Appendix 2

London Assembly (Plenary) – 5 March 2008

Transcript of Question and Answer Session with Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA) and John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA)

Sally Hamwee (Chair): We now move to the main item on today’s agenda: the question and answer session regarding the funding of organisations and GLA Group corporate governance, the Corporate Governance Review.

Can I start by asking Simon Fletcher, as Chief of the Mayor’s Staff, to what extent you are responsible in your role as Chief of Staff for regulating and supervising the conduct of the Mayoral Advisers?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I would say my responsibility is to ensure that the Mayor’s advisers and directors are providing the Mayor with the best possible advice and do so in a timely fashion. That is a role of regulation, if you want to call it that, because it involves making sure that the most important issues facing the city are properly discussed and that the appropriate action is taken to deliver the Mayor’s priorities. The Mayor’s directors are people who directly report to me.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): The question was about conduct but Mike Tuffrey has already caught my eye, so he might pursue that.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Simon, last time you were before us, a couple of years ago now, you painted a picture-

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): A bit more recently than that.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): No, sorry, I mean in terms of answering questions regarding how the Mayor’s Office functions.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): More like 2002, I think.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Time flies when you are having fun. You painted a picture of a very well oiled machine. You said that every morning, 9 am, you meet the senior advisers and Joy Johnson [Director of Media and Marketing, GLA], you chair it, and then once a week the Mayor and his senior advisers meet, Monday morning, 10 am, and that the Mayoral Advisers know when they are getting it right and when they are getting it wrong. At that point in time we had this picture of a well-oiled, well- functioning, well-coordinated machine with you at the centre, making sure everything went according to plan.

Can you tell us what has gone wrong, because the last few months have revealed a picture where that does not seem to be happening? Could you tell us how you now coordinate the work with the Mayor’s Office, how you oversee the work of the Mayor’s advisers and the extent to which you know what is going on?

1

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I think the issue, if one judges the picture as it really is, is that far from things being wrong things are going extremely well from the point of view of London, and the mayoralty plays an extremely important role in that. For example, if one takes the areas of responsibility relating to Lee Jasper [former Director, Equalities and Policing, GLA], which are crime, policing and equalities, we have record numbers of police in London.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Just so that you are clear, what I am trying to focus on is the functioning of the Mayor’s Office and we need to understand how it works.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): The functioning of the Mayor’s Office is that we have record numbers of police in London: a beat police team in every neighbourhood; we have falling crime, down about 6% in the last year; we have murders down; we have rape down; if you are taking the case of equalities we have racist attacks down by 50%; the GLA is ranked second by Stonewall [organisation working for equality and justice for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals] as the best employer for lesbian and gay staff.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I understand all of that and much of that I praise. I just ask you to help us by answering our questions straight.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am answering your questions straight; you said, ‘What’s gone wrong?’

Mike Tuffrey (AM): No, with the internal functioning of the Mayor’s Office.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): You start from a perspective of you think something is going wrong. My perspective is London is easily the greatest city on earth and the mayoralty is playing a central role in helping to make that a better city every day. If you take, for example, that we have turned around the bus service-

Mike Tuffrey (AM): No, please, Simon.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): You obviously do not want to hear the good news, Mike.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): No, your case will be made, frankly, if you answer the specific questions that we are asking and I am specifically talking about the internal functioning of the Mayor’s Office, so would you please do us and Londoners a favour and address those questions. I want to understand whether you still do have a daily meeting with the advisers.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I would say that we meet most of the normal days, yes.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): What, you meet at 9 o’clock every morning to coordinate matters and once a week the Mayor and you and all of the advisers have a meeting together?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): The key thing is we have a weekly meeting with the Mayor on a Monday, yes.

2

Mike Tuffrey (AM): We have a picture, then, that you are presenting to us where what goes on in the Mayor’s Office and with the advisers is something that is well coordinated; the Mayor knows what is going on and you know what is going on.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not think you could have reduced the number of cars driving into London by 70,000 cars if things were not well coordinated; I do not think you could turn around the bus service if things were not coordinated; I do not think you could cut crime and deliver more police if things were not coordinated. It seems to me you want to look at the smallest possible part of the picture and not the real picture of a city that is improving.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You take full accountability for all the things that have been revealed through this, and this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the affairs in relation to the LDA? You take full responsibility for that? When Manny Lewis says that Lee Jasper’s intervention was not appropriate, you think that was appropriate and you knew about the lack of declarations that were made in relationship to LDA matters, in relation to allegations of overseas trips? You presumably knew all of that because Lee Jasper would have cleared all that with you in your weekly meetings?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not know; which one of those do you want to me answer?

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Well if I could just -

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): You have put several words into my mouth, which I have not had the opportunity to respond to.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I was saying things were not going so well and you asked me to justify it.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Let us take overseas trips; it is necessary to promote London abroad.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Is that what Lee Jasper was doing in relation to the allegations the BBC made on Monday?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): What allegations did the BBC make? They said that he went to Jamaica and New York. I am not entirely clear what the actual allegation is. It is not a criticism of Tim’s [Donovan, BBC] report; I just do not know what the actual allegation is.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): The allegations were that there were trips going on, funded either by private companies or unknown sources, on which the Mayor was blocking answers to the questions. You presumably knew exactly how that was done.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I do, Mike, because I looked into it, so can I deal with that?

Mike Tuffrey (AM): If you took responsibility for Lee Jasper’s overseas travel, then Simon -

3

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, Simon did, but I looked into the matter afterwards so I can answer your question.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I can answer part of it as well if you want.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): If Simon would like to delegate the oversight of Lee Jasper’s foreign travel to you then you are the proper person to answer the question.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Two things: one is you did not really give me notice that you were going to ask me about it but I have looked into it as a result of Tim Donovan’s report and it is quite correct: I did sign off the report; the itinerary was agreed by the International Team, who are the correct officers to deal with such matters. As I understand it, Lee was speaking at the Chicago Push event, which is an event organised to deal with matters relating to equalities and the participation of the black community in business. Then he was speaking in Kingston, which is a city that we have a friendship agreement with. We have two kinds of agreement; one is a partnership arrangement -

Mike Tuffrey (AM): So you knew all about this in advance and approved it?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I signed off the international trip after the International Team, who took responsibility for it, agreed it, and as far as I can see some very good things we were doing.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): If it emerges there was any impropriety and that is what the BBC is certainly alleging, then you will take responsibility for that?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not know. Was impropriety alleged? Are you alleging impropriety?

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am saying the BBC -

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Because nobody has alleged it to me.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): What the BBC reported was that there were trips taken with improper funding and no declaration of funding of those trips.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am not clear that is what was alleged.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): That was my reading of it, but you are taking responsibility for it, so that is fine.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am saying to you, I signed off the foreign travel approval form after it was gone over by the International Team, who arranged the trip. They are the appropriate officers to deal with international affairs and it seems to me that the whole thing was done totally by the book.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am sure other Members will want to come in so can I just - 4

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): John [Ross] do you want to add to this because you did -

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): We checked the forms, and the trip was approved.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You are standing by everything that Lee Jasper has done?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): That is a good example of somebody putting words in my mouth.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You can tell me that you are not standing by him. Tell me where you disagree. Tell me where you have disciplined him. You are his line manager; tell me how you exercised proper accountability. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways: you cannot say absolutely, ‘I am Chief of Staff, I am running a well-oiled machine,’ and then say, ‘Ah, but no, on that issue I don’t agree with them’.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, it is simply that if we want to conduct things, it should not be correct that Members of the Assembly put words in the mouths of people who come before them. I think that is just the wrong way of doing things.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): He is giving you the opportunity to explain your position as you see it.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): The Mayor announced last night that he intends to re-appoint Lee Jasper (if he is re-elected). Well, he did not add that parenthesis but if he is re-elected he is saying he will re- appoint. Would that be your advice to him? Do you think Lee Jasper should be re-appointed?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Matters of appointment are a matter for the Mayor.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): So you are not recommending that to him, then?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Again, what we have here is somebody putting words in my mouth and it is not the correct way -

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You are here to say, ‘Oh no, that is not the truth.’

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I hope you might withdraw from that particular method, because it does not seem to be very effective.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Well, can I ask you another question. The Mayor would trust Lee Jasper with his life. Would you trust Lee Jasper with your life?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not think my life is threatened, well it may be by this Assembly.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I will take that as a no.

5

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I will take that to be a purely hypothetical question.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am putting words in your mouth but I will conclude that you are not recommending Lee Jasper’s re-appointment and you are not trusting Lee Jasper with your life unless you say you are.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not think it is a function of my responsibilities as Mayor’s Chief of Staff to decide whether or not I might put my life in the hands of members of staff. It is outside of my remit, I am afraid.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I am sure there are health and safety regulations.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Yes, I would like to see what the insurance arrangements are, before I do.

Bob Blackman (AM): After we look at that, can we just be clear what disclosures that you require, as line manager, of business dealings and other arrangements with organisations?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): The comment I have is the comment the Authority has: that people are governed by rules of the Authority and I do not even make those rules but people have to abide by them.

Bob Blackman (AM): Let us be clear. Mayoral Advisers have a wide-ranging job. We accept that. Their job is to deliver things. What disclosures do you expect the Mayoral Advisers to make to you, as their line manager, in respect of outside interests?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I expect them to abide by the rules of the GLA.

Bob Blackman (AM): In that relationship, what disclosures did Lee Jasper make to you about his outside arrangements?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Lee’s disclosures are made according to the GLA rules. It is not a question of this person or that person. It is a question of what he declares through the agreed arrangements that were discussed, I think, by you and by the Mayor over many years. Maybe I am slightly missing your point.

Bob Blackman (AM): Yes, you are because quite clearly there are concerns that are raised in these papers, and we can go through them in detail, about what Lee Jasper was involved in, in terms of his role in different organisations, such as patron of organisations and involved in business arrangements with other organisations. I want to be clear what was imparted to you as his line manager.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I think that Lee was following the rules of the GLA. He was declaring things as required.

Bob Blackman (AM): So anything that was declared across the board by Lee Jasper is the sole knowledge you had of his outside involvement?

6

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, those things are not declared in a public sense.

