Ken Livingstone’s campaign instructed public servants to write articles in support of his last reelection as Mayor of London in a breach of rules forbidding political abuse of taxpayers’ cash.

Documents passed to The Times prove that staff paid for by public money were told to carry out campaign work during office hours. One e-mail to the mayor’s former senior adviser on Asian affairs, Atma Singh, sent at 9.30am, explicitly asks that he write two articles in support of Mr Livingstone by noon that day.

The evidence directly contradicts the Mayor of London’s claim last week that senior public officials could not and did not carry out such work during the 2004 campaign. He said officials could engage in political activity “as long as they obey the law, which is that they can’t publicly campaign, which is they can’t make a speech for me or write an article for me”.

Asked if an investigation would find that no one had used office time to prepare articles in pursuit of his campaign, he replied: “Absolutely right.”

Yet on May 27, 2004, Mr Singh received an e-mail from the campaign office of the Ken4London based in the headquarters of the London Labour Party. It said: “We are still waiting for your article for the Asian Post . . . and the East Muslim News (400-500 words on Why should Muslims vote for Ken Livinsgtone? – this is urgent, publication date June 1st). Both required 12 noon today.”

Mr Singh also told The Times that he spent up to 90 per cent of his days during the campaign working for Mr Livingstone’s reelection, in contravention of electoral rules.

The e-mail, along with others, is being handed over to the Electoral Commission today as part of a formal complaint against Mr Livingstone.

Because of his senior position within Mr Livingstone’s regime, Mr Singh was classed as a “politically restricted member of staff”. According to Greater London Authority rules from 2003, which applied at the time, such staff members were forbidden from writing politically motivated articles.

According to page 12 of the rules, politically restricted staff must not “publish any written or artistic work of which he/she is the author (or one of the authors), or any written work or collection of artistic works in relation to which he/she has acted in an editorial capacity, if the work appears to be intended to affect public support for a political party”.

The rules also emphasise that all staff must not write politically motivated articles in work time and that any senior staff authorising or permitting someone to write such an article are in breach of the rules, and could be disciplined.

“All staff must avoid any action or behaviour which is not politically neutral when on work-related time or using GLA-funded resources and facilities,” the rules state. “In addition, politically restricted staff cannot carry out restricted activities in their private time.”

However, when asked what proportion of his time Mr Singh spent on his official duties he told The Times: “I’d say about 10 per cent on the job and 90 per cent on the election campaign. So the election was the main thing for the mayor’s advisers.”

He added: “Morning meetings for the campaign were held in Ken’s office. One was discussing things that were going on at the Greater London Authority and the other, the election. We would discuss polling, tactics and when Steve Norris [then the Conservative candidate] was gaining in the polls how to ensure that all the second preference votes, the antiTory votes, would go to Ken.”

Ken Livingstone’s spokeswoman for the Greater London Authority denied that he had been misleading in claiming that no senior City Hall staff had written articles for him during the campaign. She said that there had been a “misunderstanding” of the rules.

“Politically restricted staff are permitted to write articles on any topic in their own private time which are then published by Ken Livingstone but they are not allowed to publish any written or artistic work of which he is the author (or one of the authors) and which it appears to be intended to affect public support for a political party. Nor is the politically restricted staff member allowed to canvass or publicly call for support for a particular person,” she said.

Boris Johnson, the Tories’ mayoral candidate, called for an independent investigation. “This shows a blatant disregard for the rules which apply to staff in City Hall by Ken’s 2004 campaign – rules which he promised would not be broken,” he said.

Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat challenger, said: “His claim that his staff – funded by the taxpayer – did not breach the rules just do not wash. There should be a full and independent investigation into whether there has been a breach of the rules.”


Under investigation

— The Electoral Commission will today be asked to investigate claims that City Hall staff funded by the taxpayer wrongly undertook campaign work in 2004

— If the watchdog orders a full investigation it will join a lengthening queue of probes into the Mayor of London and his adminstration

— The Metropolitan Police confirmed that they were investigating allegations over missing funds given by the London Development Agency to Brixton Base

— MPs have also submitted a complaint to the Audit Commission over allegations that the LDA misused public funds and one Labour MP, Kate Hoey, has written to Gordon Brown expressing her concerns over Mr Livingstone

—The Mayor of London was last week forced to give his full backing to Lee Jasper, his senior aide following the resignation of Mr Jasper's deputy after being caught lying about a free foreign holiday

Source: Francis Elliott

Times Recommends

• No room for Baldrick in overstretched army
• Freecycle booms as middle class feels squeeze
• Marksman gets £5,000 over ‘serial killer’ quip