Search questions

• Reference: 2020/3809
• Question by: Caroline Pidgeon
• Meeting date: 19 November 2020

The evidence you provided in Question 2020/0023 shows the Crossrail Head of Audit and TfL’s Internal Audit team’s intention to water down IA 17780’s findings in order it would appear to “placate” Tram Operations Limited. Do you believe that this is acceptable behaviour from TfL executives and auditors entrusted to scrutinise the Fatigue Management System of a contractor that had been recently involved in a catastrophic accident caused by the driver that was highly likely to have fallen asleep at the controls?

• Reference: 2020/4109
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 November 2020

In documents released in Question 2019/17340, a 16 June 2017 email from TfL's Director of London Rail and Sponsored Services to TfL’s (then) MD for Surface Transport provides evidential proof of former TFL Board Member & Safety Panel Chair Michael Liebreich’s concern that TfL executives whose operations were being investigated by the RAIB and Police were provided with access to the IA 17780 audit team’s earliest fieldwork conclusions which, as you know, were watered down before they were published in secret on 15 September 2017. Do you accept that such access raises risks around the integrity and independence of the...

• Reference: 2020/3653
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 15 October 2020

Taking into account your response to Question 2020/0082, other than for IA 17780, since 2012 has the Audit & Assurance Committee published a “Consultancy” Conclusion for any other Internal Audit of any aspect of an outside contractor’s safety system? Please provide me with the reference numbers, titles, and dates of these internal audits where “Consultancy” is listed as the conclusion of the internal audit investigation.

• Reference: 2020/1513
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 21 May 2020

In both your response to Question 2019/8958 (which was used to justify your responses to Question 2019/19759) and Question 2020/0082 you clearly state that “The post meeting note in the minutes of the 26 June 2017 Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources Panel was drafted prior to the audit report (IA 17 780) being issued.” A review of documents produced by TfL in November 2018 (FOI 1749-1819 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/decision_to_insert_a_post_meetin…) clearly shows that the final draft of the post meeting note in the minutes of the 26 June 2017 SSHR Meeting was sent by TfL’s General Counsel on 19 September 2017, 5 days...

• Reference: 2020/0023
• Question by: Caroline Pidgeon
• Meeting date: 16 January 2020

The drafts of IA 17780 released in Question 2019/12001 included the conclusion “Requires Improvement” as does also the post-meeting note in the 26 June 2017 Minutes of the Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources Committee. Which TfL Executive was responsible for removing that information for the Audit’s title page? Please provide any decision memo, emails or notes relating specifically to that decision.

• Reference: 2020/0082
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 16 January 2020

In your response to Question 2019/19759, you state that IA 17780 was classified as “Consultancy” and “No Conclusion” because that was the ‘correct classification’. If (a) a post-meeting note contained in the 26 June 2017 Minutes of the Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources Committee (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/sshrp-20170928-item03-minutes.pdf) clearly identifies the audit conclusion as “Requires Improvement” and (b) the first drafts of IA 17780 released in Question 2019/12001 clearly display “Audit Conclusion: Requires Improvement” on the Title Pages and (c) if, as you say “the evidence and recommendations were not changed”, how can “Consultancy/No Conclusion” possibly serve as the Audit and Assurance Committee’s...