From yesterday's Standard:
Boris Johnson has failed to turn around the finances of the London Development Agency, which helped bring down his predecessor Ken Livingstone, an auditor's report reveals. The Mayor's economic regeneration body was criticised for its poor financial reporting, accounting errors and cost over-runs.
A letter sent by the Audit Commission raised serious concerns about whether the LDA, which has a £469 million budget, was fit for purpose. It added: "The Agency has failed to meet the minimum requirements to manage its finances to deliver value for money." The findings are embarrassing for Mr Johnson who was elected on a pledge to improve the running of the LDA.
Labour AMs have responded with glee to this news, and who can blame them? Even they, when pushed, will privately admit that the LDA functioned poorly under Livingstone, but only dedicated Ken-haters still insist it was the seething pit of impropriety depicted by the grim old Evening Boris. John Biggs, the LDA's former deputy chair, is on record as favouring the arms-length body being reconfigured within the GLA where its lines of accountability would be clear, it could be scrutinised more effectively and its resources deployed to areas that market forces do not reach. It's hard to disagree.
Update, 16:11 The LDA has responded to the Standard's story with some vigour. Here's the letter from Chief Executive Peter Rogers, published in the paper today:
Your criticisms of the London Development Agency for lacking purpose and not being cost effective (15 March) are out of date. I was appointed by the Mayor in May 2008 to deliver on his commitment to sort out the organisation's problems, well-documented in your campaign that year, and have overseen major structural changes. Today's LDA is a much more strategic investor, using our influence to get results and better value for money for London.
As part of our greater openness, in January we shared the District Auditor's findings on our 2008-09 financial management to the London Assembly. The auditor's judgment was based on our own discovery of additional future liabilities in our Olympic Land Directorate last year, not an "overspend of £160 million" as you claim. Unlike two years ago, we now know where we are on each of our projects, month by month. This has allowed us to adjust business plans and accommodate future commitments without undue impact on our work.
Most Londoners are affected by our work promoting the capital's economic development through projects such as the London Employer Accord and the regeneration of Hackney Wick. These demonstrate our dedication to ensuring London remains an economic success.
You can watch that session with the Assembly via here. See Assembly Plenary, 13 January.
