Audit Committee - Thursday 12 March 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Audit Committee
Thursday, 12th March 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Welcome everybody. Thank you very much.

Welcome everyone and thank you very much indeed for being here.

We are grateful for the members to be here this evening. Thank you.

Obviously the meeting is being webcast so I think we'll introduce ourselves.

My name is Barry, Barry Quirk, and I'm the independent chair of the Audit Committee.

Could I go in this direction?

I'm Fahanezir, Democratic Services Officer supporting Audit Committee this evening.

Hello everyone, I'm a Councillor Haroun Miah from Sheddle Wood.

Councillor Kabir Ahmed from Weavers Wood.

Evening chair, Councillor Potter and the Chair of the Bromley South Ward, subbing for Councillor Amin Ravan.

Thank you.

I'm Shepria Iqbal, Director of Legal and Monitoring Officer.

Mafida Bustin, Councillor for Island Gardens.

Councillor Mark Francis, Maboh Eastwood.

Are the councillors on line?

Councillor Mohammed Chadri, Myland Ward.

Thank you very much indeed.

In terms of the declaration of interest, I wonder if there are declarations of interest,

if you could make them at the item concerned.

It's been set out in the forward preamble to the committee on the agenda, the basis for that.

So I'd be grateful if you could do that.

Are there apologies for absence for harm?

Yes, Chair. There is apologies from Councillor Amen Raman.

and we've got Councillor Bodrill -Chowdhury who is substituting for Councillor Rahman.

Thank you very much.

We have...

I'm trying to describe...

We've got more supplements than Holland and Barrett this evening.

So I'm desperately trying to work out the sequencing is, but if I get it wrong you'll have to correct me.

But the first item of course is the minutes of the previous meeting.

Which is on pages 9 to 20.

Are there comments about these minutes?

I've asked the officers to look at the prospect of us having action logs at the end of things

so that we can look at actions rather than just look at our previous conversations, albeit

that that's quite interesting.

We can tease out some differences and difficulties, but I think it's really important that we

look at the actions that I think was agreed and when the questions are asked about things

whether they can be followed through.

So a different way perhaps of adding to the minutes of the previous meeting.

But are there any questions about the previous meeting?

No? No? No process of regressions?

That's very good. Thank you.

Let's look at the item, I think we're looking at item 3 .1 and then 4 .6, is that right?

That's correct, yes.

Okay, I see. I've written my own. That's very good.

So the annual report and the audit results, this is on the supplementary agenda pages 3 to 114.

I don't know, Richard, if you want to make some comment, we've got a new interim section 151,

Officer Richard Ennis, the Director of Corporate Resources here.

And Stephen Reed is online.

and Stephen is the UK partner of EY, the external audiences.

Thank you, Chair. I mean, first of all, to say one of the things that the team and I committed to is getting the papers out in a more timely fashion, really.

They were late, they shouldn't be late.

We need to get better at this and that's what we will do to make sure that is better.

This is the report which has got a number of aspects to it.

A very important report for us really which is the annual report for the year -ended 2024 -25.

There are some very key findings in respect of it that we will treat incredibly seriously

to make sure that we get to a better place as part of the continued building on the previous

improvements that the borough has made.

but we recognise we need to do more,

and we recognise we need to do that in a faster way

as we can as we start to build back some of those

opening and closing positions as part of the statutory

recommendations that are incredibly important for us

to recognise these issues and build upon.

I think the report is there, it speaks for itself,

I'm not sure whether my colleague wants to say anything through you, Chair, whether you

prefer to go to Steve to take us through the key points and the responses that we're starting

to format and starting to build further forward as well.

I take it that we're here considering 3 .1, which is your covering report, is that right?

And so therefore if we could just have that and then ask Stephen.

But let's ask other officers if they wish to contribute to this agenda item 3 .1.

Abdul -Jazak.

Thank you, Chair.

So this is basically an update to the report that was presented in December.

There hasn't been any significant changes but there's been slight movements in terms

of the assurances.

And you will see on page 5 there were some items that were flagged as substantial when

the draught report was presented in December.

subsequently when the accounts were done they moved to red and no assurance only because

there were some items that EY failed, they were not completed on time. Apart from that

I think there were some other items in there as well which I don't think they are quite

significant but I will invite Assan to expand on that and maybe Stephen Reid to comment

further.

I think Richard and Abder -Razak have pretty much covered the covering report.

In essence, just to highlight the assurance matrix that Abder -Razak has just covered.

And that's going to be a key metric for us in terms of performance and improvement moving

forwards in terms of addressing those reds and to getting to building back assurance

as at the earliest opportunity possible.

Thank you, Jay.

Can I ask about the table on page 5, it has for the partial, I think the comprehensive

income expenditure statement, and it says as we do not have full assurance over income

expenditure entries relating to balance sheet movements. Can you give examples of that?

How material is that? How big is that? I have no idea from just reading the text. It's obviously

partial, it's not substantial, but I didn't know, I'd like to have a bit more information

on that.

So, because the accounts have been disclaimed for a few years, I think the opening balances,

EY haven't had the opportunity to make sure that they were fully assured, and that's part

of the exercise that we're doing this year to the end of June, is to really go through

those opening balances and make sure all the data is there for EY to do the assurance piece.

I think that's the key metric there, but in terms of it being partial, I'll get Asan to

comment on that.

So in terms of the final assurance rating, collection fund is the one that's partial,

and that's due to opening balance assurances that we need on the collection fund.

So there's a number of years of testing that's been completed on the collection fund, but

on all years in terms of building back those assurances.

So I think it relates to 2021 and needing to go back to those initial years

in terms of disclaimed opinions to build back that assurance.

So the in -year testing was completed for the collection fund,

it's that build back of assurance in relation to those disclaimed years

that we need to address moving forwards.

I'm trying to work out the difference between when something is complete

and when you have an assurance that it's complete.

This says we don't have the assurance, but does that mean you're unable to give reliable

information to the auditors for them to assure it?

Where is the problem?

Is it in the substantive or is it in the arguments about assurance?

That's what I'm trying to find out.

So, Chair, because the previous opening balance is having been fully audited, and that's why

we can't give assurance.

So EY will have to go back and audit.

Any other questions on this covering note?

In which case, Stephen, welcome to the meeting virtually.

We've been through a number of these items before, although you've now made them clear about the dates

and so presumably you've revised elements of that.

I wonder if you could draw our attention to what you think is the most important issues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and apologies I can't be with the committee in person this evening.

Chair, I don't intend to say much about either of these two reports, the audit results report

or the auditor's annual report, as officers have indicated.

These have been considered at previous meetings of this committee.

They have been simply finalised upon issue of the opinion and there has been some modest amendments to those reports,

but there has been no changes in any of the key messages.

And they're very much at committee this evening for the record to demonstrate the final versions of the reports.

And I really wasn't going to go into any more detail given previous consideration and discussion of the matters reported within both reports.

That's very succinct and very understandable. Thank you for that.

Are there any questions that people have got on this, the modest revisions?

No? Okay. In which case, thank you very much for that.

We note the final report, which is in the recommendations 1 and 2.

Is that noted? Yes? Okay. Agreed.

Thank you very much for that.

And now we're going backwards in the agenda to 4 .6, which is the mobilisation plan, if we can.

Who is leading on this?

Is this

Abdo Rizak or

David or

Richard?

We have a

plethora of

officers we can

ask questions

of.

Yourself, Abdo Rizak.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.

I will introduce you and I will keep it brief.

There is a couple of things I wanted to

flag.

In the last meeting, obviously, you

took your feedback and I think you have

and made sure that the report was quite brief,

but verbatim in terms of the recommendations.

We've also changed how we report progress.

If you look at Appendix 1, I hope it's a bit more clearer

and it's a bit more about asking for evidence now

as we go through the process.

So it'd be really helpful as we go through this update today

just to get your feedback in terms of if that formatting

and reporting works for you,

and then we'll keep you updated on those.

So while he's on the first item, I'll invite Asan to comment on the progress.

And as we go through, I'll ask other teams.

Just keep it brief so it gives the opportunity to ask questions.

I'm going to cheque and ask how do you want to do this?

Can we just pick the areas from within these?

Okay, okay.

So look, I want to play some record.

How welcome I think it is that officers have responded really positively to the challenge

that was put at the last meeting.

I think there is a noticeable shift, not only in terms of a return to the language and the

wording of EY's own report, but in terms of the way that this is presented back to us

and the progress that is presented.

And I think, you know, to see having made such a significant shift over the course of

the last six weeks, I think is really good.

And I want to thank the team for that.

I especially have been hard about this in the past.

And I think, you know, I really appreciate that it's taken on board.

I wanted to just pick up on two of the areas and just I guess this is about testing why

you making the judgments that you are in terms of progress made.

So the first of them is in relation to the committee itself and the effectiveness of us as a committee.

I take my share of the responsibility for this. We do need to be trained more.