Bob Blackman (AM): No, but I want to be clear about the relationship that there was between you, as the line manager, and Lee Jasper for his outside interests.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): These are senior staff; these are directors. Their job is to carry out their responsibilities across a range of things and to make sure that they are carrying out their functions properly. It is not my job to go through every single dot and comma of everything. It is my expectation that, if a problem arises, they come and talk to me about it. If you take, for example, the situation that was raised by Mike [Tuffrey] about Manny Lewis [Chief Executive, LDA] saying whether something was appropriate or not, my view is simple: If somebody of that seniority came to me and said there was a problem about the way Lee was performing in relation to the LDA then of course I would take the matter up and I would look into it. If something was wrong, I would deal with it, but it is not possible to for me to second guess everything. I expect people at a director level to take responsibility for things and handle things correctly.

Bob Blackman (AM): What was your knowledge of Lee Jasper’s involvement in Brixton Base?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not even know if I am allowed to comment on something that is being investigated by the police. I am not entirely sure I am allowed to get into that.

Bob Blackman (AM): You are the line manager and here you are saying there is full disclosure.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Let me tell you the way things work. Let’s take a hypothetical example: let’s just say that crime starts to go up on the bus service; then I will talk to the relevant directors, which in this case would be the directors relating to transport and policing -

Bob Blackman (AM): I understand the general relationship.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): - I will ask them to come back to me and say what the situation is and I will ask them to work out the best way to discuss it with the Mayor. I do not know about every single bus stop in London -

Bob Blackman (AM): I am not suggesting you should -

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not know about every single crime incident on the bus system in London. I expect that someone like Lee is dealing with his matters on his terms, as long as they are consistent with the GLA’s rules and they are delivering the Mayor’s priorities.

Bob Blackman (AM): This particular issue has been going on for some three years, at least, possibly longer. Did you not, at any time, ask Lee, ‘What actually is your involvement in what is going on down here?’ This has been negative publicity for the Mayor and it is of concern all around London. Did you not ask him about what his involvement was?

7

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): The person who leads for the Mayor on the LDA is John Ross. John is the Mayor’s representative on the LDA Board. John is responsible for relating to the LDA on a day-to-day basis.

Bob Blackman (AM): So at no time did you discuss with Lee Jasper his involvement with Brixton Base?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not want to say something that is untrue so I cannot say absolutely for sure, no. The management of relations of the LDA in relation to such matters is the responsibility of the Mayor’s representative on the LDA Board, which, in this case, is John Ross.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): If you want to ask me the question -

Bob Blackman (AM): I will come to you in a minute, John. So, at no time did you discuss this with Lee Jasper?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I just said to you, I do not want to say something that is untrue and therefore I cannot say that absolutely 100% and it would be wrong for me to pronounce on something I am not entirely sure about.

Bob Blackman (AM): What about relationships with companies like Diversity International?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Again, the situation is that my responsibility as the Mayor’s Chief of Staff is to make sure that those people who are responsible for areas of work carry out that work effectively. If a problem arises, as I gave you the example of if there were rising crime on the bus service, I would make sure that the Mayor was properly briefed on it. It does not mean to say that I am the person responsible for each of those things because, self-evidently, it would be impossible for me to be so.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Again, if you want to ask me the question I will answer it.

Bob Blackman (AM): Can I come to you next, John, but I want to be clear on this. We have this whole series of allegations being launched by the Evening Standard, revelations in the BBC, revelations in all sorts of newspapers, huge amounts of documentation, but at no time you discussed with Lee Jasper about his involvement?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Obviously, since all this stuff has appeared we have had many discussions about these matters.

Bob Blackman (AM): Did you discuss his personal interest? Whether he declared it?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I would be slightly concerned that I am getting to areas that are being investigated by the police. Maybe I require a bit of advice on that.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I wonder if I can intervene here. I will ask the Head of Law to correct me if I am wrong on this, but the position of Lee Jasper as patron of one organisation, certain interests and 8

his telephone calls and e-mails to the LDA, are already, in some regard, on the public record. To that extent, am I right in thinking that we are not treading on untrodden ground?

Charlie Adan (Interim Head of Legal & Procurement): Chair, I think there is a fine balance to be struck. There are matters that are already in the public domain but there are matters under investigation by the police. The police have said, quite clearly, to the Monitoring Officer of the GLA that it is too early to form a view as to the involvement of Lee Jasper in those inquiries, or to say what his status would be within those inquiries. I am sorry if that contradicts things that have been in the press but, frankly, the press reports have not been accurate in that respect. I think there is a clear concern for you to be careful in your proceedings as to what you ask and I think it is right for Simon to be careful in what he says in response. The question that I think you are asking is, “Did you know whether at any point in the discussions that have arisen subsequent to the allegations being made that Lee Jasper had or had not declared an interest”, and that is one that is probably OK for Simon to answer.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): If we get into areas which might result in disciplinary matters for him, as for any other employee or, presumably, ex-employee of the Authority, that is a different matter, but we are not. As I understand it, that is not what you are asking.

Bob Blackman (AM): I am not asking that.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): The situation is that I have asked the Mayor’s director who is responsible for matters relating to the LDA, which is John Ross, to lead on these matters. That is my responsibility and that is what I have done. John is in a position to answer many of your questions on that and you do not seem to want to ask him.

Bob Blackman (AM): I am coming to that; I am looking at you as his line manager.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): My responsibility is to make sure the appropriate person is dealing with it.

Bob Blackman (AM): You do not appear in front of us very often, Simon, and I think that one of the things that I find astonishing -

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Simon told me, instructed me, to get on with it, so I did.

Bob Blackman (AM): The fact is that you, as the Mayor’s most senior aide, with all this press and publicity going on, did not immediately call Lee Jasper in and say, ‘What’s all this about? What is going on?’ and I find it astonishing that -

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I called in the appropriate person, which is the Mayor’s Director for Economic and Business Policy, who is the Mayor’s representative on the LDA, and asked him to lead on it, because that is the correct thing to do.

Bob Blackman (AM): Perhaps, John, if you would like to answer the questions that Simon does not wish to answer. 9

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, I do want him to answer it.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): No, no, I think that is casting it perhaps in a more extreme way than-

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Again, people are putting words in people’s mouths.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Simon’s instructions to me were to go and look at the matter, which is the appropriate thing for the Chief of Staff to deal with. When you come round to asking me the detailed questions, I will answer about the way they were dealt with.

Bob Blackman (AM): In that case, what discussions did you have with Lee Jasper about his involvement in Brixton Base?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): The discussions that I had with Lee Jasper were that there was going to be an investigation that was going to be carried out by the LDA, and that any questions which they wished to raise would have to be dealt with. As regards the investigation that was carried out with the LDA by Andrew Travers, I concluded that the right procedure was neither to speak to nor discuss with Andrew Travers his report, that it would be carried on completely independently so there could be no suggestion of interference by the Mayor’s Office, and that is exactly what I did. From the moment of the commission of that report through to the presentation of that report to the Mayor - and I would like to go into detail about how that was done - I had no contact with Andrew Travers whatsoever, and I considered that was the best way to ensure it was a completely independent inquiry.

Bob Blackman (AM): What discussions did you have with Lee about the fact that he was a patron of Brixton Base? There is clear evidence in here of the various e-mail traffic, trying to use the influence of the Mayor’s Office for particular purposes.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think that the Mayor put the position very clearly that any action that was taken by the officer, was taken for the GLA. My personal position is I do not believe that people who have positions should pursue interests in regards to them. I think that they should declare all matters. My actual personal view is that directors of the GLA should not be holding directorships in companies etc. If it is necessary for them to do so - there may be good reason; obviously the Mayor has to have a number of interests as regards charities and all sorts of things of that type - in that case they should not pursue matters that relate to them. That is my view and I have expressed that. If there are exceptional circumstances that require them to do so, I think that the permission for that should be given by somebody other than the Mayor - for example, the Head of Paid Service - because I think we must avoid all conflicts in regard to that.

Bob Blackman (AM): What discussions did you have with Lee Jasper about his business dealings with anyone involved either in Brixton Base or Diversity International?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I did not have any discussions about business things because I thought these were matters that had to be looked at by the LDA and its official report. What did come to light was an enquiry was received regarding a company called Equanomics of an undeclared interest. There are a number of declarations of interest of Lee Jasper that are on the record. For example, I think he is special adviser in regard to the 1990 Trust. When 10

the thing regarding Equanomics was brought up, I found out that it was not on the register of interests; I thought that that was not correct and I contacted Lee Jasper to say that there must be a full declaration of all his interests by Monday. I think the accusation came in on a Friday. I was surprised it was not the case [that it was on the register of interests]. I then looked into how serious a breach this was and ascertained that no money had been paid to the company since Lee Jasper became the chair of it. An indication that appeared in The Times that some money had been paid by the Mayor was then corrected subsequently by The Times. I therefore arrived at the conclusion that indeed a breach in the sense that it had not been declared had in fact occurred, but no money etc had been paid over.

Bob Blackman (AM): Diversity International got a single tender contract in rather bizarre circumstances. Did you look at that?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I had no involvement in the award to Diversity International and nor, actually, do I think Lee Jasper had any. That was looked at by Andrew Travers, from the point of view of auditors, and I think that the best people to look into that type of thing are auditors, not myself.

Bob Blackman (AM): Did you ask Lee Jasper about his business relationships with Joel O’Loughlin [Group Director, Diversity International]?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I did ask him about his business relationships with him and he said that he did not have business relationships with him in any matter relating to the award of that contract. Nor has any evidence been produced to Andrew Travers that there was involvement. There is an e-mail, afterwards, of course, expressing surprise by Lee Jasper, in opposition to the fact that this contract had been awarded.

Bob Blackman (AM): Did you ask him if he had ever had business relationships with Joel O’Loughlin?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I asked him about the relationships which he had in regard to Diversity International and the award of that contract, which was the particular matter which had come up. I also asked him if he had any involvement with him in the period leading up to the award of that contract, to which the answer was, ‘No’; nor has any evidence come to light that he did have.

Bob Blackman (AM): What about any evidence of previous financial involvement with Joel O’Loughlin?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I am looking at the particular allegations about it.

Bob Blackman (AM): I am asking if you asked him about business relationships with-

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I asked him his general relationship with Joel O’Loughlin. He had said he had met him on a few occasions over a period of years.

11

Bob Blackman (AM): Would it surprise you to know that he had a very close business relationship with Joel O’Loughlin at one stage?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): What stage was that exactly?

