Search questions

• Reference: 2008/0006
• Question by: Sally Hamwee
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

A number of times the phrase is used that you found 'no evidence'. It is difficult to ask you to prove a negative but I think it would be helpful to have assurances about the thoroughness of the review. Could you tell me about what interviews and discussions there were with staff, with representatives from the projects and so on?

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

That is fine. I am happy with that. I take your word but it does seem as though what you have done is a sort of desk-based exercise, very internally focused. Here are the people who awarded the contracts doing the investigation. There seems to be a certain amount of independence lacking, if I could put it that way.

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

Can you give us a rough idea of the quantity of written material and email; the documents and the records that have been reviewed? Have you looked at all the LDA's paper records as well as the electronic records?

• 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: 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

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

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

Then I would like to conclude by pushing you to go further and to be public with people like us and, indeed, the 70,000 contributors so that in things that, as it were, I get, I can see you living out what you say your policy is, which is in the question, that you are progressively improving over time. Currently, I do not see that, and I think you should.

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

Thank you, and I welcome you and thank you for coming. This is an important topic if not one that the media particularly get very excited about. This question is all about socially responsible, ethical investment, and you will be aware that there is quite a debate as to whether there is a choice to be made between returns and ethics. My own view and what is behind this question is that if one is positively engaging - which is, I think, what your strategy is - then the two agendas come together, because the long term sustainable return is...

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

So if you have an approach or a strategy around engagement on these sorts of issues, is that in the public domain? Again, I could not find if you are engaging, which is the right strategy, what you are actually engaging on. And if you do not, will you promise to put that in the public domain?

• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 17 January 2007

I think that would be very helpful, and I think certainly we would like it. I suspect the pensioners and prospective pensioners, would also like it, because then they can at least get into a dialogue with you. The fourth thing that the Fair Pensions organisation asks for is to incorporate your approach to responsible investment into your investment mandates and into your fund manager selection and monitoring. Do I take it from what you said that you do do that?