Appendix 1 GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY CONFIDENTIAL Ref.: SBE 144448/06 PKL/78331/3 REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 59 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 BY PETER KEITH-LUCAS, ACTING AS INVESTIGATING OFFICER, INTO AN ALLEGATION CONCERNING MR. KEN LIVINGSTONE, THE MAYOR OF LONDON 78331/3/PKL 1 Report of Local Investigation Greater London Authority CONTENTS Executive Summary Page 3 Details of the allegation Page 3 The relevant sections of the authority’s code of conduct Page 7 The evidence obtained Page 7 Conclusions Page 14 Findings Page 21 78331/3/PKL 2 Report of Local Investigation Greater London Authority Report of investigation 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This report deals with an allegation by Mr. Barrie Segal against Mr. Ken Livingstone. 1.2 Allegation: That Ken Livingstone – (a) damaged the reputation of his office, (b) damaged the reputation of his authority, (c) unlawfully discriminated against someone, (d) used his position improperly, to his own or someone else’s advantage or disadvantage, and (e) did something to prevent those who work for the authority from being unbiased, in comments which he made on Tuesday 21st March 2006 criticising two businessmen, Mr. David Reuben and Mr. Simon Reuben, who were involved in the development of facilities which were proposed to be used in connection with the 2001 Olympic Games in London, and specifically suggesting that they “go back (to their own country) and see if they can do better under the Ayatollah.” 1.3 Finding: That Ken Livingstone did not fail to observe the Code of Conduct of the Greater London Authority in respect of the matters set out in this report. 2 Details of the allegation 2.1 Mr. Barrie Segal e-mailed the Standards Board for England on 21st March 2006 as follows: “Dear Sirs, I wish to complain about the remarks made by Ken Livingstone as reported by the BBC as shown at the URL shown below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/I/hi/england/london/4830878.stm The article reads: “Mayor in fresh Jewish controversy London’s Mayor has become embroiled in a new row after criticising two Jewish businessmen involved in building a key facility for the 2012 Olympics. Ken Livingstone attacked David and Simon Reuben for their role in an ongoing dispute about Stratford City development in east London. He suggested that the brothers “go back (to their own country) and see if they can do better under the Ayatollah.” The Mayor’s office said there was nothing further to add. 78331/3/PKL 3 Report of Local Investigation Greater London Authority The Mayor is understood to think that the consortium behind the project, of which the Reuben brothers hold a 50% stake, is not progressing quickly enough and could be in danger.” I find these remarks completely unacceptable and just another occasion on which the Mayor has brought his office into disrepute. Yours faithfully, B D Segal” 2.2 The article referred to by Mr. Barrie Segal appeared on the BBC News website and read as follows: “Mayor in fresh Jewish controversy London’s Mayor has become embroiled in a new row after criticising two Jewish businessmen involved in building a key facility for the 2012 Olympics. Ken Livingstone attacked David and Simon Reuben for their role in an ongoing dispute about Stratford City development in east London. He suggested that the brothers “go back (to their own country) and see if they can do better under the Ayatollah. The Mayor made the comments during a speech at City Hall. “Major problem” The Mayor’s office said there was nothing further to add. The Mayor is understood to think that consortium behind the project, of which the Reuben brothers hold a 50% stake, is not progressing quickly enough and could be in danger. Conservative members of the London Assembly said the brothers were not Iranian, but had been born in India of Iraqi Jewish parents. Brian Coleman, Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, said “This is the latest anti-semitic remark by Livingstone, he clearly has a major problem with the Jewish business community.” The brothers released a statement saying the Mayor’s comments were “totally inaccurate.” “The Reuben brothers remain completely committed to the Stratford City project in its entirety as well as the Olympic opportunity”, the statement added. “They are working extremely hard to deliver the development for the long-term benefit of London and Londoners. That is what they shall continue to do. Mr. Livingstone’s comments on the Reuben brothers’ role in the Paddington and White City developments are also unsubstantiated. The row follows the Mayor’s four-week suspension for comparing Evening Standard journalist Oliver Finegold to a concentration camp guard. 