Bob Blackman (AM): We will deal with that separately, I think.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): If you have any evidence that the statement that was made - that he had had no close relations with him - is false then please bring it forward and I will look at it. The general position which the Mayor’s Office has taken is that anything which is evidence will be looked at, even if it is brought forward by people who are declared opponents etc of the Mayor; any evidence at all. I will not look at allegations which are not supported by evidence or - as I have learned the proper police formula for this, who have more experience investigating things - ‘credible’ evidence. They say they do not investigate things for which no credible evidence has been presented. If you have some credible evidence please bring it forward.

Bob Blackman (AM): Would it surprise you to know that both Lee Jasper and Joel O’Loughlin were directors of a company previous to Diversity International being set up?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): When was previous?

Bob Blackman (AM): Back in the 1990s.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): When in the 1990s? That is a decade.

Bob Blackman (AM): No, the issue is that they have had a long-standing business relationship.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That would depend when it was. If it was in 1990, it would not seem to me a matter of very great relevance to the present thing. If it was in 1999 it would be a different matter, so I would like more precision on that.

Bob Blackman (AM): Well, clearly we will be putting that evidence in the appropriate means.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Our approach is that whatever the evidence, if it is credible evidence, we always ensure that the correct people look at it. Give it to the people who are looking at it.

Bob Blackman (AM): That is why I am asking. What discussions took place between yourselves, as the managers involved, and Lee Jasper, about his business dealings outside?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I asked him, did he have any involvement in the awarding of the Diversity International contract to which he said, ‘No’ and no evidence has been presented that he did. I asked him what was his relationship with Joel O’Loughlin, to which he replied that he had met him on a few occasions over a period of years. If you have some evidence that contradicts that, that, for example, relates to the period 1999 or something, then I would think you should bring it forward, and if it relates to 1990 or 1991, that would not seem to 12

contradict the statement that had been made. I am too long in the tooth not to look at the evidence which is presented in detail.

Bob Blackman (AM): Clearly, if there is evidence of the two individuals being directors of a company going back over an extended period of time that suggests, or it certainly suggests to me, that they had a long-standing business relationship well before the LDA awarded a single-tender contract to one of the individuals involved.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): In that case, can I point out it was grossly irresponsible, if you have such evidence, not to have presented it when the LDA was carrying out such a report, and you still have not told me what date this relates to. You have made a very vague statement in regard to the 1990s. If you have such evidence you should be able to give it to me immediately. What are the dates of this alleged relationship?

Bob Blackman (AM): Did he declare the fact that he was involved in a company called Kranti Sabanoh?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): When was this company?

Bob Blackman (AM): It was formed in the early 1990s.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): When precisely?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): First, we have it clear, the early 1990s. Can you give me the exact date?

Bob Blackman (AM): Yes, in 1992.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): 1992. Well that would not contradict the statement ‘in recent years’ because it would have been ten years beforehand.

Bob Blackman (AM): It is quite clear they had a business together as the two sole directors of a company for a number of years.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): What does the company engage in?

Bob Blackman (AM): We have got the details -

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Fine. Please, bring forward -

Bob Blackman (AM): We seem to be going into a position whereby we are answering questions rather than you.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): That is because you are giving us conflicting information.

Bob Blackman (AM): Clearly, a very simple search of Companies House can reveal the detailed business relationship between the two individuals. 13

Angie Bray (AM): You did not even bother.

Bob Blackman (AM): We have done that over the last week and discovered these details. Had Lee Jasper been sitting there, of course, he could have answered these questions. He is not sitting there. I am asking you what discussions you had about his business relationships before he got involved in the various different aspects of the LDA.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): There is no evidence that has been presented - and that does not constitute evidence - that he was involved in the award of the contract to Diversity International.

Bob Blackman (AM): I have not suggested that he was. What he was clearly involved in was the monitoring of it.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): So you have not suggested he was involved in this contract? In other words, you are saying that he was not involved in the award of the contract to Diversity International?

Angie Bray (AM): People watching you will not believe this, Mr Ross.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think that they would do, yes.

Bob Blackman (AM): Quite clearly, Mr Ross, you are saying that you did not have any discussions about the previous business relationship between the two. It is quite clear they have had a long business relationship on a personal level and you are saying none of that was revealed to you.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No. You have said that Lee Jasper was not involved in the award of the contract to Diversity International.

Bob Blackman (AM): I have not said that.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): What is the accusation?

Sally Hamwee (Chair): One at a time. I think that what Mr Ross is saying is that co-directorship of a company, even taking it as far back as 1990, does not, in his view, constitute a business relationship.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I did not say that.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Another example of words being put into people’s mouths.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I did not say that. What I said was, there is no evidence and it is not presented now-

Angie Bray (AM): (inaudible interruption)

14

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Sorry, can I be allowed to speak please? You asked me to -

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): This is public school.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Simon, please.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I mean, seriously; this heckling.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Simon, Simon, please stop. I am answering the question and I would prefer -

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not know why the Chair does not chair the meeting and put a stop to it.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I do not mind. Can I please answer the questions in my own way and not be interrupted either by Angie or by Simon ?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Fine, that is a deal. I will do you that deal.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Right, OK. No evidence has been presented by anybody that Lee Jasper was involved in the award of the contract to Diversity International. This is a matter of some importance because Andrew Gilligan [Evening Standard journalist] alleges that he was. Very clearly it is one of the nine criminal allegations made by the Evening Standard. No evidence was presented by Andrew Travers and neither have you presented it here. If you have evidence he was involved in the award of the contract bring it forward.

Bob Blackman (AM): Mr Ross, one of the things I am always very careful of, always, is to deal with the evidence that is available. I do not make different allegations without evidence. Quite clearly what we have is evidence of a long-standing business relationship between Lee Jasper and Joel O’Loughlin. Do you accept that they have known each other on a business basis for a considerable length of time?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would want to look at the evidence you present. If you referred to something which was in 1992 I would want to look at what it was involved in, how long did that period of time go on for, when did it come to an end, etc, and I will look at that. I have been through so many investigations in which everybody believes something was true at the beginning and then it turned out to be totally false at the end and I have been through investigations in which nobody believed anything was true at the beginning and yet something turned out to be in the end and the only way to deal with it is to go through the matters in detail. You have given me one single date so far - 1992 - which took a bit of time to get out of you, which would appear to relate to a period ten years before any award of any contract. I want to know what happened in the intervening ten years.

Bob Blackman (AM): I would also like to know what business relationships took place in the last ten years or over that period of time. What we have established, though, is there was a business relationship that dates back to between 1992 and beyond. 15

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, we have established that there was a business relationship in 1992, which is ten years prior to that. We have not established yet anything regarding a long-term ongoing business relationship at all. If you have evidence bring that forward. Secondly, even if that were true, you would then have to prove that Lee Jasper was involved in the award of the contract to Diversity International, for which there is no evidence. What you are doing is you are putting forward a fact which actually does not prove anything as regards the actual allegation that you are making.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I wonder if I could intervene and just remind everybody here that what we are looking at is relationships within the Mayor’s Office, how the Mayor’s Office, the Mayoral Advisers, conduct themselves. We are not in the position that the police would be to conduct a detailed investigation, and, as I understand the questions which are being asked, they are not allegations; they are an attempt to understand how the Mayor’s Office is run. Have I interpreted that correctly?

Bob Blackman (AM): Correct.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, there is a slight difference because the allegation made by Andrew Gilligan is a criminal allegation.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I am talking about what this Assembly is doing. You are answering something perhaps rather wider than the question that is being asked.

Bob Blackman (AM): I will leave it there because we have established what we needed to establish.

John Biggs (AM): Can I just raise a very quick point of order. I just want to be satisfied on this. Standing Order 11.51 binds Members to the GLA Code of Conduct, the GLA Code of Conduct requires Members to uphold the law and on all occasions act in accordance with the trust that the public are entitled to place in you. Now, the problem I have is that I sense that the Conservative Group has a lot of information that has been leaked to them by various people, and I respect that, but if it is information which they think highlights concerns which any reasonable person would consider are about upholding the law then I think it is improper for them to be dripping it one day at a time. They should actually bring that information into the public realm so that it can be properly investigated. Indeed, it could be argued that if this is a matter of interest to the police that they are thwarting a police investigation by being driven more by the news management of their election campaign than they are by their duty as elected representatives. I think that is a very important point of principle that concerns me and I would like your ruling on that under the Standing Orders, Chair.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I think the first ruling is we cannot find a Standing Order 11.5, but I was going to make two points. One is that I am sure that every Member who feels that he or she has information that may be relevant to the investigations which the police may or may not be undertaking but that are relevant to this whole issue will take them to the police. That is a public matter, a matter that as citizens we should all do. As Members of the Authority bound by the Code of Conduct, if there are matters which any Member considers should properly be considered as matters

1 Standing Order 11.1 deals with the application of the GLA Code of Conduct for Elected Members. 16

of conduct, then they should go to the Monitoring Officer. I am actually aware of quite a lot of correspondence that the Monitoring Officer has been having around all this. You are right to make the point. I do not think that that precludes us from asking questions which are being asked and I may say that everybody around here is trying to listen extremely carefully in order to jump in if lines are transgressed. We will continue to listen very carefully but we have those assurances.

The other point that I just wanted to make was that Simon twice said that John Ross is the Mayor’s representative on the LDA Board. As I understand the position, you are an observer at the LDA Board meetings, John, not a member of the Board. I just want to get that correct and on the record.

Bob Neill (AM): Mr Fletcher, you said in an earlier answer that the Mayoral Advisers must comply with the GLA’s Code. Who in the Mayor’s Office is responsible for ensuring that they comply with the Code?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): They are responsible. They are directors of the Authority so it is up to them to ensure that they comply with the GLA’s rules.

Bob Neill (AM): To whom are they answerable for their conduct?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): They are actually answerable to a number of different people, as it happens. For example, I imagine that being in accordance with the rules is a matter for the Monitoring Officer and. to some degree, the Head of Paid Service. For their general performance they are responsible to me and, ultimately, the Mayor.

Bob Neill (AM): I understand. Would you characterise yourself as being their line manager?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am the line manager for all of them, yes. For all directors in the Mayor’s Office, I am the line manager. I was just checking because I was thinking that Joy Johnson who is a Mayor’s director is not line managed by me, just to clarify that.

Bob Neill (AM): Were you Mr Jasper’s line manager?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Yes.

Bob Neill (AM): Would it not be part of your responsibility to ensure that people whom you line manage comply with the GLA’s Code of Conduct?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): It is my expectation that they are complying with the GLA’s Code of Conduct. They are directors, they are – as some of you have pointed out – earning salaries which some of you criticise. At that level it is their responsibility. They know that.

Bob Neill (AM): Ultimately they are accountable to the Mayor?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): As I say, ultimately they are accountable for the delivery of the Mayor’s priorities to the Mayor. I do not think they are accountable on the matters of probity purely to the Mayor, I think they are also accountable to the Monitoring Officer, Head of Paid Service and other people. 17

Bob Neill (AM): I think that you would agree that they are in a different position to executive directors and traditional local government officers. They are appointed, perfectly properly, because of their ability to deliver the Mayor’s agenda; nothing wrong with that under the Act. Frequently they have been stated to have done so, because they have had a close connection with the Mayor in the past. Ultimately, they have access to the Mayor and a responsibility to the Mayor, which a traditional local government officer does not have.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I do not think that it is true that the executive directors are not appointed on their ability to deliver the Mayor’s agenda. On the contrary, it would not be much use having them if they were not able to deliver the Mayor’s agenda. They are governed by many rules and regulations that all staff are governed by.

Bob Neill (AM): Yes, and somebody must ensure that they comply with them.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): As I keep saying to you, at a director level it really is the responsibility of the director. Seriously, there is no point in having somebody with a great deal of authority to deliver the Mayor’s priorities if they are not going to take responsibility for those aspects of their work.

Bob Neill (AM): If a breach of the rules by a director were brought to your attention, what steps would you take?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): In that case I immediately -

Bob Neill (AM): Mr Ross, I will ask you in due course, thank you very much.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Fine. You might be a sitting duck, as I dealt with it.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): In the case of the matters that we are discussing, I think in all cases the relevant people have been asked to step in. Either I have asked John Ross to investigate or Anthony Mayor has investigated matters or Martin Clarke [Executive Director of Finance & Performance, GLA] has investigated matters, re the LDA; ie it could not be said that when matters have been raised about the functioning of a particular member of staff, in this case Lee, that the appropriate people did not step in and deal with it, because they did and they have.

Bob Neill (AM): Perhaps I will come back to it. Mr Ross, you wanted to make a point. Can I just ask you a specific point. You told us – and I am grateful to you – that you found that there had been a failure to declare an interest in relation to Equanomics. You investigated to see how serious a breach it was and came to a conclusion that you told us about. Correct?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Yes

Bob Neill (AM): To whom did you report your conclusions?

18

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I may well have informed Simon about it. I cannot actually remember all the details about those things. I did inform the Mayor about it because I wished the Mayor to know two things: one, that there had been a breach, and, two, that there had not been a payment of money and therefore that there was not a breach on that. On this point there are three types of issues involved: There are police issues. I am not going to be an amateur detective. Allegations which are criminal are best dealt with by the police and that is why the allegation regarding Diversity International is very important, because it is a criminal allegation that has been made by Andrew Gilligan. There are matters that relate to auditors that are best investigated by auditors. I am not going to be an amateur auditor either. Then there are matters which refer to the proper function of the GLA, of which the question of declarations of interest is certainly one, which I consider myself properly equipped to deal with.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): If I can just intervene for one moment. I know that Bob is asking about process, not about conclusions, which might be about misconduct and might cause us to have to go into a private session.

Bob Neill (AM): I do not think you need trouble yourself on that account, Chair.

I understand what you said. Thank you for what you told us. When you reported it to the Mayor, did you make any note or memorandum setting out, in recordable form, your conclusions, or was this an oral report to the Mayor?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think that what happened on this was a matter was drawn up for The Times newspaper who were the people who actually brought this to attention, stating the facts; that, in essence, there had not been such a declaration of interest and that no money had been paid. That, in essence, is the written form of it. I informed the Mayor of those conclusions.

Bob Neill (AM): Did you make any report to the Monitoring Officer?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I certainly spoke in this regard to the Head of Law in the GLA on several occasions and I believe I would regard that as the appropriate person to discuss it with.

Bob Neill (AM): Did you make any note or memorandum of those conversations?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think they were put as a result of the positions which were put to The Times newspaper. The question of discussing the matter extensively and on several occasions with the Head of Law would constitute a quite adequate record of those matters. There was no attempt to avoid processes within the GLA at all.

Bob Neill (AM): Just help me with this. If, prima facie, there is a breach of the Code of Conduct that is a significant matter and ought, on the face to it, to be reported to the Monitoring Officer. You came to a conclusion; we are not going through the details as to why, as to how serious that was, what the action was or was not appropriate. Didn’t you think it right and proper to make a record of your conclusion? I am interested in the process.

19

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would think that the discussion of that and the reporting of that to the Head of Law constituted the quite appropriate action to take in that situation. Furthermore, what actually happened was that The Times printed an allegation that money had been paid which, following a letter from lawyers, it was forced to withdraw and it printed a correction in the pages of The Times last Saturday.

Bob Neill (AM): Are you going to produce to us, in due course, any note or memorandum of your conversations with either the Mayor or the Head of Law on that matter?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I reported the matter to both the Mayor and discussed it extensively with the Head of Law because we had to have the exact formulations that we wanted to supply to The Times newspaper. Therefore, I would consider that discussing with both the Head of Law and the Mayor constitutes an appropriate way to deal with such a matter.

Bob Neill (AM): But there is no written record for any audit trail?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would think that the position which was put to The Times and the correction that they printed constitutes a very extensive and public record of that.

Bob Neill (AM): There is no record for the GLA record?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think that all it has to do is consult The Times newspaper and it will find it.

Bob Neill (AM): That is an interesting thought that for the public record you consult a newspaper. Never mind, I will leave it at that.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): It is very pleasing for the editor of The Times, I should imagine.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would think that The Times considered, quite seriously, the question of printing a correction. For them to print a correction in a newspaper is not a small matter.

Bob Neill (AM): I am sorry, Mr Ross. You do seem to have missed the point here. Having concluded that there was a breach, rightly or wrongly, surely you would think it right and proper to make a record in the GLA’s internal record of that fact?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I do not. I consider the question would depend upon how important the matter was. If there had been an indication that money had been paid I would have regarded it as extremely important. As no money had been paid I did not regard it that way. What I did do, in discussions with those officers, was I informed Lee Jasper that I was very surprised to find there was not a full declaration and he must immediately make a declaration of all his interests. I believe he then contacted the GLA, following that, to declare both Equanomics and some other matter. Therefore I consider that that matter was acted on appropriately and rapidly. 20

Bob Neill (AM): Final question, Mr Ross. Did you make any note or record of that conversation with Mr Jasper?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think we will find the email in which I said that he must make an immediate declaration and I believe that if we consult the declaration I was informed verbally by the Monitoring Officer, or someone reporting to her, that he had, in fact, declared two matters. That can easily be verified by consulting about whether these two matters were then reported.

Jenny Jones (AM): I would like to ask you something quite technical and simple. In view of everything we know now, or apparently know, have you made any changes to the way in which you as advisers report or interact with functional bodies?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I was surprised, personally, to find out that there was not a GLA-wide Group declaration of interests. I had assumed that there was. I think that there definitely should be one and the Mayor has definitely said there should be one. The whole purpose of this thing is to take very small matters and print them, blow them up in to gigantic matters. For example, the reason that Andrew Gilligan made nine criminal allegations against Lee Jasper, as the Monitoring Officer has put in a letter, he was very careful to avoid the question of libel but he did not avoid making criminal allegations. If you were to run ten pages or the front page of the Evening Standard saying, ‘Mayor’s adviser sends inappropriate e-mail’, you would be a laughing stock. You had to, instead, make this great sinister web of criminal allegations, etc, and we have just seen exactly the same with Bob Neill, you see. There is the great sinister accusation, despite the fact that I discussed the matter with the Mayor, I discussed it with the Head of Law, and I sent a note, immediately, to Lee Jasper, that there is some tremendously sinister conspiracy gripping London, and the memorandum was not written about the matter.

Jenny Jones (AM): I am really interested in what happens in the Mayor’s Office and have you changed your reporting structures in any way? I realise that most of what was happening was below everybody’s radar but clearly there is a role for Mayoral Advisers to understand what is going on and to make sure that things are of benefit to Londoners. What has changed with your reporting structures?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): There are two issues which have come up which I regard as legitimate. One is this question that there was not a GLA Group declaration of interest. There clearly should be; this is some error originally and should be immediately introduced in my opinion. The second one is that the crucial distinction with regards the GLA is the following; that the GLA advisers or directors are not entitled to give instructions to LDA staff. They are allowed to give advice and I would like to explain exactly the distinction.

I was in charge of the financial negotiations on Crossrail. I gave instructions to GLA staff as to what positions they were to take in the negotiations with the Treasury and with government departments regarding the level of business rate and regarding the contributions to be expected from developers. They had no latitude to vary those at all. It was an instruction. As regards, for example, the LDA, I can give advice. We had a very major issue regarding tourism which led to quite a lot of controversy,

21

in which, it was necessary, in my opinion, to launch a very large tourism recovery programme. That was advice to the LDA.

They are totally aware of the distinction because on a number of occasions, Manny Lewis, for example, has not taken my advice at all. Normally we agree, but he has said, ‘Well, I’ve heard your advice and I have decided to do something different’. He understands the question very clearly. The question about junior staff is that junior staff might not be so aware of this and I think it should be very, very clearly explained. That is making it quite clear. These are the only two serious matters as regards the appropriate function of Mayoral Directors that have come up.

Jenny Jones (AM): Can I ask Simon, have you given advice now to all the Mayor’s Advisers about the way that they interact by e-mail or by telephone with the functional bodies?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I have not given them new advice because of the issues that John has just raised, which is that there are two issues that we ought to formulate correctly. One is whether or not there ought to be a GLA-wide register and we need to consider how that would work. Secondly, how to handle the second point that John raised, which is the interaction with more junior members of staff who may not fully appreciate exactly how these things work. That requires a little bit of tweaking because you cannot just bang out some sort of announcement on that without thinking it through properly. You do not want to create the opposite interpretation either, which is that Mayoral Directors should never talk to junior staff. It is a question of getting the balance right but on those points, I think, that those are serious issues that have been raised that we should look at.

Jenny Jones (AM): If a Mayoral Adviser sees that the LDA or TfL or whoever is actually doing something that is not beneficial to Londoners, what is the proper procedure? Do they simply bring it to you and then you bring it to the Mayor?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): My preference is that the relevant director deals with the most senior appropriate person in that functional body.

Jenny Jones (AM): However, they cannot give orders. We have just heard they cannot give orders.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): The reason why I said on that second point that needs to be looked at and thought about very carefully is I am not saying that should be such a hard and fast rule that we prevent the proper operation of the mayoralty.

