Minutes

Minutes of the Standards Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held (concurrently with the GLA Standards Committee) on 4 March 2009 at City Hall, The Queens Walk, London SE1 2AA.

Present

Members (MPA)

• Stephanie Caplan (Chair)
• Christopher Boothman
• Anne Dickens (Vice Chair)
• Kirsten Hearn
• Deborah Regal
• Richard Tracey

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Simon Vile (Head of Corporate Secretariat/Monitoring Officer)
• Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

GLA Standards Committee Members:

• Claer Lloyd-Jones (Chair)
• Seye Aina
• Tony Arbour
• John Biggs (substitute)
• Sir David Durie
• Diane Mark
• Steve O’Connell (substitute)
• Caroline Pidgeon
• Murad Qureshi
• Sam Younger

GLA Officers

• Fiona Ledden (GLA Monitoring Officer)
• Helen Sergeant (GLA legal adviser)
• Mark Roberts (Head of GLA Secretariat)
• Teresa Young (Committee Officer)

Also present: Jonathan Goolden (Investigating Officer)

6. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Toby Harris.

7. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

Declarations of interest were made by Richard Tracey as a member of the GLA and Anne Dickens whose constituency MP was referred to in agenda item 4.

8. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

The Committee considered the minutes of the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting held on 7 January 2009.

Resolved – That the minutes of the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting held on 7 January 2009 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting the MPA Standards Committee met concurrently with the GLA Standards Committee to consider agenda item 4.

9. Consideration of investigation report

(Agenda item 4)

For the purposes of continuity it was proposed and seconded that Claer Lloyd-Jones should Chair the meeting during consideration of this item.

Following a concurrently held meeting between the MPA and GLA Assessment Sub-Committees, the Standards Committee were now asked to considered the recommendations of an independent investigator, Jonathan Goolden. The report and recommendations related to complaints from Assembly member Len Duvall against Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and Chair of the MPA.

The Chair welcomed Jonathan Goolden to the meeting and he was invited to summarise the findings and recommendations of his investigation report and to answer members’ questions.

In presenting the investigation report, Mr Goolden added that Len Duvall and Mr Hocking (solicitor on behalf of Mr Johnson) had both been sent a draft of the report and made comments, which had been circulated as part of the agenda for the meeting. He added that he had attempted to reflect these comments in the report.

Members raised several point relating to report including;

• Clarification of the role of Mr Johnson when he made the telephone calls to Mr Green and whether he did so in his capacity as a friend or as Chair of the MP.
• Was there an appreciation by Mr Johnson that in making the telephones calls he was in jeopardy of being called as a witness in any possible criminal case and therefore could be viewed as prima facie potentially bringing the Authority into disrepute.
• Members sought details on the issues of confidentially.
• Members sough clarification relating to other telephone conversations that had taken place relating to this matter.

Mr Goolden stated that he felt that Mr Johnson made the telephone calls for two reasons; one as an ex-friend and colleague. The second reason was that Mr Jonhson was seeking to speak to Mr Green to establish in his mind some more information about the police operation and what were the issues. Mr Goolden stated that he was not prioritising those reasons and that Me Johnson was doing so in his role of Chairman of the MPA. He added that the reason he was doing it was to satisfy himself that his views that he had expressed to Sir Paul Stephenson were correct.

In relation to bringing the Authority into disrepute, Mr Goolden stated that there was not an exact test and that all the factors available at the time needed to be taken into account. Mr Goolden referred to the Standard Board for England and Wales guidance and stated that he took the view that disrepute was related to whether there had been damage to the carrying out of the functions of the Authority. He added that he also looked at whether there was likely to be damage to the police operation at the time that events took place and he noted that Sir Paul Stephenson had stated that they had not. If the police did decide to prosecute and in the future Mr Johnson was called as a witness, then there may be a case for consideration of disrepute, but he had to look at this case and apply the test for himself on the basis of what had happened and what he was investigating.

In response to issues of confidentially, Mr Goolden referred to the statements made by Sir Paul Stephenson in which Sir Paul indicated that the information given was not ‘sensitive’ Mr Goolden also drew attention to the Code of Conduct and felt that Mr Johnson had not disclosed information received from Sir Paul Stephenson, but reported his response to it.

Mr Goolden noted members’ comments about additional telephone calls and stated that he felt that he could not comment as they did not form part of his terms of reference and were not part of this complaint.

Members, in noting the recommendations of the investigation report, felt that in order for the Mayor and Chair of the Police Authority to avoid a similar incident occurring there should be a discussion with the Mayor and the mayor’s Office to ensure that appropriate training on the Code of Conduct is made available. This additional recommendation having been proposed, was seconded and agreed.

Resolved – That

1. the investigation report and schedule of evidence appended to the report of the Monitoring Officer be noted:
2. having regard to the relevant guidance of the Standards Board for England and professional advice from MPA staff, and having assessed the investigation report, the recommendation of the investigator be accepted as set outline the attached Decision Notice; and
3. that an additional recommendation be agreed as follows:
4. That there be a discussion with the Mayor and the Mayor’s Office to ensure that appropriate training on the Code of Conduct is made available.

The meeting closed at 7.00 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback