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

Can you confirm then that the report that was issued is substantially, other than maybe a few housekeeping issues that might have emerged, the one that was presented to the Board on the Friday morning? I believe that is the case.

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

But none of the organisations which have recieved grants?

• 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

I was going to ask you what the role was of Deloitte, the internal auditors?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

I would like to follow up that point and I do understand we are only looking at the process here today; we are not looking at the substance. The Assembly called for this to be put in the hands of an independent auditor in the [form of the] District Auditor. The Mayor and his advisers in response have been saying, 'Oh no, they are all involved, don't you worry' but the crucial thing you have said to us this morning is, 'The conclusions are mine alone'. That is the crucial point. Therefore, whilst you may well have had involvement and...

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

Without my wanting to imply too much by this, Deloitte's role as internal auditors to date has been reporting to you?

• 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 Neill
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So, two thirds of the six you concentrated on require further work. You make the point in your report, 'Further work is required in respect of four organisations including referral to police and no conclusions are reached in respect of those matters' for the reasons you have sensibly set out?

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

Very well, Mr Lewis. Why did you then put out a press release which is put in these terms, in the light of what Mr Travers has just told us and in the light of the report which I take it you had read: 'Allegations of LDA corruption false'? Referring to the allegations in the first paragraph it says, 'The review finds these to be unfounded'? It does not do anything of the kind, does it?

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

Mr Travers, you have already made it clear, and I think it follows, that you did not speak to people who are not employees of the LDA. Does that mean you did not speak to Mr Jasper?