Jenny Jones (AM): Tell me what the proper route is then. Should they bring it back to you, Simon, and then take it to the Mayor?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Of course not.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I can deal with this very precisely. I have more day-to-day contact with the LDA than anybody else, for obvious reasons. 90% of that contact is with very senior people like Manny Lewis [Chief Executive, LDA], Simon Mennear [Group Director, Business Engagement and Skills Development, LDA] etc. On specialised matters it is necessary sometimes to discuss with more junior staff. For example, I am in charge of the question of the International Convention Centre. I have to have meetings with people who deal with appropriate 22

sites, financial models for convention centres and so on because it is not possible for all the directors to know that and I meet them in that particular way. Or, for example, I am responsible for the international promotion of London, so I deal with people who are dealing with tourism or people who are dealing with running offices abroad etc. I meet them in their functional capacity. The general view is, most of the time, we agree. If there was a disagreement I do not think that one should attempt to instruct or put pressure on the junior officer. You should say, ‘We have not agreed on this, therefore I am taking that to a more senior person inside the LDA’, who will then either say, ‘Well, I don’t agree with the Mayoral Adviser’ or, ‘I think the Mayoral Adviser is right’, in which case they would issue the appropriate instruction.

As regards a matter to be taken to the Mayor, it would obviously have to be a very, very serious matter. The one that most clearly came to my mind is around the question of tourism recovery because there was a difference within the Board of the LDA about the question of how much money should be allocated to tourism recovery. I gave it very high priority. That is one of the few issues on which I would have gone to the Mayor. Just let me finish, Jenny -

Jenny Jones (AM): No, I am sorry. We are running out of time. Thank you very much.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would have gone to the Mayor for a directive on that matter.

Richard Barnes (AM): For the purposes of clarity I can assure you that I have given whatever evidence that I have to the police. I was going to be speaking to them on Tuesday last, but they postponed the meeting until Friday of this week so I will meet them on Friday, so that what I have is in the police domain, as against the public domain.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): This is on the tide of corruption?

Richard Barnes (AM): Let us move on to the questions to you, shall we, and if you want I will give you the proper and accurate quote, Mr Ross, but I am asking you the questions. You are the Mayor’s representative on the LDA Board. What does that actually mean?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That means that I do a number of things. One is I report to the Mayor the discussions which take place on the LDA Board. Secondly, where I am aware of the Mayor’s positions on matters, I indicate to them the general direction that the Mayor would want to take.

Richard Barnes (AM): So you take part in those discussions?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I take part in the discussions, yes.

Richard Barnes (AM): Do you vote in those meetings?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I do not have a vote.

Richard Barnes (AM): Yet in other things you seem to have a little bit more of a managerial role; the issues that you listed a few minutes ago. 23

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, managerial is not the right word at all. The distinction is totally clear. I am legally entitled to give instructions to the GLA staff who report to me. I am entitled to give advice but not instructions to the LDA staff. I give them advice on a relatively regular basis but they are not instructions at all. They know they are not instructions and sometimes they do not follow the advice.

Richard Barnes (AM): Given that you are following the proper route - which was indeed outlined by the Mayor at one of his press conferences and interviews where he said, “My advisers give advice, they do not manage”, which is a position that you have outlined now - how would you react, then, if another director ostensibly gave instructions to junior members of the LDA contrary to your usual practices?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think you are referring to e-mails that were sent by Lee Jasper, right? It is not absolutely clear that that was an attempt to give an instruction. I do not think that the e-mail was appropriate. That is my view. Neither do I think that the ten front pages of the Evening Standard about inappropriate e-mails by Mayoral Advisers were, that is why you had to make criminal accusations, for most of which no evidence has been produced.

Richard Barnes (AM): Let us stick with your view that the e-mails were not appropriate, which conforms again with the Chief Executive of the LDA. At what stage did you advise the Mayor that you thought these e-mails were inappropriate?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): As I cannot possibly follow the tens of thousands of e-mails that go throughout the GLA -

Richard Barnes (AM): I recognise your limitations.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I have explained to the Mayor, on a number of occasions when I saw this e-mail, I thought that that e-mail was inappropriately worded and so on. I have said that to the Mayor on numerous occasions, and if you had bothered to call me, for example, three weeks ago, I would have said it at the time because I totally agree with the Chief Executive of the LDA on the matter.

Richard Barnes (AM): We are where we are. Did you express that view to Lee Jasper?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Yes, I have expressed that view to Lee Jasper.

Richard Barnes (AM): How did he react?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): He said, which is also true, “I send thousands of e-mails and not every single one of them is going to be formulated perfectly.” I am sure that somebody can find in all of the emails I have sent or all of the e-mails you have sent, or all the e- mails that have been sent by everybody in the room, one or two which are not perfectly formulated. I would say that the fact that people keep returning endlessly to one e-mail indicates there is not much

24

evidence of that. Those persons who wish to claim that they have never sent an inappropriately worded e-mail please put up your hand now. No takers, I note.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): Can I just say, I did.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): In that case can we have all your e- mails to look at?

Richard Barnes (AM): The problem is that Lee Jasper’s inappropriate e-mails seem to be made public at the moment. Tell me, at any stage did the Board consider the grants that were being given to the companies and organisations that were under investigation?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I cannot recall any major discussions because, in general, these grants are very small in character. The matters that are dealt with by the LDA Board normally run into tens of millions of pounds. The Chair’s discretion, in fact, runs into several millions of pounds so it would be very unusual.

Richard Barnes (AM): So these were below the Board’s radar?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I cannot absolutely promise. I can go back and check in the minutes of everything. There is no major discussion because in terms, as has been pointed out, this constitutes 0.07% of the expenditure of the LDA and it would be very, very unusual for such a relatively small sum of money to come to the Board of the LDA.

Richard Barnes (AM): Well, you might think it is a little bit of money but I think it is a hell of a lot. So do most Londoners.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That is because you want to exaggerate matters all the time.

Richard Barnes (AM): So these were never discussed; not on the radar of the Board, so you could not have advised the Mayor on any of these unless you were involved otherwise with the Board?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I was not involved in advising the Mayor on any of these projects at all.

Richard Barnes (AM): Were you aware of the grant funding to these projects?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): In the majority of cases, no, because they were not reported to the Board. I would not have done so because the major matters, which the Board has to deal with were such questions as the purchase of Olympic land, tourism, the funding of major projects, and I deal with the matters which go to the Board. I am present for all the Board meetings and I know the matters that are discussed at Board level. You want to take very small matters and pretend that these are gigantic matters. That is the whole essence of the distortion you are involved in.

25

Richard Barnes (AM): Well, they are. You said that Equanomics received no money. They received no money directly, but if you look at the 1990 Trust processes they actually received a grant from the LDA which was then moved on to Equanomics. Do you think that is appropriate?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, you did not accurately report what I said. What I said was that they had received no money after Lee Jasper became the Chair of Equanomics which was on 26 September last year, and they had not received any money since then. That is the matter I immediately checked very carefully.

Richard Barnes (AM): He became acting Chair as Equanomics was formed, until their first annual meeting.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I am informed that he became the Chair on 26 September. The allegation was made in The Times newspaper that the Mayor was aware that money was being paid to Equanomics and The Times printed a formal correction of that statement.

Richard Barnes (AM): Let us stick with the process of what, I believe, is called grant farming, where one organisation gets a grant and then it moves onto others. Do you think that that is appropriate? It is below the radar, not only of your Board but also of your project processes.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That would be a matter that would have to be looked at by the auditors of the LDA. As I say, I do not pretend to be an amateur auditor. I leave it to experts.

Richard Barnes (AM): Given the length of time it has taken the LDA to produce evidence and the cluttered manner in which it was produced as well, are you content as the Mayor’s representative on the Board, that the LDA’s management and protocol processes are fit for purpose?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think that the LDA is regarded as one of the outstanding regional development agencies in the country. It was rated by the Audit Commission as good. I think its purchase of the Olympic land, which is one of the largest compulsory purchase orders ever carried out, was exemplary. I know on tourism that Visit London, which it funds, is regarded as the best tourist agency in the whole of the UK. On the matters that I deal with its record is absolutely outstanding and what you are attempting to do is, again, take very small matters and pretend that these are the most important.

Richard Barnes (AM): Did you advise the Mayor prior to his press conference on 5 December 2007? Did you give him any advice?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Which press conference?

Richard Barnes (AM): The one in which he said that there is a full audit trail; “Every penny is accounted for.”

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That was not a press conference. He was got at at another meeting and asked to do a press thing. 26

Richard Barnes (AM): Did you give him advice?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I did not talk to him before that at all.

Richard Barnes (AM): Do you know of anybody who did?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Simon [Fletcher] may have known.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I certainly did not.

Richard Barnes (AM): So he was firing blind, I think the phrase is?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I think that is what is called in the trade a ‘doorstep’.

Richard Barnes (AM): Mr Fletcher, can I thank you for the response that you gave to me yesterday on my question of 17 February. Can I ask when I will get the rest of the answer?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): What are you missing?

Richard Barnes (AM): You know very well what I am missing.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): The rest of us do not, actually.

Richard Barnes (AM): You replied that all of it was being collated and when all of it came, a lot was missing.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): That is advice that I have had from legal people. I can talk to Charlie [Adan, Interim Head of Legal and Procurement, GLA] about that and we can have a discussion about it, but that is the advice I have received.

Richard Barnes (AM): So you accept that you have not given me a full answer?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I have given you the answer that I have been advised to give you, in terms of my requirements -

Richard Barnes (AM): Which is not full.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, that is not correct. You wrote to me asking for things. I think I actually gave you slightly more than you asked for in terms of the additional Mayoral Approval Forms.

Richard Barnes (AM): No you did not. Rest assured that you were not over generous.

27

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): If we want to talk about provision of information, there is a piece of information that I currently do not have that prevents me from doing my job, which is that you made an allegation that a member of staff in the Mayor’s Office made a malicious phone call to you, that led to you making a statement to this Assembly that was false.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Can I just ask people to stop.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): You have refused to provide that information to the Head of Paid Service and to me, and therefore I am unable to carry out my responsibilities as a manager.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Most of us are completely confused as to what this is about and Charlie is trying to give me some advice as to whether there might be a problem.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am guided by other people on matters of what information can be disclosed and what cannot. I cannot give you information that I cannot give you. You could give me the information about the person who you claim made a malicious phone call that led to you making wrong statements about the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Richard Barnes (AM): I will not contribute to your Trotskyite investigation because I can imagine what the result will be.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I am going to move on.

