it is an adjourned meeting so the meeting has to come back to continue with the work that it has done with the same people.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): With the same people?

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): Yes, so, I am afraid that those who are substituting would need to come back for this.

Joanne McCartney (AM): That is fair enough.

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): For technicality there are certain things that this meeting can do so therefore it has to be this meeting that sits again the same consideration.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): OK, that is helpful. So, you two [Fiona Ledden and Claire Lefort] have got very clear briefs about what you need to go away and do. Can I just say that Members may well wake up tomorrow morning with an additional burning question as a result of this discussion. I think that is OK for you to email Fiona with any additional points that you would like to put in the pot.

52

Fiona Ledden (Head of Legal & Procurement, GLA): It would be really helpful, Chair, to have some formal timescale from Members as to when you would want us to return.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): When is the next meeting?

Teresa Young (Committee Coordinator): It is 8 July.

Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair, Independent Member): Well, certainly by 8 July. If we can add it onto the agenda of 8 July then that seems like a sensible thing to do. OK. Thank you very much. So, we are adjourning that part of the meeting. Thank you very much for your attendance.

53