78331/3/PKL 4 Report of Local Investigation Greater London Authority Mr. Livingstone, however, won a last-minute attempt to remain London’s Mayor pending an appeal against the verdict, which was handed down by the Adjudication Panel for England.” 2.3 Later on 22nd March 2006, Mr. Barrie Segal emailed to the Standards Board for England as follows: “Dear Sirs I refer to the complaint that I sent earlier today. For the sake of good order I would mention that I believe that Mr. Livingstone’s conduct in this matter warrants complaints under the following heads: 1. damaging the reputation of his office 2. damaging the reputation of his authority 3. unlawfully discriminating against someone 4. using their position improperly, to their own or someone else’s advantage or disadvantage 5. doing something to prevent those who work for the authority from being unbiased. I would ask you to consider the e-mail as separate complaints under each of these headings. Please acknowledge receipt by e-mail. Yours faithfully B D Segal” 2.4 On 30th March 2006 the Referrals Unit of the Standards Board for England decided to refer the complaint to an Ethical Standards Officer. On 4th April 2006 Jennifer Rogers, Ethical Standards Officer, referred the complaint to Mr. Howard Carter, the Monitoring Officer of the Greater London Authority for investigation under Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 2000. 2.5 On 20th April 2006, Mr. Howard Carter appointed me as investigating officer in respect of the complaint. 2.6 In view of the very general nature of the complaint, I wrote to the complainant to seek clarification of his complaint. He emailed me on 18th May 2006 as follows: As to the manner in which Ken Livingstone’s conduct brought his office or authority into disrepute: “1. The initial remarks about the Reuben brothers going back to Iran and dealing with the Ayatollahs went beyond a reasoned criticism of the individuals concerned. By any stretch of the imagination this phraseology is both vituperative and vindictive. 78331/3/PKL 5 Report of Local Investigation Greater London Authority 2. I believe the remarks were racist. The fact that the Mayor said that he did not believe that the brothers were Jewish but thought that they were Moslem – as though it was acceptable to insult Muslims too – was not the sort of response that any responsible person would make. 3. Rather than apologise, Mr. Livingstone has continued to vilify the brothers. Just last week he publicly, in front of an audience of about 500 people, continued to insult the brothers and at one stage suggested that they were in some way connected to eight murders which had taken place in Russia. 4. The language used by Mr. Livingstone is totally unacceptable. The job of Mayor is to represent Londoners and their interests. The language he used and in particular the personal invective he used reduces public debate to the gutter. 5. Demonstrates a personal antipathy against the brothers which should not be put in to the public debate public arena (sic) as otherwise brings the public debate to the level of a drunken brawl. 6. For this reason I consider that the Mayor’s remarks were and are unacceptable and therefore brought his office and alternatively his authority into disrepute.” As to the nature of the alleged unlawful discrimination: “I confirm this is a reference to the Race Relations Act 1976.” As to the manner in which the Mayor is alleged to have treated the Reuben brothers less favourably than other persons by reason of their race: “I consider that the Mayor has treated the brothers less favourably than he has treated other people. For example, although Capita which runs the congestion charge system initially required a bale out of £31 million and since that time have been fined several million pounds by Transport for London, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Livingstone has never criticised Mr. Rod Aldridge, the chief executive of the company at the time, in this fashion.” As to what advantage or disadvantage it is alleged that Ken Livingstone has conferred: “Mr. Livingstone has by his actions diminished the credibility of the brothers as individual businessmen. Once again no such type of personal criticism has been levelled at Mr. Aldridge (that sort of personal criticism should not be used against anyone, neither Mr. Aldridge nor the brothers). What is interesting is that Capita has demonstrably cost the London ratepayer millions of money. Quite rightly, Mr. Livingstone has not insulted Mr. Rod Aldridge yet he has singled out the brothers for this personal abuse. I believe that this behaviour is totally unacceptable.” As to the manner in which the conferring of such advantage or disadvantage was improper: “The conferring of any such advantage must surely by its very nature be conferred improperly. In dealing with all third parties, Mr. Livingstone must act fairly.