I think that anyone, whoever is elected after the election and comes onto this committee,

but other councillors too who might deputise, need that training.

And I would really want to make sure that that's in place for the new term.

Another area that's raised is about the EY explicitly in its updated version of their report

is about the continuing involvement of cabinet members in this, as members of this committee.

And we've had the explanation about why the cabinet members feel it's appropriate and we've had the statement here.

but is it consistent for us to make the improvement that's required by EY

continuing with this approach?

So that's my first question in relation to the effectiveness of the committee.

Thank you.

Yeah, I know.

I know.

I just realised.

Thank you for the question.

Chair, we've been following SIP for guidance, which says if there is an executive member

within the audit committee, then there should be compensatory measures, like having an independent

chair, which is what we've done.

We do have an independent chair yourself.

But it's a valid point.

It's something that we can continue looking at as we review the effectiveness of the audit

committee going forward.

But we're not, we're complying with CIFSA guidance currently.

Okay, can I just come back on this point?

So I'm going to read from the updated version of EY's report.

So it says, through our attendance at audit committees, we've identified several further

matters that may be limiting the committee's effectiveness.

Committee composition. The continued membership of a cabinet member on the

Order Committee raises concerns regarding the committee's independence.

While this issue was raised by another committee member, no action has yet been

taken. Management has indicated that the appointment of an independent chair

mitigates this risk. However, this appointment wasn't made until May 2025.

So I think this is in relation to the 24 -25 issues.

Your appointment, obviously, welcome, but clearly for EY, doesn't resolve the situation.

So I'm unclear why the council continues to maintain its position corporately around this.

But I guess that's for the council corporately to explain.

I've just said we ought to get this formally, this committee ought to agree that the statutory

officers, the corporate statutory officers ought to look into this issue and report to

the following committee so that this can be considered in the appointment of people in

in the next administration.

But I don't...

I...personally someone who was involved in drafting the SIPFRA guide.

Anyway, no, it was the SIPFRA solace guide actually.

I was involved in drafting. Anyway.

Sorry, Chair.

Just for clarity, I think this issue was taken to full council.

And it was agreed at full council that a cabinet member,

Although the cabinet member doesn't have within the executive morality, doesn't have decision making powers

could sit within the committee as per constitution allowed it.

I understand what EY have raised within their sphere of influence.

However, if a proposal is to take place, I think somebody would have to propose it

and that they would have to second it and then there would have to be a vote within the committee for it to be then reviewed further.

We have a recommend, we have the view of EY, maybe we should not invite them now, but I think we ought to say to them this issue has been raised.

Please specify and then we could consider it at a future meeting.

I think that there is a matter that needs to be considered.

It's a council side committee, just as pension investment and planning.

And there are different, it's not a sit for point,

it's actually a constitutional point about the council and its arrangements.

So I do think that's why I said that maybe the statutory officers ought to consider this.

Not that the committee should consider it, but the statutory officers, because there

needs to be appropriate consistency across those three committees, planning, pension

investment and this committee, audit committee.

In many areas, and I'll point to one now, in some areas of constitutional propriety in relation to local government, things are silent.

So decisions about elections, for example, are silent as between the returning officer and the council for obvious reasons over history.

But it's really important that this issue doesn't become a bone of contention in the future and is actually addressed properly by the officers.

They may wish to get some view about this from either their professional bodies or others.

Certainly I can take you back and discuss the Statutory Officers meetings.

But as Councillor Armistead said, the terms of reference for the committee was reviewed

at full council and to change the current terms of reference allows an executive member

to be a part of the committee.

So if we are to change that, then it would be a full council decision.

But certainly we can take forward proposals.

No, I do realise that.

It's just I don't want to, I don't want us to get bogged down in that issue.

Councillor.

Sorry, just on this point, is there anything in the terms of reference about the number

of cabinet members, he should be on the committee.

Because I remember there was a discussion,

I think there was a recommendation,

and I can't recall whether we said that it should be limited

to one or whether we said it should be,

it could be more than one,

but it shouldn't be the lead member for resources.

Could we, would you mind just checking that, please?

I can cheque it and get back to you.

I don't know the answer off the top of my head.

Just on another note, as this is an Executive Mayoral

Chair and with past administrations, it's important

to highlight that sometimes the administration may be

the minority party and there's no guarantees that

the minority party will necessarily have enough

members to both form a cabinet and have a number

of individual members within committees and so on

so forth.

In the past there has been times when there's been

less than 10 members within the cabinet itself as the minority administration, because of the executive

morality, has been appointed. So just so that we don't enter the realm of absurdity and we have a certain

level of pragmatism involved, I would say to also consider that as well. This is currently a minority

administration because there is no clear majority within the councillors numbers.

When you take nine councillors away that leaves a small number of councillors and therefore

in terms of proportionality of attending meetings and so on so forth has to also be quite balanced.

So I would request the golden triangle also consider those options as well.

Okay, look, I could drag us into constitutional weeds on this, but I won't do.

So let's, the officers can have a view of that and we don't know what the future holds.

All is a woven web of guesses at the moment, we shall see.

Now, that was your first point.

Don't give another co -paper which an argument will hang for ages.

Thank you very much.

So, I mean, just to be clear, there are currently two cabinet members sitting here,

paid cabinet members sitting in the committee.

My recollection is that the committee was supposed to have a maximum of one.

But, you know, hey -ho, it's the last session, isn't it?

So, my next question, and I recognise that there is the rationale for the scoring

that you've awarded here, and like it stacks up in a lot of ways.

But the one that I want to ask and I do that conscious that two of the people are sitting in the room

Is about the golden triangle itself. So we have a new section 151 interim section 15 officer.

Welcome Richard. And a permanent monitoring officer in post as well.

but nevertheless the description of significant weakness in that was upheld in the final version of EY's report.

So I just wondered if you can say a little bit more about how you reached the conclusion around the progress of the workstream that includes effectiveness of the Golden Triangle piece.

Thanks, Councillor. We've taken the steering and challenge and findings of EY as really

anchored in the instability around the Golden Triangle, but recognising there are additional

conversations that we want to have with EY and also with the envoys as well, just about

How to continue to strengthen that and make it consistent

So I find is a largely rooted in in the appointment of the new of the new section 1 5 1 and the stability that provides

but look I recognise there's

that

That that answers the initial response, but there's there's some more there's some more conversations to have

If I may come back on that

I will pass it over to the

Thank you.

Through you, Chair,

it is a pleasure

to be here.

I am still in single -figure days

in my tenure

in the role.

I have been a 151 in four London

boroughs

before.

I will do everything I can in that space

to help the authority

and improving the governance arrangements.

One of the other things I've been talking to

the Chief Executive about really is a review

on getting that additional help in

as to how we can strengthen the Golden Triangle

arrangements that we have in place

and look for areas where we can improve it.

I mean, some of that will come from just experience

in other places, but some of that will also come from

I've been talking to the monitoring officer about how we do that and how we can do that

relatively quickly as well just to strengthen some of it.

And it's different in all of the boroughs that I've worked in really, so it's about

us getting to that best practise place and getting there quickly.

Thank you.

That's really helpful to hear.

So the specific, I think, pointed criticism that's in the EY's report is about the long delay that happened

or the kind of the period, should we say, before your arrival Richard, and what impact that had,

including, they mentioned about the former section 151 officer not being required to work their notice period,

the not going out with the recruitment process at all at that stage then waiting again until

September and then I was involved I was a member of the panel that ultimately concluded

for whatever reason that there wasn't an appointable candidate for the permanent role.

So just wondered the team's response on those points which seemed to be the reason one of

areas that EY is particularly concerned about.

I think these are pertinent points but these are rather

teleological because you're asking the people about their own.

I think that there needs to be a review of that

and it's probably the chief executive actually, but otherwise we're asking people to explain

and why they are.

And I think that's probably not...

Maybe I am asking the wrong people and I'm sorry if I am.

Like, I guess the point is, again,

as EY have brought attention to it,

the Chief Executive is supposed to be sitting in the room.

And in fact, as is the Mayor himself,

like they pointedly say that those things should happen

and yet, you know, apart from the one occasion

when we were in here in the beginning of December,

that hasn't happened since.

Well, I certainly think that ought to happen

at least once a year, if not twice.

But there you go.

Can I ask a question on the paper?

So paragraph 36 sets out the work streams.

And it very hopefully gives us, who is the responsible officer who has taken it forward,

the degree to which it is complete and so on.

And then in 39 it says what is really important is there is strong day -to -day leadership and grip on delivery.

Am I right in saying that the responsibility is with Jonathan and his other officers, that they are the leads for each of these workstreams?

Is that correct? They are the accountable officers for the workstreams.

What I don't get from the report, and I think I agree with what's been said,

it's a great improvement in terms of tone and direction and so on,

I think that's really good.

What I don't get though is the balance of effort.

So it says somewhere, you know, we're going to be spending n million on something.

I have no idea whether that's to fund 500 days work or 5000 days work.

I don't know whether workstream one is a quarter or is it 40 %?

I've no idea about that.

What I do know is the degree to which they are complete.

Am I to infer that they are equivalent?

I don't know.

So I think something which gave some sense in which the overall resource and effort

and trying to explain it in terms of days of effort,

person days might even be a useful way of looking at it.

Even if these are estimates.

But otherwise the committee is noting and agreeing

the deployment of resource with just a list really

about where it's going to go and be directed.

So I think that will be helpful in future reports

where you're giving an account of what you're doing on the plan.

It would be very helpful to me, certainly.

I think my only other point was really...

I just didn't like the word showcase that was being used.

I just thought it sort of made it look like kabuki theatre or some sort of pantomime.

It's referred to under evidence.

I like the word evidence.

But I would like to see what is going to be the evidence rather than being essentially showcased.

But other than that I thought this was a significant move forward.

Is there any other observations?

Over to yourself.

Thank you chair and thank you for the updated report.

I do agree it's progress.

I think we would have liked a little bit longer to review it.

So I've only been able to look at it today very, very briefly.

I think, just following on from the Chair's comments,

I think this is much more balanced and we can see that there's work underway.

But I don't necessarily have a sense of what the endgame is,

like what is the end approach, what are we actually trying to achieve.

and if I reflect on the earlier report of the auditors,

we've been talking about financial improvement for well over a year now,

and yet we haven't necessarily seen the progress that perhaps we were expecting at this point,

and I'm sure that's not down to a lack of effort on anyone's side,

and I'm sure that effort has been there.

My question is what hasn't happened?

Why have we got a report from the auditors saying one position in December and another position now,

and that is linked to actions in the mobilisation plan.

What are we missing?

There's all this work that's been done, all this effort and plans and dates and actions.

what is missing, what are we not seeing, that's perhaps not written down.

Thank you, thank you Councillor. I think in terms of EY's report and when we presented,

obviously we spoke about there has been improvement compared to last year,

and I think there was a lot of work that was done, it was just the final review,

and we have taken that as feedback and we are working with EY now and we do have three

work streams to really look at the balance sheet, work with EY and work with the team

to really prioritise those key areas that EY have given us feedback on. It is a substantial

amount of work to achieve. We are looking at quite a few areas, but we are looking at

a few years of balances that haven't been assured

and I think it's just making sure we use our resources wisely

to really get us to a place where we have clean accounts

in about two or three years' time

and that will require effort between ourselves and EY.

And I think apart from those two key areas

which are the balance sheet reviews which required a lot of sampling and testing

the rest of us, I mean we're working to really publish on time this year

and you will see improvements

in the next year's audit review.

Thank you, Dr

Rizak.

Richard, do you want to add

something?

I think it's really

important that we try and do

things earlier.

It's really important

when we look at the plan

we're going through this year

that we resource it properly,

a plan without resources

won't succeed.

The other bit for us

is about the regular

checking as well,

making sure that we are

well informed on it.

And do things in a different way as well.

We had a conversation today

in a meeting I was about

how you do the annual governance statement.

There are different ways different places do it.

But I think there are

in my view

definitely improvements that we can

do to the annual governance statement

process that we go through

as an organisation to support

the document that the mayor

and the chief executive

ultimately asked to sign.

The last thing I will say is it's also really important

we have both a robust and a constructive relationship

with the external auditors.

They have a job to do.

We have to be strong and equal in that conversation,

in that relationship.

And some of that will come from us proving

as an organisation we can do the things

that are being talked about.

But there are certainly some of the things you look at when you've worked in different places.

You can bring some improvements to the way we do things to help to move these actions along.

Can I ask a follow up?

Yes.

Thank you.

So how is this, what's the purpose of this appendix one then?

So we've talked a bit about the golden triangle and how there's some actions in here

which relate to the Section 151 officer,

but then there's more work that needs to be done

to identify what the other gaps are.

How, is this like, is this a live document

that just tells us what is happening?

Do we have another document somewhere

that has more actions on it and is more comprehensive?

And yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. If you recall, last meeting we brought you a massive document

which is quite granular and had about 300 task lists. So what we have done with that

now is we have worked with the chair to say, look, we will monitor that in the background.

I'm happy to include as an appendix next time. But this is just to give you kind of the latest

update on the material changes and you will see directly linked to EY's recommendation.

So everything there should really give you the confidence to say, okay, how's your actions

actually, are they contributing to really addressing the recommendations and what evidence

can you provide to make sure that's been addressed.

And that's the mentality we are working through now.

But yes, there is a comprehensive action list behind it.

Yeah, I mean, I wasn't here, but my understanding is that the committee felt they were given

too much information and therefore it was really difficult to draw more and therefore

the summaries were to endeavour to help in that space.

We do, there is and there are, probably through Jonathan's team to an extent really, where

there are percentages shown and so on to try and give an indication of where we're at,

there's an element of judgement in how some of that goes.

That may be something that is helpful or isn't.

There are mixed views on it.

On things like the AGS for example,

ultimately it's about the organisation having the evidence

to support the statements that are made in the AGS

and for that to marry up to some of the external reviews

that go on and making sure that we make sure

those views are taken on board and reflect appropriately.

And the thing, the issue at the AJS is always that it's

a year behind, and quite often organisations that are

on improvement journeys have a space where the AJS

is a backward looking document,

because it relates to the accounts.

I think there's an important piece of work for us to do

to also start to inform the committee more so

on the journey.

So I think this bit about what we've done and how much we're doing to move forward almost becomes as important or at least as important

As the look back as as well because it shows that we're trying to rapidly

rapidly move it move things forward

Thank you. So I think maybe just the added piece that is like just to have a something that says, you know

Why the why are these?

Actions coming toward it committee

Specifically for each quarter just to help

understand why these ones are significant and the other ones are.

I guess with like the risk committee papers, there's a risk threshold, isn't there, where we get risks over a certain level,

which is always sort of helpful for us.

And then I guess the other question is how are we made aware or how are you made aware, Chair,

of anything that isn't progressing or anything underneath this that is significant but needs

perhaps our help as an audit committee to get it implemented?

Richard and then Councillor.

I mean what's really helpful of having the audit committee is for it to look at the things

So we are proposing the things that we think will improve it,

where our position, we're in conversations with,

within our own management team, within EY,

in respect of those things.

The helpful bits from the audit committee would be,

are these the sorts of things that make sense

to move the organisation forward, or is there anything missing?

So the views we're really looking for are,

these are the proposals around what we're doing.

you'll have to bear with me and give me some time to look at those and think to

myself well there's more we can be doing. I'm sure we'll come

back to the, you know, whatever the format of the committee is in post the

election as we try and make things more, this shouldn't be a static document, we

should be constantly thinking about how do we do it quicker, how do we do

something that's different and pick up learning from others as well. But

the views you really are forming the committee,

is there anything there that doesn't make sense to do,

or is there anything more we could be doing to push it?

Speed is clearly an important thing.

The quicker we get there, the better,

but we also need to make sure we're doing the right things.

I was just gonna make a couple of suggestions, Chair.

Actually, first, let me thank Abdul -Raza Qasim

for acting up as interim director

for a period of time and now he's stepped down.

And let me welcome Richard Ennis as the new corporate director for resources in section 151.

What I wanted to pick up on is maybe trying to find a healthy medium between what's being asked and what can be delivered.

I think quarterly reports may be too dense, but maybe we could get a dashboard report in terms of the key achievements

and outstanding and if needed on an annual basis maybe an index or an appendix highlighting

exactly what has been achieved. I think for me it's one in relation to the

Audit Committee but another in relation to the transparency of the Council as well.

These are public facing documents and I think the public have a right to know how our progress

is going. Percentage figures might not necessarily give them that level of assurance and confidence

that things are getting done. Now I know we have short term, middle, and long term objectives

in changing things. Change doesn't happen overnight. But getting those indications in

in a timely manner, without outward facing documents,

I think will be good for the reputation of this council.

Yeah, I think that's right.

I think it's important that these are public documents for the committee, really.

And it's important that they're intelligible to the public.

I think this one does that, it reads it well.

For me it's the...

It says in here, as a sort of side, the council is going to spend four and a half million over three years,

two million over the next year, and it doesn't explain anywhere where that's being spent.

What it says is, here's a load of things that we're doing, and I've got no idea as to whether there's currently a hundred people doing this

and you're going to put another ten in, or there's ten people doing it and you're going to put another five, but no idea.

I think it's important that the, because you do go,

three -six is the summary, and then you go through each

of the areas, each of the workstreams explaining them.

And I think that's useful.

But I get no sense, are they equivalent, or are they,

is one more, I know that one is, you know,

the contract management is more complete than the other ones.

So I understand that, that's good.

But I'm not sure what that then means.

There's not a conclusion for each one.

That means we're short of this and so on.

So I would ask officers to do that and maybe a summary of that,

that dashboard as you say, could get us to that place.

But I do think this is significant improvement.

I wouldn't want to criticise that any further at all.

So do we as a committee note that report?

Yes, I agree.

I agree with that report. Thank you very much for that.

I know the amount of time that's gone into that.

As the Councillor says, it was a pity that we only got a few hours to read it.

Anyway, let's go to item 4 .1, I think now, which is the internal audit and anti -fool progress report from David.

David Hobbs, Head of Internal Audit.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening, everyone.

The paper I will take as read reflects the relatively short passage of time since we

last met.

So there's been a few updates and we've issued three reasonable assurance audit opinions

in the intervening period.

And you'll see in the report that in terms of our overall statistics that means excluding

schools in the year to date, 52 % of audits cross that threshold of reasonable or substantial

assurance. And if you include the schools in that, it rises to 55%. As usual, I always

caveat these stats by saying this number will be subject to some volatility. And when we

next meet, which I think will be in mid -June, you will have the full year -end stats on that,

and we'll see where we end up at that position at the June meeting.

The other thing really to draw your attention to is the number of outstanding management actions

which has been subjected to some scrutiny.

That has continued to decline.

We now have a completion rate of 97 % for 23 -24,

85 % for 24 -25 and 62 % for 25 -26.

In absolute terms, this means that there are 23 management actions outstanding.

Those 16 of those are high priority.

So we're down to a very small number now.

When we start this exercise, I think in February last year, there were over 200.

So we've got that down to a low figure now, but still some work to actually do to get those numbers to a better position.

The granular detail in relation to those outstanding recommendations is actually on page 14 of the pack.

Some members can see which particular areas, if they've got a magnifying glass, they can see which particular areas they relate to.

and of course I'm quite happy to follow up with members outside of the meeting.

In terms of audits that have been completed, again as usual,

we provide audit summaries where reports are limited or low assurance,

and I supply all of the audit reports irrespective of that to members

in the SharePoint site or Dropbox at their choosing,

so they have full access to our audit reports should they wish to look at those.

I'll pause there for questions, Jen.

On page 14, are there any questions about this page?

What's the materiality of the capital payments issue?

It could be absolutely enormous or it could be small, I have no idea.

The outstanding management action in relation to the capital delivery team,

is that a payments issue or is it a delivery issue?

What is it?

I'd have to come back to you with a definitive answer outside of the meeting chair, which I'm happy to do so.

Circulate to yourself.

It seems to me that that was potentially a very large problem, or not, given the size of your capital programme.

But I just wanted to be reassured about it. Maybe if you could do a note on that.

Thank you for your work on this report.

It's really helpful to have the outstanding management actions on page 14 and well done

to you and your team and management for reducing the number of outstanding actions.

The ones that are... now let me rephrase this. Are there any in particular that you feel management are not necessarily progressing quickly enough?

If I look at like 23, 24, that's almost... some of those two high ones there are like two... almost two years old now.

Over two years old. One is almost two and a half years old.

And that's the DBS cheques. DBS cheques is pretty serious, right?

Is there something that we as an audit committee need to be doing in order to make sure that that gets implemented?

Thank you.

I would share your concerns with the ones that are particularly historic

and therefore they have been on this list for a long period of time.

There is a process whereby these are escalated,

particularly when they are very historic and they are high priority.

Now, they are still outstanding on this list,

So, you know, notwithstanding that, progress does need to be made to address them.

But there is a process by which they are escalated through directors, corporate directors, to

ensure appropriate action is being taken.

As I mentioned many times before, in some of these circumstances, you have a position

where the corporate memory doesn't understand what the issue is, and therefore there's a

explaining what the issue was in a very historic piece of audit work.

You see these go back to 2023 when I just joined the council.

So I think in some cases it's understanding and helping the services to understand what the issue was,

whether or not that risk is still present, whether or not the recommendation is superseded,

and going through that process of explaining and articulating what needs to be done in terms of remediation.

Some of the offices in those areas of course knew and weren't present when the audio was carried out.

And so weren't necessarily cited on the findings at the time.

So there are some historical issues there that we're grappling with.

I can't speak for management but as I've said we have been escalating these and we are now down to a low number.

Clearly the smaller the number we get the better.

But as you get to a smaller number you're finding the ones that are proving quite difficult to shoot.

And I think as well then, whether a much smaller number now, that gives us as a committee the

opportunity to really delve into the ones that are outstanding. And I wonder whether

we should consider, now that these are unmanageable numbers, what the process should be. Should

we be asking management to be coming to Audit Committee to tell us and update us on these

outstanding actions? I think that sounds like best practise to me.

The notes to the committee on where updates on what the position is for each of these outstanding management actions.

Just a brief, don't need long reports, four paragraphs. Richard.

Yeah, I mean, look, this is, it's really good to see that the Council's made progress in getting the numbers to a much more manageable level.

and yet we should pick these up now for the next report,

show how we're gonna move them on

and hopefully get rid of some of them.

I think there's a risk that we get

and have a conversation about what the audit in

December 2000 or September 2023 said.

I do not think the management of this organisation

will be of sufficient quality and understanding

to know what it needs to do in terms of its management

and monitoring of the EBS. I don't need an audit report to tell me what I need to do and I doubt

very much our HR director given the quality that she's got assessed. So I think there's a risk

that we start trying to understand what somebody thought in September 2023. I think we should read

that, the report for information, but actually the solution is about doing the right things that

the organisation needs to do as well rather than necessarily getting caught up in that debate. So

I think we do have to be aware of it, but lift it up to these other things we should

be doing as good management without necessarily having to get into the understanding of what

the person wrote in September 23.

Changes in personnel are not a reason to not get on and do those things in the appropriate

and right way.

Yeah, at the moment, this report helps me, because when I talk to the C, you might go

through it and make sure that we are doing things in the right way and look for the assurance

Even if I didn't have an audit report, you'd still want to be checking these things in the right way.

Just a very simple question.

The departments in question, do they understand what good looks like?

Because audit can come in and do the audits.

But if the departments themselves don't understand what good looks like...

...we're never going to get there, are we?

You can have recommendation after recommendation...

...and a mountain of recommendations.

And I know we've been working towards substantial...

...and there are lots of limited areas over here as well.

But I think it's also important that we run concurrent programming...

where Jonathan comes in as well, in order to ensure that from the head downwards every

member of staff of this council is aware of what good looks like or what we mean by substantial

in order to self -assess themselves before internal audit comes in and carries out an

audit and then EY come in and carry out a forensic audit of that.

Our window

in this committee

is through the audit and financial practise

and risk register

We realise it is actually management practise

across the organisation

and staff practise

that matters,

which is the point Richard just made

, let's not go over the fossils

of the past too much,

let's look forward and make sure

the practise is good now.

But your point

really is, okay, so what would the department say about their outstanding management action?

Maybe we ought to ask them about that. So when we say, look, this is a short summary

here of where we're going, it would be useful to have a couple of paragraphs in the department

themselves.

Okay, because we are trying to, we are trying throughout the discipline of audit to improve

the discipline of the whole organisation essentially.

Okay so do we agree that report?

No that report?

Yes?

Okay, thank you very much.

Risk management.

It starts with the thing about risk appetite.

I'm going to open up a...

Whose risk is it?

Is it the...

Whose appetite is it? Is it the council?

Or is it the mayor?

Is it the political executive?

The Council, yes, yes.

But it needs to be owned by the Executive.

Otherwise it just hangs in the air.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I'll try and be brief on this.

The Committee will be familiar with this report, which details the Council's updated corporate

risk register.

And again we had this back in January.

So there's been limited change since then.

The number of corporate risks has remained at 13, although one has been escalated or

promoted and one has been relegated as it were, both in relation to risks from the Housing

and Regeneration Directorate.

and that is explained in the report in terms of the justification for that, which has been

agreed with officers internally.

As you've already alluded to, the report also details the introduction of the concept of

risk appetite into the framework, and this is something which was in the strategy that

we approved as committee or the committee approved back in December 25.

And this approach recognises the council has a varying risk appetite for different sorts of risk.

And that's the approach we are taking.

For example, if you have a risk in relation to safeguarding, you set the appetite comparatively low.

whereas the risk appetite for something such as change and transformation

would normally be set comparatively high.

And you'll see there in the diagram on page 20 of your pack

the appetite levels that have currently been set

and there are in effect ten different categories of risk

and each one has been given a risk appetite level

and we are introducing this in terms of ensuring that target risks are managed in accordance with risk appetite.

And some of the wording within this report provides what I would describe as a hopefully helpful explanation.

But I do appreciate it's moderately complex.

So if you take for example finance risks,

What this report says is they should be managed to ensure that we are bringing the target score level down to what we call a cautious level,

which is a tolerant score of 10 to 12 in our risk scoring.

So we are hopefully, you know, we are happy to withstand a moderate level of risk in relation to finance,

and that's where we should be targeting in terms of mitigating actions to bring the risk down to that level.

And if you look on some of the summary reports, for example, you will see that the Council's main risk around financial standing is helpfully already set at that level in terms of its target risk.

So there is an element of complexity around this which is quite difficult to explain in this sort of setting.

So I'm conscious that it's difficult to digest and of course should the Committee wish to do so,

So Victoria, my colleague who is online and I will be happy to take them through some examples just so they can understand this.

However, we are integrating this into the software we use for risk reporting and it will start appearing on the corporate risk registers.

So we will bring it to life, I think at one of our future committees during 2026.

and you will have some live examples as to what I'm talking about if it doesn't resonate currently.

So we're working with the software provider to integrate this new approach into the actual risk registers.

Final thing to note is because we've done the piece on appetite, there's been no deep dive to this committee.

As you see in the report, we will resume the deep dive cycle in the June meeting

and will bring back the health and adult social care direct risk register to that meeting.

I will pause there for questions and complaints, Chair.

Councillor.

Thank you. Thank you for the explanation, really helpful.

I think we've seen this report improve every time that it comes to the committee, so it's

really helpful.

So thank you for the work that has gone into this.

I had a question about the quarterly tracker, which I find really useful.

Some of the controlled ratings, target ratings, don't have target dates on them.

Some of them do have target dates on them.

What happens if those target dates are missed?

Is the intention to make sure there's target dates across all of those on the tracker?

Thank you, Chair.

I've had this explained to me before, but I can't remember.

I think my colleague Victoria is on line and can explain why some of the risks don't have

target dates.

I believe there is a good reason for this.

Victoria?

Yes, sorry.

Hello.

Yes, the target dates are actually linked to input in the control measures.

So for instance, the first one showing on the list

doesn't have a target date because currently

all of the control measures are in place.

So we're not looking to achieve something at the moment,

although there will be further control measures

going in on that one.

So the majority of them that are showing no target date

is because at the moment all control measures are in place.

There is one though I've just spotted,

here where we've got one in progress

and it hasn't got a target date.

And that is, to explain that one,

it's because that's actually an ongoing control measure.

So this is to do with the ensuring

that anti -fraud training is going on across the council.

So as that's an ongoing measure,

we don't have a target date for that because it's continuous.

I've got a couple of questions.

The first is that they're still essentially functionally determined,

in other words, children's, adults, when actually it's a safeguarding,

basically the same.

There's a risk, we had risks on capital delivery and all this sort of stuff.

Are you really putting politics as a road that's going to be subject to your algorithms,

your software and the officers making judgments about whether or not the politics of the place,

I mean it seems to me this is not a matter for, and in my view reputation isn't either,

Although I think there's something else that's fundamental, which is not here.

So I would ask you to consider the appropriateness of, particularly of the one on politics, because

I'm not really quite sure how you would measure it and what your targets would be and what

your achievements would be.

It seems to me though that we've got to keep on top of things and I would have thought

there's major issues about investment profile and treasury now because of the financial

position that the country is in. There must be a question about inflation busting the

budget or busting budgets in some parts of the council. And also I think there's a serious

concern about unemployment, particularly in London and particularly in town limits. It's

7 .2 % in London now.

And the last time that Tare Hamlets' figures were compared to London,

it was 0 .5 % above.

So you're getting to a position where you're closing on 8 % unemployment.

And that has a very big impact on the community,

when it goes from 3 % to 4%, now getting up to 8%.

And I sort of think that, you know, that's why I go on about the risks

for the community, we are there to make sure that they are protected.

And I think that it would be useful to have something about that.

So, you know, the turmoil that we are in,

that the country is in, let alone Tehanet's budget,

I think needs to be reflected in some elements of this,

rather than some other issues.

I think that that would to me make it a much broader document about the responsibility

of the council in reducing public risks, risk to the community and risk to individuals,

as well as the risk of our services failing.

But the final thing I thought for me was that although I made the point about reputation,

because I do think, I love the Abraham Lincoln quote,

that I think it's the tree is the character,

the shadow is your reputation, focus on the tree.

In other words, focus on character, what you're doing,

and then the reputation will follow,

rather than just focus on reputation.

But here of course we have the lead envoy,

Kim Promedary in the corner there.

And it's really important that this Council makes changes such that the government's window into this organisation

reflects the improvements it's actually making.

And so I think that is a risk that doesn't happen.

And it's not mentioned here.

There's the thing about the improvement plan under the chief exec's office, I think,

or something like that, but it doesn't actually say, you know, that the risk of that, the

risk of intervention of Kim Bromley Derry being a commissioner rather than an envoy,

is that actually commissioners are demigods.

They are, they're demigods because they have powers of instruction over and above what

officers think, over and above what the counsellors think.

And so therefore it's really important that we don't get into a position where we move

from envoys to commissioners.

That is probably the biggest risk that you face, and it's really important that you focus

not on managing the reputation with the individuals, but you're managing the way in which we're

actually improving as an organisation so that this is reflected by the judgement of those

the envoys and others. It's a bit of a lecture but I'm sorry, I think it's really important.

When you've got these people hanging around you're in a precipice, you're looking into

an abyss. It's not a very nice one as Richard will know because he's lived this experience

in other places, not personally, I mean you've solved the proper in other places, but you'll

know about the truth of that, those statements, okay, thank you.

Thank you Chair, so just as you've brought up the envoys, I won't say what football team

Kim supports, might get into trouble with that, but it would be good to get an update,

because last time we asked about the ministerial statement and where we were with that and

if it has changed from minded to anything else.

Yes, and also there was a consideration about possibly appointing a financial envoy or someone

with the financial expertise to that position. Are you able to, it's a moving feast?

Yeah, well thank you for, I don't feel like a demigod, but anyway, that's another storey.

My understanding is, to be fair, I had expected an announcement before now actually, but it still hasn't come.

So I think at the moment we're still assuming an announcement will happen before the pre -election period.

So obviously that's only two weeks away.

My understanding is that, and at this stage I don't know whether the minded two is I'm going to do it.

We have had no communication about that at this stage.

But the Councillor is right that one of the minded two elements was around a financial

envoy to support the team and to work with them to end the statute of recommendations

that were in place from the auditor.

But at this stage, I mean, I know no more than you at this moment, but I'm working on

the basis that if the announcement is going to be made, it's likely to be next week, because

otherwise it won't get made until after the pre -election period and after the election.

So I think that's the timescale we're working on.

Yeah, that seems right.

So just a brief full of chair just I was thinking is there any?

sort of update reports that would go from the council with the

Eminence of Richard who's played the role as well in the past. I'm just looking at it from the lens of the council

That's additional money that potentially we don't need to spend as a council

Just picking up on that, I have actually got a meeting with Richard next week.

So one of the things we'll discuss is where these things cross over

and because obviously there's no point incurring expense if it's not necessary.

So yes, that's absolutely one of the issues.

Well, that's a real and palpable risk it seems to me.

Certainly it might happen in the next two weeks.

Although there's an awful lot on the agenda, it seems to me.

Councillor Francis.

Thanks, Chair. Some people and town, it's my thing, the bigger risk is those powers

not being conferred on the envoys. We'll come to that.

I wanted to raise the risk that's been added to the register about homelessness, which

and costs of temporary accommodation, if that's okay.

Is this the right place to do that?

So I know it might not necessarily,

the team might not be best placed to respond to this,

but I'm so happy to get an answer separately later.

But there's a lot in here about the action that's being

taken to mitigate the budgetary risks.

But those budgetary risks themselves create risks

to the homeless households who are placed in temporary accommodation.

Because the council, all councils are shopping, procuring, TA at the bottom end of the market.

Sometimes there's disrepair issues and there's all sorts of things, physical problems,

but then there's the pressures on the service itself.

This risk grows because of the increased numbers of homeless households in temporary accommodation as well.

And yet all of the focus is on the budgetary side and not on the safeguarding side.

So I understand why that's there, but I just wondered if it would be possible to get, or

to ask the housing team, the divisional director, to reflect on whether there is also a risk,

particularly to children.

It's noteworthy for me in the last couple of months speaking to parents who are in much

even more significant distress than they've been previously about their experience.

That's not just about Tal Hamlet, that's about the nature of the crisis, the homelessness

crisis but that is a risk as well as the children that are identified as being at risk for safeguarding

because they are known to us as a local authority because they don't care.

We are happy to do that.

That cuts across multiple services as well.

It goes into the director of children services area, the DCS,

and to an extent where they change into adulthood,

to the director of adult services side as well.

So it's probably a slightly broader question as well, really.

But the big reality is this government and previous governments

endeavoured to build 300 ,000 homes a year.

We haven't built 300 ,000 homes since 1965.

We are not meeting the demand and that's causing a big crisis, really,

and it affects the Tower Hamlets in the same way it does all other areas,

but we know it's a big priority for the mayor

and it's something that the Director of Housing is on.

I don't think the idea isn't that we are saying those things aren't important really,

but it is focusing on the financial aspects and the pressure deliberately, but the broader

question we can come back on as well.

I think Mark is absolutely correct in this, that when you say $65 million is costing,

but actually it's costing an awful lot, isn't it, in relation to families and children and

and itemising that would be useful.

The point about this is that that's 65 million expenditure,

but it's the only thing which is only 50 % implemented

in terms of the control measures.

So whatever they are, and then, you know,

it's set out here, basically, it's not control measures,

it's basically shifting budget around to make sure you can fund this.

That's not really a control measure, is it?

So I do think something particular about this homelessness thing ought to come here as well

because of the scale of it and the numbers of people impacted by it.

Councillor Bussing.

Thank you.

I think it was an interesting point made about how some of the more complex risks and higher

risks actually cross different directorates.

And this process in itself is very kind of directorate focused, isn't it?

the risk management process, how do those cross -directorate risks actually get picked

up and managed?

And is that, if not now, is that something to consider for the next stage of improvement?

Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right.

Does root rely on this directorate's process and escalation and relegation from the directorate

level?

What I would say is we are now starting to get a bit more traction with that process.

The corporate risk register now goes, sort of quarterly, will go monthly to CMT.

And that's the body which will look at the risk register and examine just the issues that you've mentioned.

Does it stack up? Does it seem complete?

And it shouldn't just be a list or an aggregation of these individual risks from the directorate level.

The corporate risk registry, as you quite rightly indicate, should reflect these cross -cutting issues that span various directorates or that affect the council corporately.

So that's the vehicle that will be used to make sure a lot of those risks are properly picked up as we go forward.

So the corporate risk register will now go to CMT, but it was previously quarterly.

I think that will give it a bit more dynamism in that process and help ensure we are picking up a lot of those risks a bit more promptly,

because quarterly doesn't feel quite right given the risk profile of the council.

Chair, can I just suggest that you've highlighted and members have highlighted this is quite

a concerning area and it's a very rapidly developing area that in the work stream we

put a deep dive in for the housing options which includes homelessness director and corporate

to come in and sort of do a deep dive with us.

Where does it fit on the schedule?

So I believe the housing deep dive is due back in January 2027,

but we can move it forward in the schedule at your behest.

More urgent.

The issue is more urgent.

Are we able to impose upon that?

OK. Do we now note the report with all those amendments, all those suggestions that we made?

OK. Thank you very much. Now on page 77 we have David again. This time on the internal audit and anti -fraud plan.

And the internal reference point.

Page...

It didn't item.

Oh, a gender item. It's a gender item 4 .3.

I beg your pardon. You're doing it virtually.

That's very impressive.

Yes, it's 4 .3, page 77 of one of the supplements.

David.

Thank you, Chair.

Members of the committee or long standing members of the committee will be familiar with this document.

So this sets out the plan for 26 -27. It's been developed using the risk based approach and in line with what are called the global internal audit standards which are the professional standards now that we have to work to.

The plan is slightly different from one you may have seen 10 or 15 years ago.

It's no longer a static document.

It's important to remember we keep the plan flexible to accommodate the evolving risk landscape of the Council.

And specifically in relation to this Committee, we will keep you informed of proposed changes to the plan as far as that's practically possible.

So I think colleagues from EY have previously noted that the Audit Committee should approve

changes to the plan.

As far as that's possible, we will ask for approval.

Given the quarterly cycle of meetings, it's not always possible to actually obtain approval

before we move forward.

So we will do our best to accommodate that.

And additionally, another really important note for this Committee is we are also happy

to accommodate any specific requests for audit work from members of the committee, and we've done so previously.

You'll see in the document the list of planned audit work is supplemented by a reserve list,

which essentially comprises those where we've considered the work important,

but we've chosen not to accommodate it at this point in time.

We do keep a small contingency of time in reserve for unplanned work.

And if this is not utilised, we will bring forward some of the work from the reserve list.

And again, the input from members of this committee will be really important in determining what that work is.

In relation to the follow -up, we've already described where we stand with the follow -up work.

But just to sort of add to that, again colleagues from EY, I think Steve Reid from EY has previously made a helpful point.

And a perfectly reasonable suggestion that internal audit should follow up on all management actions.

I'm pleased to report that we will implement this from 25 -26 onwards.

And this has been made possible by having secured two additional posts through a growth bid.

So there's that investment in the team there that will help us move forward and will accommodate that work.

And as I reported earlier, we've also seen a lot of work there to shift the backlog of recommendations.

So this will mean the team is better equipped to meet the demand for what we call reactive work alongside the planned audit work too.

And recruitment for those two additional audit posts will start imminently.

The other thing that's within this report is the audit charter, which is a piece of

jargon essentially, it's the audit terms of reference.

And this is something that's required by the global standards and they require us to communicate

the audit charter to management and to the audit committee.

So please do digest that appropriately.

It sets out amongst other things the approach to independence, objectivity and how safeguards are implemented where there is an ethical threat or threat to independence.

I manage things like the risk management function, the investigations function as well, so it's important when the audits are carried out in those areas they're done at arms length and I sort of take it independent.

I'm happy to pause there for questions, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I realise that the auditing processes can be quite dynamic,

and as you suggested, sometimes the risks appear and the schedule needs to change.

So, this committee is also involved in that process and it can be quite dynamic.

Can I suggest that there is a mechanism in place to inform the chair and the chair can

evoke chair's action or a legal form like that and then possibly notify the committee

of that change of schedule.

If that's not written in or we have to formally raise it, I'm happy to propose that.

I'm very content to meet the officers and I'll make sure that anything and I'll make

decisions about that, they'll be reported to this committee.

I'm happy to progress that on the committee's behalf.

Can I just ask, there's a heading which is assurance landscape, which actually is external

contingent factors really.

It's not about assurance, it's about what could possibly go wrong.

I think it was Mike Tyson who said, you know,

everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

But plans are very useful until reality happens

and then you realise, oh, we've got to tweak it a bit,

we've got to do it a bit differently.

And I think that the essence of this is being aware

of the contingent things before they hit you.

I just mentioned that in relation to the assurance framework.

I did wonder about all these 42, I wondered if you were a student of Hitchhiker's Guide.

But all these listed audit plan, because I have no idea which is urgent, which ones you are doing first, which is the biggest and so on.

And I, not necessarily now, I don't say it out now, but I think it's important that we just don't have yet another list.

that actually it's a list that's organised either rank order or date order or some rational way.

But maybe that's something that I could discuss with the officers after.

Other than that, I just want to look at this reserve list. Anyway, please, Councillor Buston.

Thank you, Chair. So I have a couple of suggestions and a couple of questions.

I'll go with my suggestions first, which are for the audit plan.

So one is relating to secondary school places.

So we know as a council and we know this is a phenomenon across London

that secondary school places, the ratio of places to applications is increasing.

so there's a surplus of places, but we don't know.

I think there's a risk there that needs to be managed.

I'm not sure how that's being managed at the moment.

The second one is one to consider,

which is around registered social landlords, I think,

and how does the council interact with them

and ensure that they are operating in a way

that is collaborative and improving as well.

And then another sort of suggestion around

members inquiries and how that as a process

is managed as well.

And then my questions are relating to number 15,

Management of Mayors Accelerated Housing Programme.

Do you have any information on the scope of what that is intended to cover?

And then on the reserve list, acting up an honorary payment.

I'm not sure an honorary payment would be in that sense.

Thank you, Chas.

So in terms of the suggestions, I'm more than happy to accommodate those.

What I would say about this long list is it sort of normally generates groans from my colleagues.

These are where we've planned specific pieces of audit work, but of course if there's a specific risk there,

and we can achieve what we need to achieve by quick intervention without somebody going away and doing a lot of sample testing,

and a lot of fairly arduous audit work, we will do that.

But certainly the suggestions you've made, we will do our best to accommodate those.

I think in terms of the details of the specific piece of work you mentioned and the other

audits and the Chair's comments, the scope of these is to be determined and we'll determine

that with management once the audit process starts.

And additionally the timing we need to speak to the directors just to make sure that we

can coordinate timing around staffing pressures and other activities as well.

So there's still a bit of a discussion to have in terms of thrashing out the detail

as to when some of the audits will actually take place, the timing, the scope of them

and so on and so forth.

So that's still something that's been developed.

the

Thanks, chair.

The only thing I would say,

look, this will approve this

report.

David has brought in

how we get better.

We should be showing you what the previous

year did as well.

Particularly coming new to an organisation.

You need to know the previous year's plan.

You might think you have to ask for things

that have already been done.

The prioritisation point is well made, well received,

which quarter we're gonna do it in.

Keeping enough flexibility in the plan is important as well

because the only certainty is uncertainty

and things change.

So we've got some flexibility in it.

And the only other thing I'd say is

from a culture perspective,

what is a positive tool for us.

Certainly the people I've met and talked to

in the organisation see it as a positive tool.

