A Memo From Tim Parker To All GLA Staff

This was circulated by email yesterday. It indicates a wish by Parker to disassociate himself from today's Forensic Audit Report. As you will see, he is conducting his own review of "GLA Family" structures and procedures:

From: Tim Parker

To: GLA Staff

Subject: Forensic Audit Panel Report

Dear All

The Forensic Audit Panel are publishing their final report tomorrow which makes some recommendations for greater efficiencies within the GLA and LDA. We expect that it will receive widespread coverage in the local and national media.

The Forensic Audit Panel was set up to meet Boris' manifesto commitment to launch an immediate review of City Hall finances and report within the first 100 days of the Mayoralty.

The report makes a number of recommendations of how we can cut duplication across the GLA group and improve performance to deliver better value for taxpayers. In time, we may decide to implement some of these recommendations; others may not be appropriate to act on.

The review is independent and entirely separate from the process I am undertaking with Directors and Heads of Department to look at how we work and structure the GLA.

I want to assure you that we intend to study the report closely and discuss it in some detail before taking action on the recommendations. You will be able to read the full report once it is published on our website.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to clearly communicate our position on the report to you directly, before you heard about it in the news.

Many thanks

Tim

Tim Parker

First Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive GLA Group

Memo ends.

Comments

[Adam]

This is the problem with giving so much kudos to what is effectively just a policy review process. After banging on about it for so long, it isn't enough for them to just to say "oh well this won't necessarily effect what we do." It's too late. You can't just march your troops up the hill and then march them quietly down the other side. Tory members will want to see the suggestions in it implemented, and the press will quite rightly assume that most of them will be. Otherwise, why spend £50,000 of public money on it?

[Zoonie]

One outcome could be that the recommendations are taken on slowly over a longish period. I tend to agree with Livingstone, in that devolution of the funds to local boroughs would be a perfect excuse by local boroughs to make savings in existing provisions. Not even necessarily Conservative ones. If you're strapped for cash and your existing services are clamouring, then the Mayor's office gives you a nice subsidy, what are you going to do?

Not that I'm suggesting Ken's squeaky clean by any manner of means, but at the same time, funding priorities analysed by that particularly Conservative biased panel, funnily enough, might not quite match those of a funding body led by a formerly left wing Labour Party member. So I wouldn't wholesale buy the criticism.

[Tom]

Quite - 'Livingstone Found Not To Be Implementing Conservative Policies' comes roughly in the same degree of surprising news as the Pope's religion or bears' defecatory habits. Not worth 50k in my book - the new administration could already have saved 60k by not having the audit and telling their Assemblymen to cut down on taxis.

I think they should surcharge Gilligan.