Richard Barnes (AM): I will not do that.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, I am sorry but this is a very serious matter.

Richard Barnes (AM): It was a very serious matter and you still have not given me a clear answer to the question.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): You made an allegation that a member of staff in the Mayor’s Office made a malicious -

Sally Hamwee (Chair): I am sorry. It is not within the scope of this meeting as far as I can see.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Provide that information.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Simon, please would you stop. You are very welcome to go and have a private conversation somewhere else when we have finished questioning Mr Fletcher, but I am going to ask Len Duvall to come in.

Len Duvall (AM): There are two issues that I really want to explore. One is about an insight in terms of the issues of dealing with the press and, secondly, some of the issues relating to the community- led sector policy directions. I am going to refer to an article in the Independent this morning which gives us a great insight into the way in which Mr Gilligan operated, which comes over as a planned and calculating strategy to cause maximum damage to the Mayor. I do not think the headline can be attributed to Mr Gilligan but almost gives an insight into his mind: ‘My War with Ken Livingstone.’ In 28

the article itself he acknowledges that there is -and his words are - ‘collateral damage’ to black organisations that may well have been treated with mistrust by public bodies. I understand the Evening Standard last night read out a statement. Unfortunately, I could not be there to listen to it. I would like to have been there. It was about their distancing themselves from these issues.

Mr Gilligan says that it is “not our job to think about the consequences of the articles” he writes. Clearly, once all these issues are investigated, and there are number of groups under investigation, there has to be an issue of recovery. Talking to the community-led sector and particularly to the black-led community sector, by and large, in my mind, 99% of them are doing an excellent job. What is the stance the Mayor’s Office is taking about these issues and about some of the calculated stances of these people in the press?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Mr Gilligan has noted down three things very carefully about what he does. This is again a question of weight and proportion. It is well known about one of the candidates for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, that there was a telephone call with him and the fraudster Darius Guppy to have a journalist beaten up. If that had been made by Lee Jasper there would have been special editions of the Evening Standard coming out. The same candidate gave a character reference for Conrad Black, a well-known fraudster. There would be special editions of the Evening Standard. What Mr Gilligan intends to investigate and what he does not investigate shows his entire agenda.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): That is, in response to Len [Duvall], the attitude of the Mayor’s Office, because that was the question asked?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Yes. The attitude is that the Evening Standard, while looking at perfectly legitimate matters of finance, I believe all the matters that have been raised in regard to finance about Lee Jasper must be looked at; there is no complaint about that at all, but they choose carefully not to investigate other matters. Imagine if Lee Jasper was recorded discussing with Eroll Walters [Interim Director of the Black Londoners’ Forum] to have a journalist beaten up. It would be the front page of the Evening Standard. There would be special editions. However, when Boris Johnson discusses with Darius Guppy, to have a journalist beaten up, this is not reported in the Evening Standard. That shows their whole agenda. It shows the racist and political character of their campaign.

Len Duvall (AM): There is a second part to my question about the community-led sector and particularly in terms of black-led community sector projects. I think we have had the Mayor say the direction of travel that we are going to continue in this policy. I just want to hear that myself. I am very much in support of that and I want to understand where you are coming from particularly about the recovery. Mr Gilligan says it himself: ”There is collateral damage done to ordinary black organisations who are mistrusted by public bodies on the back of the Evening Standard campaign.” He says that in the Independent. I have no wish to disbelieve him. He has been interviewed and maybe we will talk about Mr Barnes’ statement of a ‘tide of corruption’, or ‘it seems like a tide of corruption.’

Angie Bray (AM): That is better.

29

Len Duvall (AM): Well, actually is that sloppy journalism, or not? Maybe you should have corrected it in your own time.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, it is just an attempt to get a smear out.

Len Duvall (AM): What are those issues around the black community-led sector and the LDA policies around that?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): This leads back to the question that was made right at the beginning. Let us take the question of Lee Jasper and let us deal with this in a balanced, proper fashion. Lee Jasper was Head of Policing and Equalities. During the period of the last eight years, racist attacks in London have fallen from more than 19,000 a year to less than 9,000 a year, more than half. That is an outstanding achievement. Lee Jasper was the Chair of the advisory group on Operation Trident, which was responsible for the arrest of literally dozens of armed criminals. It is an outstanding achievement. Those matters are of great weight and proportion. The whole programme of activity carried out by the LDA, regarding the support of the black community of London is an outstanding achievement. What you typically want to do is take small details.

Let me show you how journalistic distortion works. You can always pick out facts. Let me give you three facts: we have a person who is kind to animals, outstandingly brave and a vegetarian. He is a wonderful individual! Unless you put in that he killed six million Jews and 27 million Russians, because he was called Adolf Hitler. The aim of all this stuff is to take secondary or unimportant matters and blow it up to be the biggest thing confronting London. That is its whole purpose.

Darren Johnson (AM): John, you have admitted that there are some flaws in procedures and lack of clarity, albeit maybe small ones. Sometimes the responses from the Mayor’s Office to some of these legitimate questions and legitimate concerns have been as hysterical, as the original articles in the Evening Standard.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I don’t think so. Every single piece of evidence which has been brought forward has been investigated and that has been made in every single statement. Allegations which are not supported by evidence will not be investigated, or, as I have now learned, I will use the police formula, ‘credible’ evidence. That which is not given credible evidence will not be investigated. Anything which has credible evidence will be investigated and we have investigated all of those matters.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Darren, if you take some examples in relation to some of this coverage; I recall there was one report, quite early on in this process, which had a headline about Lee as some kind of street hustler or something. This is just getting into the realms of stereotyping black people in the most old-fashioned Daily Mail kind of way. Do not be surprised if people react to it very strongly. Similarly, they printed a picture of Lee’s house, just so that all the local racists could find him more easily.

Darren Johnson (AM): I totally agree with you that much of the coverage has been deplorable and hysterical. However, there have been some legitimate questions raised. You have said very clearly today that there are some legitimate concerns which need to be investigated but so often the

30

accusation is coming from the Mayor’s Office that anyone who asks these legitimate questions is motivated by a campaign of racism.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Sorry, Darren, that is not true. Anything that is presented by credible evidence must be investigated even if it is put forward for malicious reasons, because it may be true. The moment of maximum concern for me during this whole process, as I had taken the decision, as had the Mayor, to have no contact whatsoever with Andrew Travers during his investigation, was the morning that the report came out. Even if the general approach you were taking was right, it is always possible that somebody has done something really stupid or inappropriate. I thought it might be in that report that, although I know the LDA’s approach, something was screwed up. The moment I saw that report I knew that all the fundamental allegations were false. Anything for which Andrew Gilligan presents evidence must be investigated.

Darren Johnson (AM): So you accept that while there have been some wildly unfortunate allegations made in the Evening Standard, while there have been some wildly unfortunate comments made by individual Assembly Members, you accept that the Assembly, as a whole, has a legitimate role in investigating this and is doing this for the right reasons rather than being motivated by -

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, it is irrelevant what its reasons are. It may have wholly bad reasons but if it presents credible evidence, any credible evidence, even if put forward maliciously, it must be investigated.

Darren Johnson (AM): You have already admitted today that there are some - although you consider them to be small - imperfections that need to be sorted out.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, you have to look at three different levels. That which has been investigated by the police they will look at whatever they determine. So far, no evidence regarding Lee Jasper has been alleged to the police.

Richard Barnes (AM): Not true.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): This is the situation where we have ten criminal allegations and no evidence. After a certain period of time, if no evidence is presented you will conclude that they are false because there is just no evidence. The second is that which has to be investigated by auditors, which should be done by auditors. The report done by the LDA has gone to the District Auditor and the District Auditor will go through that. The third is that which relates to the functioning of the GLA, which I consider I am competent to speak on, whereas I leave the first two to experts. It does not matter. You no more look at a piece of evidence because Andrew Gilligan presents it, than a supporter of the Mayor presents it. You do not look at that for which no credible evidence has been presented and you must look at anything for which credible evidence is presented, no matter why it is presented.

Darren Johnson (AM): There appears to be no credible evidence whatsoever for a tide of corruption or anything like that but there does seem to be very credible evidence for some flaws in processes and procedures and for a lack of clarity about individual Mayoral Adviser’s roles and those need to be improved in order to restore confidence from Londoners, and some improvements need to be made. 31

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Always everything is being improved. There is no body in the entire world which is perfect and which will never be improved. I deal with the LDA on serious matters all the time. I do not believe that there is any evidence that on any significant number of occasions Mayoral Advisers have not acted in an appropriate fashion and the very fact that people are coming back to one e-mail shows how small the evidence is.

Darren Johnson (AM): A bit more humility in terms of pushing for that improvement might not be a bad thing.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): It is not a question of humility. It is a question of looking at the legal position. A Mayoral Adviser cannot give an instruction to LDA staff. I can go to Manny Lewis and say that I think something needs to be done and that I think that he should give an instruction on that, and he might take my advice or he might not take my advice. Neither I, nor any Mayoral Director can give instructions to LDA staff. It is not a question of humility or lack of humility.

Darren Johnson (AM): We know that but there was a complete lack of clarity given that the Mayor thought that Lee Jasper was acting in one capacity and the Chief Executive of the LDA thought he was acting in another capacity. We had both sides of the story on the same day, in the Assembly meeting, so there is clearly a lack of clarity.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That is not a lack of clarity about what a Mayoral Adviser can do. There is no lack of clarity about that. They cannot give instructions. They can give advice. I often give advice. Quite often it is taken and on a number of occasions it is not taken.

Darren Johnson (AM): There was a huge lack of clarity about the role that he was acting in. The Mayor thought he was acting in one capacity and the Chief Executive of the LDA thought he was acting in another capacity.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): My position on that is, firstly, there must be a clear, transparent register of interests. My general view is that no member of the GLA should be allowed to pursue a matter in which they have an interest. As you cannot deal with all cases, if there were to be an occasion in which they had to, I think they would have to be given specific permission by somebody who is not the Mayor. I suggest the Head of Paid Service. In so far as Anthony Mayor takes my opinion into account when he is doing his review of governance, that would be what I would consider to be the proper way to proceed. I do not think somebody should be pursuing a matter in which they have an interest.