I haven't met the groaners yet.

I'm sure they're out there somewhere.

But we do see it as a positive tool for us to actually help improve the organisation.

That's what it's for.

It's an essential tool for directors and management to get those assurances and see things that

they may not have time to get under the skin of all the time.

So it's seen as a positive thing from our side.

Thank you.

So I agree with what Councillor Buston said about acting up on a Royal Area of payments.

I think that should be something that is carried out in the period ahead rather than just being

left on a reserved list.

I think that's something that I myself have had some concerns about.

I also agree with what Councillor Buston said about members inquiries as well.

And about how that process works and how that serves all of the elected members.

Both in the council but our MPs too.

And then the other thing I wanted to ask was...

So, when the Minister's statement and letter to the Council earlier on in the year, it talks about confirming, or is minded to confirm, five deep dive investigations, one of which is around the allocation of social housing.

and there's something on here around allocation of social housing.

So I just wondered how this proposed audit would sit alongside

a kind of essentially an external audit or a semi -external audit

that's looking at the same thing.

And if there are other, like on the other,

the others of the five deep dives that are planned or might be planned.

So professional standards require us to proactively coordinate with other people or other assurance

providers.

So we will do our best to do that.

When these external reviews are happening, we won't try and replicate their work.

We'll try and work alongside them.

But it's very often the case that if there is an external review, then an audit may not

be necessary.

It depends what the external review covers.

So we'll have to see when the time comes around as to what the scope of the work will be in

terms of the audit and whether or not it's absolutely necessary.

I think you mentioned honourary and sorry I didn't respond to the earlier question.

Honourary payments are these payments made to individuals by the council where the criteria

Therefore payment of an acting up allowance aren't met, but the individual undertakes other onerous duties...

...that are outside their normal job description.

So it's some sort of a half way house and in many respects a temporary measure.

I hope that explains that particular payment that we make.

I did know because I have come across it, I would like to see that as a priority in

the area.

Just to say that the Council has recently employed a new HR director who is probably

in the final stages of the plan that she's going to bring forward on how we improve a

number of things around the HR service, but the organisational development plan as a whole

as well, really.

I've seen some draughts of it and some of the things that you talk about are in there.

I mean, a good example, but if a member of staff goes out and puts in a bid, gets a million

pounds in for the council, it would not be unusual to recognise that with a relatively

modest nowhere near a million pound, as an honorarium, you know, so they might get something

for doing that thing that's over and above, or going out perhaps and doing something that's

really good in the community.

So those are the sorts of spaces we do it in.

What we want to do is make sure it's relatively consistent if we do things like that and,

but you know, those sorts of policies and procedures are all of the things that HR and

plan needs to test and make sure it's done the right way.

I have yet to come across an organisation that is entirely consistent in that there

are always aspects that get looked at.

We won't be any different.

Thank you, Chair.

I must make a declaration of interest.

When I worked for the Council over 20 years ago, I did get on a real paper picking up

extra responsibilities when my manager left.

And it hadn't been a step up secondment,

but an agreement with the director of the department

that you hold the reins until recruitment

of a new manager takes place.

I believe it is normal practise within all councils

to have those step up and honorary pay schemes in place.

and I'm sure both Kim as an envoy and former chief executive of numerous councils is familiar with it.

Barry, I believe you're familiar with it and other council officers are also very familiar with it.

I think what might be interesting is to understand before we go into a deep dive around these,

if we could benchmark against the numbers we have comparatively speaking with other councils in relation to that.

and if there is a steep difference, then maybe we go into a deep dive.

Otherwise, we'll be going into something that isn't necessarily heightened

with the sort of risk appetite we have within this council and areas.

That would be my suggestion before we sort of pursue this so deeply.

Deeply. I think we'll be shallow snorkelling rather than deep diving.

The HR arrangements, the organisational arrangements, the management and staffing arrangements in the council,

in all councils, groves and barnacles appear on a ship.

Barnacles, you have to regularly take the barnacles off.

The fundamental thing is of course the layers in the organisation and the spans of control.

That honour area is a symptom of another problem.

So what you want to make sure is that your management arrangements,

which is why I asked these questions last meeting, about HR practise,

I think it's fundamental that they are disciplined and they're not just,

we do it over here in this way, we do it over here in this way, we do it there in that way.

This was what happened in the 70s, hiring.

People have moved to a much more professional approach to management arrangements

and deciding about all payments to staff and making sure that they are fair and equitable.

That's the most important thing as one organisation.

So I think the issues have been raised about that and if you could take those

and make sure that when we do, actually who is doing the deep dive?

Is it the committee or is it yourselves?

It's officers, isn't it?

Well, if it's an order you're referring to, it'll be officers.

In which case, if that report could, the scoping report could come to the members...

...and they might want to comment on that.

It might be useful for the members' views to, in some ways...

be incorporated into the scoping of the study?

This is on the reserve list, so it's not necessarily going into the full list.

My suggestion is, before we contemplate on it going on the actual scheduled list, is

if we could just do a benchmarking exercise and then make a decision, because I wouldn't

officers to go in, do a deep dive on something that's not extremely significant.

Well, okay.

Yeah, I mean, clearly the risks around it.

I don't know enough about those in a few days I've been here, but Councillor Armwood makes

a good point.

What you do in any standard audit is you do compliance checking first to see how compliant

you are, see how many are good, how many you don't think are good, and you do substantive

testing if you find there's an issue.

So the process you talk about is standard audit practise, isn't it?

I think it's great that it's standard practise.

We have had a lot of change in directors of HR within Tower Hamlets in the last four years.

I think it should be a priority to look at and I hope that that is considered for the

Next.

Yeah.

That's been suggested.

The officers should consider that.

And I think also consider the point about urgency and scale and so on.

So can we note that report?

Okay.

Now we go to the corporate code of...

We're on the last lap now.

The corporate code of governance.

which is the item, oh no I'm in the dock of any attachment, only annex itself here.

It's 4 .4 on page something or other.

Twenty one.

Thank you chair.

It's in the original.

It's in the main agenda.

Yes we're going back to the original page.

OK.

Thank you very much.

Council and Chair, this presenting the corporate code of governance 2526 which will be part

of the annual governance statement.

This one improves upon the previous code of governance in that it is much more explicit

around the SITFASOLIS framework.

Core purpose, of course it is reviewed every year to reflect the change in governance policies

So there's a whole range of additional strategies and governance arrangements in place, anything

from the best value directions and staff intervention through to the transformation insurance board

or indeed that may well be updated after the Secretary of State's letter, for example.

The role of the external law defined, et cetera, is mentioned within it, as well as some of

changes and development around coverage of scrutiny and member development.

I won't list all the elements in it but of course it kind of brings together all

those arrangements that will go alongside the annual governance

statement which will be obviously more of a statement and

assessment of indeed how we're putting those into practise and our maturity

around those. So really welcome comments of course and we'll take that

feedback for the next iteration.

At all?

So, I think this is better than what we've seen in the past and I appreciate the work on this.

For example, though, again, to reflect upon the discussion that we had at the previous meeting

about the way that the external auditor's recommendations were reinterpreted.

So, in the foreword it says, following a best value inspection, the government published directions in January

requiring the council to demonstrate improvement in the following areas

scrutiny, political and officer leadership, decision -making processes and

culture change within the organisation and with political groups particularly

within a purely political realm to improve political cultures and the way

in which local parties behave. I mean I'm not entirely sure the former inspector

and our envoy is sitting behind me, whether that's an exact kind of representation of

the five key areas I think that were identified then.

And I also think that ultimately by the time this comes out we'll know one way or the other

whether the draught extra directions have been confirmed and if that is to be the case I

I think it's, you know, people will look at this phrase,

we have a robust and well -tested continuous improvement plan in place

and think, well, that wasn't necessarily convincing enough to people in Whitehall.

So I think like maybe this is just about where we've been at this particular moment in time,

but it might be that something more, yeah, just more open and candid is required by the time it's being confirmed.

Jonathan.

Thanks, Councillor.

I feel that the wording in the statement does reflect the best value.

But on the robust, I think robust is a word there,

because it's supposed to be really agnostic in its description of that.

So I'll take that and I'll probably remove the word robust

if everyone else agrees.

I don't want to speak for anybody, but I think until a ministerial decision is made, it's still in the realm of minded and therefore to insinuate anything else.

And I think the statement was made prior to submissions being made either by the envoys, and I'm happy to be corrected, or the council report going in there.

And until that decision is made, I think it's fair to say that as a council we have been proactively working on the improvement plan.

And I think it's unfair before those statements were submitted for assumptions to be made.

and it is stated as minded until that decision is made, if I'm not mistaken,

the process that was in place prior to the statement remains in place as of today.

And, sorry, continues to remain in place.

I don't know if Kim wants to make a comment on this matter.

I'm happy to comment.

The agreement we had with the council was that even though there was a minded -to statement,

we would carry on as was the case prior to that mindedness statement until the Secretary

of State made another statement.

