First Published: Monday 14 July 2008, 15:05
Ken Livingstone has confirmed he will not be cooperating with Boris Johnson's 'Forensic Audit Panel' which he set up in May to investigate allegations against the London Development Agency.
At the time the Labour group on the London Assembly accused Mayor Johnson of organising "a Tory witch-hunt to attack the previous
administration".
Last month the London Assembly signaled support for the panel but questioned the way in which a £50,000 contract was awarded to PricewaterhouseCoopers without it being put out to tender as Greater London Authority rules require.
Earlier today Mr Livingstone released the text of a letter to the audit panel's chair Patience Wheatcroft in which he questioned the independence of the panel and set out his reasons for refusing to participate in its work.
Livingstone also used the letter to contrast his record with that of his successor and attacked what he termed the "incredible costs being imposed on London by the new administration".
The full text of the letter reads:
Dear Ms Wheatcroft,
In response to your letter of 8 July.
You are a member of the Conservative Party. Two of the other members of your body are members of the Conservative Party - Stephen Greenhalgh and Edward Lister. A fourth, Patrick Frederick, is Chairman of Conservative Business Relations - South East England & Southern London, and therefore presumably a member of the Conservative Party as well.
How can any body of which 4 out of the 5 members are members of the Conservative Party be considered impartial and objective in any way? It is evidently not independent or objective but a Conservative Party body.
I note that when you were appointed you did not bother to state that you were a member of the Conservative Party, nor did you state it in subsequent television interviews. Your membership of the Conservative Party was revealed only in your Declaration of Interest to the GLA.
It is evident that it if it was intended to have an independent investigation into any matter it should not be headed by a member of a political party.
Any person who wished to lead, and wished to be seen to lead, an objective and impartial enquiry would clearly have refused to chair a body with such a composition.
I also note the further irregularities that have occurred during your being chair of this body. First your son Kelham Salter was appointed to a post in the GLA – even although journalists have been informed he is not paid this is not an action of the type that would be expected from the chair of an independent 'forensic' body.
You attended the Mayor's Press Conference on 3 July, held to defend Ray Lewis, sitting in the front of the audience with Tim Parker, First Deputy Mayor, and also a s supporter of the Conservative Party – not an independent chair.
There were clear irregularities in the procurement of PWC to do £50,000 of work for your committee. The contract was awarded by your committee which includes Andrew Grove, who is a partner of PWC – a clear conflict of interest and meaning that the auditors used were not independent of the Committee. No other companies appear to have been invited to tender.
In light of this it is evident that one of your recommendations should be that the amount paid annually to PWC in consultancy fees in the last four years be published and a record of how much is paid to PWC in consultancy fees each year in the next four years should also be published.
I also note that the genuinely independent inquiry into issues raised in regard to Lee Jasper headed by Rabinder Singh QC, of Matrix Chambers, was abolished by the Mayor to be replaced, as stated, by one in which 4 out of 5 members were members of the Conservative Party.
I am of course completely willing and keen to work with any genuinely independent body, such as the London Assembly or independent auditing companies, which are looking into any matters of public interest that relate to the time I was Mayor. In regard to present matters they would record, for example, that I suffered only one enforced resignation of any of my most senior officials during eight years – a record that compares very favourably to national governments of both parties, while the present administration has suffered the enforced resignation of two of its most senior officials in only two and a half months in office.
Such objective investigation would also reveal the incredible costs being imposed on London by the new administration which far exceed any issue you were asked to look into – the £30 million a year extra cost to TfL for implementing the cycling programme now that the income to cover it from the £25 a day CO2charge on gas guzzling cars will not be received, the embarking on a programme for a new Routemaster bus with conductors which all independent transport experts estimate will cost over £100 million a year, the loss of £15 million to pay for half price travel for those on income support from Venezuela with the result Londoners will have to pay for any scheme for subsidised travel, and the £400,000 legal fees paid to Porsche. As a result of this Londoners will be hit by tens of millions of pounds worth of unnecessary new charges.
To cooperate in any way with your purely Conservative Party dominated body would be to lend it a facade of independence and objectivity which it clearly does not possess.
I regard the fact that your body has no objectivity and independence as a matter of public interest therefore I am releasing this correspondence to the press.
Yours sincerely
Ken Livingstone"
2. at 22:18 on Monday 14th July 2008, Chuck Unsworth wrote:
So Livingstone wishes to choose those investigating him? Why is that? Is this a man with nothing to hide?
3. at 22:44 on Monday 14th July 2008, Ian wrote:
@Eileen: less a case of 'running scared' and more one of being sufficiently experienced to spot a partisan stitch-up.
4. at 23:08 on Monday 14th July 2008, Damian Hockney wrote:
To those who have commented on this, I really do have to ask whether they have actually read the former Mayor's letter? Or are you just Tory Party members acting as cheerleaders? Have you no view on the very serious allegations made in the former Mayor's letter? Do you believe in show trials by party members of previous incumbents? My declaration of interest is clear - I sat as an Assembly Member in a free market anti-regulation group which opposed the former Mayor far more then the Tory group and voted against his measures more often than anyone. But the former Mayor is correct to take this stance if his assertions are accurate. How can anyone justify turning an enquiry into a political show trial? Using fellow party members and spending public money to do so? A genuinely independent enquiry would be fine, but this one has got off to an appalling start - the worse from my own point of view as Patience Wheatcroft is an outstanding journalist who I admire tremendously, a great editor and has written some excellent comment pieces which demonstrate clear understanding of issues aced by London and the UK. Patience, if what the former Mayor says is true, you must acknowledge this is counter-productive and you must make the panel independent.