Darren Johnson (AM): I will just conclude by saying that I think that you have come up with some very helpful, excellent suggestions about how we might improve things here and ensure greater transparency and better processes but I think a bit more humility about actually putting these plans into action might not go amiss.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think, Darren, the greatest possible clarity. I am not very interested in whether people are being humble or not. I am in favour of clarity. 32

Brian Coleman (AM): I do not do humble either, Mr Ross! Mr Fletcher, I think earlier you said that you that you had signed off the Lee Jasper trip to Chicago, Kingston and New York.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Yes.

Brian Coleman (Deputy Chairman): Am I correct in that?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I said that I signed off the foreign travel approval form after the trip was signed off by the International Team.

Brian Coleman (Deputy Chairman): Can you help me on this. Were all the fares for the various stages paid for in the normal GLA manner?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I think that two of them were not. I think two of them were paid by the organisation that needed him to get to New York and then back to Kingston. I can check. It was two years ago.

Brian Coleman (Deputy Chairman): If that were the case, would you not expect that to have been declared? Foreign travel paid for by somebody else in relation to his business or his travels.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Let me check that because it could well have been declared in the process of the trip being signed off. It may be that it is not on one declaration but it could be on another. I am happy to go and look at that and I will write to you about it.

Brian Coleman (Deputy Chairman): Thank you very much.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Just following that point and then I will come on to John, as I promised I would, an hour or two ago. Simon, everybody is agreed, apparently, that we want clarity; in fact that was John’s reference there. Can you then explain why you are blocking the BBC’s enquiry as to precisely the questions that Brian was just asking? You have not, apparently, been answering the BBC’s questions about who paid for each leg of the trip that they publicised on Monday.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I have not been blocking it. John has been dealing with that.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): John has been blocking it?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No. Again! Classically, you are now putting words in my mouth again. It is not a very reasonable way of going about things.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): But you are not answering my questions.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am attempting to help you.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I will tell you. Let me tell you, Mike.

33

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Let me ask this of John then: why have you not answered the BBC’s questions?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Because we were acting on legal advice with regard to the matters which we have to deal with concerning Lee Jasper. As far as I can see, as regards this trip, Lee Jasper went to Jamaica to speak at the second Diaspora Conference of Jamaica as he is in charge of community relations in London. He goes to speak there.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): The question was who paid for it.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): We received a matter which we did spend a great deal of time looking into, which was the allegation that Lee Jasper had hired 63 rooms. I thought this was a very serious matter and looked into it. It turned out that somebody at the BBC had got the currency wrong and thought that $18,000 referred to US$18,000, whereas it referred to $18,000 Jamaican, which is £140. We wasted a great deal of time looking into an allegation, which turned out to be completely false.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): So you will answer every BBC question about the funding of that trip, will you? You have not at present.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): As far as I can make out from this trip it and everything concerned with it are legitimate. I am champing at the bit to get it into the public domain.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You are not answering my questions either. I have asked questions about some of the projects that Rosemary Emodi [former Deputy to Lee Jasper] was involved in, for example, the Slavery Abolition Bicentenary. Those questions have not been answered despite all being over the Mayor’s Question Time limit for an answer. When I wrote to the Mayor in response to his promise to tell me the circumstances around Rosemary Emodi’s dismissal or resignation, again, there was an attempt to block that until legal advice was given.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Obviously! When you have a situation in which there are criminal investigations -

Mike Tuffrey (AM): There were no criminal investigations around Rosemary Emodi. That was blatant attempt to not answer a question until the lawyers forced you to do it.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I am spending more time with lawyers than I have ever spent with lawyers in my entire life previously, because I have no latitude on those matters at all. I can only do exactly what the legal advice says.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): The lawyers’ advice was to give me the information; you still wouldn't. I say 'you'; 'you’ plural; I am bemused how the Mayor's Office works.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): This comes under ‘events’ in the GLA, whereas I did deal with question of Lee’s trip because it was funded by the LDA and I did not deal with this matter. 34

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am intrigued. Who is the more senior officer before us today? Who is the boss here?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Simon can tell you. Simon does not have to give me advice. Simon can give me instructions. There is no ambiguity about it at all.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): So you are clear, Mr Ross, that Simon Fletcher is your line manager?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Certainly. Simon Fletcher is my line manager, yes. Absolutely.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You gave a different impression this morning.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Well that is because, Mike, John has been struck off to deal with these matters and that is what he is doing and if you cannot accept that then unfortunately that is your problem really, not ours.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): The normal process, Mike, you know perfectly well, if you attempted to run an organisation on the basis that one person knew everything that was going on within it, you would never deal with anything.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): We invited you here before us to understand how the Mayor’s Office operates and that is what we are trying to get to the bottom of.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): As the trip was funded by the LDA, I therefore looked into it. Something that is related to slavery comes under events and therefore somebody else deals with it.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Somebody else is not answering my questions.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): We all seem to have that problem. Richard Barnes is not answering my question.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): That is the language of the kindergarten: “You don’t answer my questions, so I’m not going to answer your questions”

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, it is not the kindergarten. Richard Barnes made an allegation that a member of staff made a malicious phone call to him that led him to make a misleading statement. He refuses to give me that information in order for the Mayor’s Office to manage itself correctly. That, I think is a very serious matter.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): It is a very serious matter but if you are seriously saying that you will not answer my questions because you are out of favour with Richard Barnes, this is pathetic.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No. I am just saying -

35

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Will you give me the commitment, in the spirit of openness and transparency, to answer the questions that we have put down in a perfectly proper way?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): As the record -

Mike Tuffrey (AM): No, I am sorry that was a question for Simon.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): That was a question to me and the answer is, if you give me the list of things that have not been answered I will undertake to go and find out exactly what the situation is and I will come back to you as quickly as I possible.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): If there are genuine legal reasons all you need to do is explain.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): If there are genuine legal reasons we will explain it to you. If there are not, then you will get the answers that you have asked for.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I will come back to you, if I may, in a moment, but, John, can I just pursue the LDA point as I promised I would. You are not a member of the LDA Board are you?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I am the Mayor’s Representative to the LDA Board, which means I sit at all the meetings; I participate in the discussions etc. I am not a voting member of the Board, no.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You are not a member of the Board in any way, shape or form? You attend and speak.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I attend as the Mayor’s Representative, yes.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Have you filled in the Board’s declaration of interests for example?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): As I am not a member I am not required to.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Precisely. So you are not a member of the Board, you have not filled in the declaration of interests that every other Board member has to, that those who are members of the Board have to fill in, and yet you sit at the Board, you take part in the discussions and you influence the decisions.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I do not have any interests.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): In which case there would be nothing in your declaration, if you had filled it in.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think you will find there is nothing in the declaration because I do not have any interests to declare, a position that I highly recommend.

36

Mike Tuffrey (AM): It is an important point of clarity, to use your word. Are you or are you not a member of the Board? And have you or have you not filled in the Board’s declaration of interests?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): If I am not a member of the Board, I am not required to put it in but I attend all of the meetings and I speak.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I would suggest that requires some clarity, because that, it seems to me, is not a proper way of carrying on any government’s mechanism; to have somebody who attends Board meetings, who takes part in discussions, who is in the private part of the Board meetings, not the public part of the Board meetings, who takes part in those discussions, influences decisions, but is not a member of the Board and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements of declaration.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): It would not make any difference because if I was asked to declare my interests, I have none to declare and therefore the form would remain blank as when it was presented to me.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): This displays an extraordinary understanding of declarations of interest. You only declare them if there is? You fill in the forms, on the public record to say there is nothing to declare.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): That is fine. In that case, as we have now discovered the very grave matter that I have no interests to declare, I am sure it will be the front page of the Evening Standard, by later this afternoon: ‘John Ross revealed as having no interests to declare.’! The revelation I have no interests to declare will horrify London.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): So you have been attending LDA Board meetings, influencing and advising for eight years and you have not filled in any declarations of interest?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I think the most important declaration of interest is that I represent the Mayor, a fact which everybody is aware of.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Can I ask you about the discussion that was brought forward by the LDA to merge the back offices of Think London and Visit London. I am told by a number of sources that this was a cost saving idea that was enthusiastically brought forward within the LDA. A number of Board members thought it was a good idea; the officers thought it was a good idea. It came to the Board and there were various working parties and I am told that that did not proceed because you made it clear that this was not something the Mayor wanted to happen.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I said I thought it was a very bad idea because I think that Visit London deals with mass marketing and promotion of tourism, requiring one type of structure, whereas Think London has decisions to make with investments in particular countries and these are normally taken at a very senior level, normally by the CEO or Chairman or by individual people, and they [Think London] have no interest in mass marketing or broadcasting. I thought it would be a very bad idea. That was my advice to the Board. That piece of advice was taken.

37

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am told they did not regard it as advice; they regarded it as something they ‘bloody well better do’ and it was only about the back office functions of those organisations as a cost saving matter.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I can express my advice on anything that I choose. It is not an instruction. You are trying to introduce another distinction which is not the legal one. The legal one is that I cannot give an instruction. I gave no instruction to the LDA not to merge aspects of Think London and Visit London. I expressed a view that it would be a bad idea in light of the different functions carried out by the bodies. They decided to take that advice.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You expressed that, I am told, in such terms as to make it absolutely clear that is what had to happen.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I did not do so. I did not do anything like that and I am perfectly well aware, I am probably more aware than anybody else in the whole of the GLA, about the legal situation. That is a perfectly proper matter for me to express my opinion on as I do think it is a very bad idea. I expressed an opinion upon that. The advice was taken. I gave no instruction. If you have a piece of evidence that I gave an instruction on such a matter, please bring it forward.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am simply saying that what happened was they did not proceed with it because they interpreted the advice as being given.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, they did not interpret the advice. I said I do not think it is a good idea for the reasons I have just outlined to you.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): The Act [The GLA Act 1999] makes clear that the Mayor’s power of direction is in particular with respect to the economic strategy and the keeping of the economic strategy under review. The practice that has grown up is detailed involvement in back office organisational functions and sitting in the Board meetings as though you were a Board Member although you are not. That is a matter of some considerable concern.

