Forensic Audit Panel

Meeting: 
MQT on 2009-10-14
Session date: 
October 14, 2009
Reference: 
2009/2892
Question By: 
Len Duvall OBE
Organisation: 
Labour Group
Asked Of: 
The Mayor

Question

You spent £50,000 on a report by a 'forensic audit panel' led by Patience Wheatcroft. There are thirty-four mentions of the Olympics, two of which pertain to land acquisition, yet the report failed to highlight any concerns about budget deficits or the potential for them. Why did this report, which was supported by Pricewaterhouse Coopers and produced by a panel hand-picked by you to investigate 'the way money is managed controlled in the LDA', fail to identify any problems?

Answer

Answer for Forensic Audit Panel

Answer for Forensic Audit Panel

Answered By: 
The Mayor

The Forensic Audit Panel conducted a discrete piece of work which did not look at processes or budgets specifically in the Olympic Legacy Directorate. The primary focus was on projects and activities highlighted in the Evening Standard allegations.

For the LDA, the Panel's terms of reference covered specifically:

· Allegations of mismanagement and corruption in the awarding of grants · Recording and detection of conflicts of interest · Anti-fraud and due diligence processes · Monitoring whether grant recipients deliver what they promised. · Corporate governance and control · Risk assessment processes · Internal personal performance appraisal system.

Further, as you would be aware from the September 2009 KPMG report into the Olympic Land Budget, there were no triggers to the Board or Senior Management which would have suggested that the Olympic land budget should be a specific area of focus for the panel. However, the recommendations arising from the Forensic Audit Panel report confirmed the required improvements to financial controls, processes and systems which enabled the issue to be identified.