5. at 23:13 on Monday 14th July 2008, Martin (Editor) wrote:
For clarity Patience Wheatcroft's GLA Register of Interests entry can be read here:
www.london.gov.uk/mayor/int_reg/patience_wheatcroft.jsp
6. at 13:02 on Tuesday 15th July 2008, TawkinSenz wrote:
I completely agree with Ken's position. Why should he participate in what is a money wasting charade for the public so Bozo can go on about how bad the last administration was and take the spotlight off his own incompetence. I knew that the Bozo administration was going be a complete balls up - but even in my most cynical mind I could never have imagined how bad and how quickly as it has turned out.
No women, no minorities, just a series of 'rich friends' who are simply milking the londoners money until the press uncovers their sordid or illegal past.
I am really worried by how much damage Bozo will do in the next 5 years if he carries on in the manner he has started his administration. As Ken has pointed out, even if you believed all the LDA money was 'stolen' - it's small change compared to the money Bozo is preparing to waste on "Get popularity rich schemes". Boris is a funny man, but the joke is on London at the moment.
7. at 12:45 on Wednesday 16th July 2008, Lee Jasper wrote:
Mr. Lee Jasper
Press Release 15 July 2008
Mayor’s report finds no evidence of fraud, corruption or cronyism.
In relation to Boris Johnsons Forensic Audit Panel (FAP) report published today Lee Jasper issued the following statement.
“ I have always maintained that I was innocent of the scandalous and malicious allegations made against me by the media and in particular the Evening Standard. My professional and political integrity and reputation have been badly damaged by these false allegations. My good name has been dragged through mud and both I am and my family have endured a high tech media lynching.
I contend that this panel finding on ‘ wasted millions’ is nothing more than political posturing and constitutes another attack on the black community of London. Put simply this Tory dominated panel in talking about waste are referring to black organisations and no doubt we can look forward to more cuts in black voluntary funding by the London Development Agency,
The Evening Standard along with other media promoted this racist campaign and the London Conservatives prosecuted the case. ALL salivated at the racial dynamic and the short-term political capital that could be gained by seeking to demonise London’s Black community and a high profile black man witiihin the Livingstone administration. In doing so they simply considered the black community no more than collateral damage in conducting their dirty war to win the elections.
The damage done and the implications that flow from it will reverberate throughout this Mayoralty.
I would like to thank all those thousands of people who have offered and provided much needed support to my family and I throughout this difficult period.
This report constitutes the fifth in depth public scrutiny looking at the serious allegations and issues raised by the Evening Standard and their investigative reporter Andrew Gilligan.
These articles were largely based on a number of emails that were stolen from the Mayor’s Office.
The essence and strong implication of these articles is best summed up by the Evening Standard’s front-page headline of the 5th December 2007 ‘ Ken’s Aide and the missing millions’. What followed was a deluge of front-page articles making over 17 individual allegations.
In short The Evening Standard had alleged that the London Development Agency awarded contracts and funding to organisation's because of their personal friendships with me or because of inappropriate interference by myself. Further that these organizations having received public funds could not properly account for the monies they had received.
The FAP having conducted a forensic financial audit and has re examined all of the issues relating to the Standards false accusations of ‘fraud’ and ‘ cronyism’.
On this substantive point the FAP report is absolutely clear in its findings. After conducting their forensic financial analysis they have failed to find any evidence whatsoever of fraudulent activity on my part nor have they found any evidence that I unduly influenced LDA decisions. I have always maintained my innocence of the false charges made by the Evening Standard and prosecuted by London Conservatives and Boris Johnson.
This ‘ independent’ investigation has been far from independent. The Chair Patience Wheatcroft is a member of the Conservative Party. The other panel members, Stephen Greenhalgh, Edward Lister and Patrick Frederick are all members of the Conservative Party. He fifth member is an employee of PWC employed by Boris Johnson to work for the panel.
I contend that this panel finding on ‘ wasted millions’ constitutes a party political witchunt. The Tories are talking about black groups and they should say so.
As well as the obvious lack of impartiality I find it deeply ironic that the son of the Chair of the FAP, A Mr. Kelham Salter, has been appointed to a post in the GLA and that a member of the Panel is an employee of a firm contracted by the panel to investigate these issues at a cost of over £50,000.”
End.
8. at 16:40 on Thursday 17th July 2008, Chuck Unsworth wrote:
So Lee Jasper, in the absence of any defence at all for his transgressions now wheels out the old race card as a pathetic smokescreen. His accusation is that this is a Tory Racist Plot. What garbage! Does he not even acknowledge that some people might be a just a touch concerned at his activities? Does he not even understand basic accounting rules?
He complains that e-mails were 'stolen' - does he have evidence of this? In any event Gilligan rendered great public service by publishing them. Does Mr Jasper believe that had they not been published it would somehow have altered the fundamental truth or the content? Does he think that hiding information is what honesty, integrity and tranparency are about?
Does he seriously think that he has real credibility? This is gross posturing. It is not the action of a man who wishes to maintain his good reputation. It is the action of a loathsome manipulator with a great deal to hide - and who now is a complete has-been. Better he should hold his tongue.
Please note: Your comment will not appear until it has been approved by a moderator. By posting a comment you agree to our terms and conditions. We do not allow the posting of comments containing HTML code and or external links.
1. at 17:21 on Monday 14th July 2008, Eileen O'Conor wrote:
Livingstone is running scared. Keep after him, Boris.
EO