Can I ask you, in relation to Andrew Travers’ [Group Director, LDA] review, where he made two findings. One was that the policy and performance management regime on behalf of the Mayor could be improved and secondly that the GLA has not provided any guidance to policy directors as to how the role - that is the role on behalf the Mayor - should be executed in respect of the LDA. On two critical areas central to your role - the giving of advice, as you put it, and monitoring of their performance - the Travers review has found flaws in the current system after eight years and that is now having to be put right. Isn’t that a criticism of the way you have been operating in relation to the LDA?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, I don’t think so. Let us go back to the question of the White Paper: “Staff appointed to the Mayor’s Office will have direct day-to- day” – note the words: day-to-day - “contact with those implementing the Mayor’s strategy and will speak for the Mayor on those issues.” That is what I do. I think that the reference by Andrew Travers was to the e-mail, which was dealt with by Lee Jasper, which I said I think was not appropriate. I have never on any occasion whatsoever given an instruction to the LDA, nor has anybody made the 38

allegation that I have given instruction to the LDA, because I am perfectly well aware that I cannot do it. Is it highly surprising if I express my opinion, as I am responsible for the international promotion of London, on how it is best to organise the tourism promotion agency for London and the inward investment agency for London? I think it would be extraordinarily surprising if I did not express an opinion on them.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I have the White Paper here too. I have read it too. It does indeed talk about day-to-day contact. Day-to-day contact does not mean involvement in operational decision-making. That is what the Travers review found out.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Sorry, Mike; you are not making the right distinction. You are trying to invent the law. Let me give you an occasion where I have given advice on a most direct operational matter involving many millions of pounds. When we did the tourism recovery programme, the tourism recovery programme at the GLA involved expenditure of around £15 million. We were confronted with the following difficulty. This was during the Iraq war. Our expert advice was that it was pointless to promote while the war was going on because the fear factor would prevent people from flying. You were just wasting your money. That was our professional marketing advice.

Second, to unveil a major marketing campaign it would take about four weeks from the point when you pressed the button to when it would really get under way. Therefore we had to take a decision about when to press the button while the war was going on. I expressed my opinion on that down to the exact date on which it should be launched. That was the most operational matter involving millions of pounds. The LDA could, however, have said, ‘We don’t accept your advice on this and we’re going to do something else’; that is the legal situation. They did not. If they had not, not on the date but on the tourism recovery programme, I would have gone to the Mayor and asked the Mayor to issue a directive because I considered the matter was so important. I knew I had no power to instruct them, but the Mayor could have.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): My point is, because that threat exists, what starts as day-to-day contact becomes detailed involvement in operations and moving from advice to instruction in practice.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I am not prevented from day-to-day contact. There is nothing in the Act that says that I do not do it. I simply cannot take the decision.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): You obviously think you are behaving in the proper way.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Can I say something. I think that it is very important. I understand the point you are making but I think that is very important that you do not go so far down the line that you are pursuing that you end up with a mayoral system that does not work. It is a genuine point; I am not trying to argue with you about it. You need to think very carefully. Are you going to have a mayoral system that is not able to really involve itself in the functional bodies which, ultimately, have to deliver the Mayor’s policies and priorities?

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I have been careful in the media and elsewhere to say that the Mayor is quite proper, once elected, to pursue his agenda. The issue is how, and our case is very simply put, that the situation has grown up; the Mayor has some very direct personal powers, those are then exercised in 39

practice through a network of advisers who are not, in our view, properly supervised and controlled, otherwise some of the things we have seen happen would not have happened, and there is no clarity and no transparency; there is not a record of when John has given advice in such terms that they jolly well better follow it.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): You have made an allegation there which is not the case. Let me tell you, for example, occasions on which Manny [Lewis] has not done what I advised.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): The way these things work is I ask the questions.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No, Mike, because you are giving the answer. You are attempting to say something that is not the law, is the law.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I do not need to be harangued. You are here giving an account of your behaviour to the elected representatives of London. I have acknowledged, if you recall, that you think you are behaving properly. I am saying that what I think and what we think is that we have a strong mayoral system, we need proper controls, and there are not proper controls at present. I want to conclude my remarks by going back to Simon to ask whether you ever have a look at the code of conduct that exists at a national level over ministerial advisers and how they interface with the civil service. Actually, that makes quite instructive reading. It sets out there what they may do; these are special advisers working on behalf of the minister, so there is a sort of parallel.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): It is not a parallel at all.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): John, the question is to me.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am trying to talk to Simon who is the Chief of Staff. So the special advisers can convey to officials ministers’ views; perfectly proper. On all sorts of things they can request information, but it also goes on to say what they cannot do. They cannot behave towards civil servants in a way that is inconsistent with the standards set and I think we have seen some of that in relation to Lee Jasper at least. They cannot have responsibility for budgets, which is interesting, and they cannot be involved in the award of contracts. It sets out very clearly what they can and what they cannot do. We do not have such a code of conduct here and I think we should have one, so my question is: Would you not agree that what we need out of this whole affair, and we are not over with the whole affair yet, is a Group-wide register of interests, which should have been in place; we should have a code of conduct as special advisers do; we should have a detailed protocol so that people know -

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Are you asking questions or making statements? You seem to be making a long statement.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Mike is asking a question to Simon Fletcher.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): We should have those matters in place. We have not had them. There is a governance review going on but would you not agree that we should have those in place?

40

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I think the problem is contained within the way you put it, which is that there is not a parallel. They are advisers to ministers. The GLA Act is a different beast altogether.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): They are policy advisers to the Mayor though.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, that is not correct. The Mayor can appoint ten staff to pretty much any position he wants to within the Authority with the exception of the statutory officers. It is clearly envisaged in the Act that their purpose is to direct work. I remember both Steve Norris and Jeffrey Archer [former Conservative candidate for Mayor and prospective Conservative candidate for Mayor respectively] in their different forms were proposing more of a Cabinet style; those would be appointees who meet in a slightly different way, but nonetheless, they would be directing areas of work. That is the way the GLA Act acts.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): I am not saying they are identical; I am saying they are similar.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): No, they are not. I do not think they are in any way at all. I think the civil service model and the mayoral model are entirely different models.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): Do you not agree that we ought to have a code? Whatever they are whether they are similar or not, should we not have that clarity as to how they operate?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Yes. It is called the GLA Act, which is one of the longest Acts ever written. Seriously.

Mike Tuffrey (AM): So you are defending the indefensible, it seems to me.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I am not defending the indefensible.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): We are defending the GLA Act.

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): Again, you are putting words in mouths. The situation is not parallel. They are advisers who give political advice, not people who direct staff and hold budgets. That is a different system altogether. In fact, the only way to make the things parallel would be, if this was either some kind of prime ministerial type mayoral system, a relatively weaker mayoral system, perhaps even elected by the City Council, as it would be in American terms, or if the Assembly or the models would translate back in the other way like a presidential system. You are mixing up models.

John Biggs (AM): I thought perhaps I should revisit the question that I did not ask earlier which was almost housekeeping. There is a pattern with my good friend, Mike Tuffrey, that he referred earlier to the documentation of the LDA being merely the tip of an iceberg. I do not think there is any evidence anywhere other than perhaps in a fantasy in his mind that it is the tip of an iceberg but I thought I would put that on the record of the meeting.

I wanted to ask a particular question about the role of Mr Ross as the Mayor’s observer, if you like, at the LDA Board. I am not defining his job for him; that is for him to explain to us. Could you just 41

clarify for the record that – and I think we have done this at previous Assembly meetings but let us go through it again – the LDA is sponsored jointly, if you like, by the GLA from City Hall and by what is now called the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), a government department which sponsors it on behalf of the Government. Is that the case?

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Yes, although the Mayor has the ultimate power to direct it, which is not exercised in any other Regional Development Agency.

John Biggs (AM): In that context, given that there is that to your relationship, it would be pretty unreasonable if a representative of both the Mayor’s Office and DBERR, which, in the case of DBERR is a representative of the Government Office for London on the behalf of the department, was not present at Board meetings and did not play an active part in understanding the deliberations of the Board.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would think it was completely extraordinary if the Government department and the Mayor were not represented at the Board, but this relates, to, again what Mike Tuffrey has continued to say that he would like to be the case. We do not imply what we would like the case to be; we say what the law is. As the Mayor’s representative, it would be a waste of time for me to express my opinion on the most detailed matters, but I am absolutely involved in operational matters, for example tourism, that involve millions of pounds but I am involved in giving my advice on them.

John Biggs (AM): Again, for the record, I suppose I am the only Assembly Member who was present at that Board meeting as a Board Member of the LDA. When you did intervene on the matter specifically of the Think London re-tendering, when that happened, the outcome, although it was unfortunate that it happened at that stage, the effect was to defer the decision so that LDA officers could go away and consider the representations that had been made. The effect was not that you, as an observer to the Board, made a proposal which was then an amendment to the recommendations, which then led to the LDA spending its money in a different way.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): Let me take a couple of occasions which I think explain the relationship very clearly.

John Biggs (AM): I would be very happy if you just said yes to that.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): No. I want to deal with questions properly the way that the matters function. As regards the question about whether to give evidence with Manny Lewis etc, on certain matters at the last Assembly meeting Manny and I exchanged e- mails. He finally sent me back an e-mail saying, ‘Heard what you say, don’t agree, going to do something else’. That indicates clearly that he is totally aware that we discussed the matter and he decided he was going to do something completely different. That means he understands that situation absolutely clearly. That is the most crucial thing as regards our situation at the LDA. Obviously I express my opinion on a wide range of matters at the LDA Board. It would be absolutely astonishing if I did not.

John Biggs (AM): Finally then, just to cut this short, do you welcome, as I do – I am sure you have your own views on this, both of you – the review which is being led by Anthony Mayer [Chief 42

Executive, GLA] into the relationships and accountabilities and declaration frameworks around the Assembly and its functional bodies. Do you think that will help clarify some of these issues so that, not least, Members of the Assembly but also your office, understands best how that relationship will work so that there are no misunderstandings. Perhaps Simon could answer that?

Simon Fletcher (Chief of Staff, GLA): I operate on the principle that no system is ever perfect and it can always be improved and the best possible minds should be applied at all times to help improve them. People like Anthony Mayer are doing that and it is very welcome. No system of government stands still. We are constantly changing the policies we introduce and that has an impact on the way we work. It is fine. It is good.

John Ross (Director, Economic and Business Policy, GLA): I would just say I think it is very important that Anthony does it, to clarify for Mike Tuffrey who completely fails to understand the situation.

John Biggs (AM): That was not helpful but thank you.

Sally Hamwee (Chair): Thank you both very much indeed. We will consider at the end of this meeting where we are going but I know that we all share the aspiration expressed by Mr Livingstone, I think when we were still in Romney House, that this should be the most open, transparent and accountable government that the UK has ever seen.

43