• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

The concern that I would have here is that we have very serious concerns and allegations being raised by ' whatever you might say ' the Evening Standard, as being the publication in London, yet you did not approach them for any further evidence that they have made in terms of their allegations to do this internal review.

• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

I have a number of housekeeping questions: the first one, which I think follows very neatly from Peter Hulme Cross's intervention, is, can you confirm, Mr Travers, that you are a Statutory Officer and that you have trade and professional qualifications as well which require you to act with integrity and not to be nobbled by the Board or other officers of the LDA?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

I think your spokesman, Rob Beasley, described the review as an internal review led by one of the Agency's officials, conducted by its staff; I would not describe it as an audit. You have described the role of Deloitte: it is your report, not Deloitte's.

• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

The report refers to, I quote, 'Having identified weaknesses in LDA project management and record keeping'. Does that lead you to have concern about other projects? Are you intending to carry out any reviews or audit work on other projects?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

Have you made any attempt whatsoever to contact any of them to contribute towards this review?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

Finally in terms of process, you mentioned that you have interviewed or taken evidence of the internal issues within the LDA and the people that currently work for the LDA. How many people are there that have left the LDA that were involved in these particular allegations that have therefore obviously not been interviewed or reviewed?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

Not at this stage. Are you intending to then?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

How are you going to conduct this sampling process?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So you are telling the Assembly that, simply based on the information that you held in your records, on the assumption that all of your records were complete, you were able to come to a conclusion with regard to what Brenda Stern said, that as far as you were concerned there is no case to answer? Would not the obvious thing for you to have done have been to go to the source of the allegations? Is that not an elementary thing to do? Why did you limit your investigation just to the material which you say that you hold?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

Or any of the people who are involved in the running of the organisations, obviously?