So, Councillor Armistead is right that we haven't changed anything and we haven't asked the Council to change anything between the mind -dicting statement and today.

But the corporate governance statement needs to say what the Council is actually doing.

And I think that's the important thing.

What it's doing on its governance.

What it's doing to improve its governance and so on.

For me there's just far too many lists of bullet points.

I'm old fashioned. I like prose.

This is more important than that.

There's layers of explanation and so on.

But when you have just lists and lists and lists, which is what this is.

It's inclusive and comprehensive but it's soporific.

I'm ever so sorry.

Anyway, Councillor Fusted.

Thank you, Chair.

In contrast, I really like the bullets.

Too much prose, but...

One thing I think would be really helpful for next year

is maybe just to highlight where the changes have been made,

because we see this annually.

It will be helpful just to see what has changed.

One thing I was...

So we're making changes to how the annual governance statement is going to be prepared.

So previously that was prepared by internal audit, so that's going to be prepared separately.

But is there then a role for internal audit to play in auditing the governance statement

and does that need to be reflected in here, but also in the internal audit charter,

which we didn't comment on earlier, so apologies for that.

Thanks, Councillor and Chair.

I tried to avoid creative freedom in the writing of it.

I didn't fill that sort of document, but the AGS will come back

to internal audit, in fact it might come back twice depending on the feedback.

We're thinking about June, but perhaps that's a little bit early with the cycle, but it

will come back and we can reflect that perhaps in the next kind of covering report as well.

I mean, if this is to be in any way useful for the public, then it ought to explain the

governance of the council to the public and it ought to explain how the public can engage

and it ought to also expose the mistakes and errors and lapses of judgement of the council.

Like, you know, these are the number of JRs that we've lost, this is the number of ombudsman

cases that we've lost, or whatever, or other measures, not just mistakes and errors.

But I think that, you know, this governance statements really should be something that

that brings a citizen in.

It's probably part of the constitution,

the early part of the constitution,

which is about responsibilities of the council to the public

and responsibilities of the citizens to each other.

And I think governance statements should move in that direction,

not just be assurance documents.

But I thought that the section actually about the envoys and the council,

So I think if that was to be a bit more about how we're being proactive in doing that, that

would be useful.

But it's there, the bulk of it is there.

But I'm not suggesting any changes, I'm just suggesting for the future that that's what

governance, and if you look at annual governance, any other country, because our country is

damn centralised, we just sort of think we've got on.

Any other country, they're actually about explaining the governance to the people, and

particularly when you're facing election.

It's really important.

Do we...

Oh, Kim!

I beg your pardon, Kim.

We shall ask your...

Sorry, I know I'm not a member of the committee, so I should really wait till you ask me a

But the one thing I was going to say is obviously...

**BEEPING**

All I was going to say is that, obviously it says approve the statement.

And I was just conscious that if, as I said, it could be between now and a week on Friday

there is some sort of response from the Secretary of State. So I mean, perhaps there ought to

be a reserve position that if that fundamentally changes, otherwise it's going to have to come

back again and then it will come back after the election. But that might be fine. It's

just it would be worth deciding what your alternative arrangements are if the Secretary

comes back over the next fortnight.

I was just saying on the recommended existence for the committee to approve

it that's all.

Will that create a governance issue in terms of what actions are carried out?

Or that holding position is okay?

I'm just asking what would our legal position be in relation to this?

Because the papers come for approval.

If we don't approve that, what is the consequence?

Or could we put an amendment in there saying subject to directions

that in consultation with the chair, so we approve it subject to further directions and

in consultation for that document to evolve in relation if directions are handed down.

I think formally we have to approve it, don't we?

Is there a time scale for getting this approved?

Yeah, there is a time scale which would be within this financial year, but what we, with

those directions, what we can do is then refine it based on any changes that happen in that

period and bring a version back with the draught annual governance statement which would cover

some of the more kind of self -assessment elements of how the council is doing as well.

Sorry, can I make a suggestion?

Before you make a suggestion, when does this have to be published?

I'll cheque again with legal colleagues, but I understood it would need to be published before the end of the financial year.

I would propose that we agree this subject to any further directions that might be issued by the Secretary of State

and then amend that via consultation with the chair of the committee.

Or would you like it to come back to the committee?

So if further directions are made which could impact the governance statement, would you

like it to come back to the committee?

I'm not sure I have any legitimate authority.

I wouldn't be supporting coming back to committee again.

I think that direction, if a direction is made with the consultation with the Chair, as a committee member, I would be satisfied with that amendment being applied.

The only reservation is the Chair doesn't have any voting rights, he's an independent Chair.

My recommendation is that the committee approves it.

If any officers consider that in light of new directions, the committee needs to consider any further amendments or consider the annual governance statement, then we bring another report back to the committee.

So this isn't the annual governance statement, this is the code of governance.

So the annual governance statement we will see in the summer, which is basically a comparison of performance against the code.

So there will be a change that we will be able to reflect in the annual governance statement anyway.

So yeah, I mean I think it should reflect as it is today.

So I think we should reflect that there have been, the Secretary of State is minded to increase the powers of the envoys.

but if we're not going to have the time to be able to change the code of the government.

Sorry, I've been up since 4am.

Thank you, the code.

At least we'll be able to reflect it in the annual governance statement in the summer anyway.

when you approve or note it or agree with the recommendation that's there.

I mean if something substantial happens then we will clearly follow whatever the right process is

is to amend and pick it up but I mean that delegation will take to wherever the

you know the code of governance and scheme of delegation tells us to

to do so but you would think that's honest if a guy because if so if something comes through the

through the ministerial directions, that's probably got much broader implications than

just for Tower Hamlets, because it would have implications for the set for solace guide,

it would go way beyond it.

Clearly we should test it when we get it back.

I think the committee should approve it, given it knows for what it knows at this moment

in time, but it should also ask us to perhaps go away and do the double cheque, Sabria, around

and if something comes out when we reflect it through, we think it is of substantial

that we reflect how we take those at that point.

And the point made about this will come back in to the committee as part of the AGS work

really as well.

It's important for us on the AGS work that we have this in place.

But I'll make the point again, it does follow best practise that exists.

It's just these two sentences I think on page 27.

That's what you're presumably commenting on.

I'm relaxed whatever the committee decide.

I'm just saying it's because you're actually agreeing it.

And something might happen in the next week.

That's the only reason I raised it as an issue.

And these two sentences may need revision.

Thank you.

So I think I was unhappy with the version of this that we saw last year

and I was told at the time this is just a statement of fact

and this is not opinions, but I don't really agree with that.

I think these are presented as statements of fact

but they are actually an interpretation of how the council feels

governance works. And just as an example, I'll point you to page 34 of this pack, 10 of this report, which says

the Tower Hamlets Housing Cabinet Subcommittee chaired by the Mayor oversees all aspects of the Council's

landlord housing management and includes cabinet members and co -opted experts to ensure informed decisions.

Not entirely sure but broadly it could live with that. Its meetings are open to the public with opportunities

for residents to engage in agenda items,

further demonstrating the committee's commitment

to openness and transparent decision making.

I mean, no opposition member is allowed

to speak in that committee.

We tried and we were refused.

So just that is an example of something

that we should aspire to do, but in reality, just

doesn't happen irrespective of whether it's in this

or in the terms of reference of that committee.

So I hadn't realised, sorry, I hadn't understood that we were approving this.

So I'm not massively against it. I don't think it's important enough.

I just think that these things need to be real and not just as, and if they are aspirations,

they should be presented as aspirations.

So I'm not going to vote to approve it. I'll abstain.

I don't want to cause a big issue about it.

But I think like that's the problem for me.

Thank you.

I can't even remember.

I could give a lecture on the difference between opinions and facts.

That would be quite good.

Hannah Arendt is brilliant at that.

Sorry.

The committee can delegate any revisions to an officer.

That is appropriate.

That is what I think is the way forward personally.

Can I?

Yeah.

Can we freeze?

One more, you can do it, Chair.

Well, I am saying is that the suggestion that we approve this, subject to it being, if there is any revisions needed because of decisions made,

outside of the council by the government, that references in relation to the envoys

and whatever the state status of the statutory intervention is that that be revised and I

am suggesting this be delegated to officers. Yes, yes, not just any random officers.

Can I just say you need to delegate to one named officer.

One named officer, I know, I know, it's not a committee.

So it could be a section 151 officer for example.

Or the director of strategic change and improvement.

Can I make a, sorry, may I make a suggestion?

Please do.

So can I suggest that if we have directions in the next two weeks,

So by the end of March, that revision is sent by email to the committee.

But if it's post the 27th of March, it's delegated to maybe the monitoring officer or the section 151 officer.

On behalf of the Golden Triangle.

You can delegate to an officer but if you would like it circulated to the...

Yes.

For comment that's fine.

For comment, yeah.

You should delegate it to an officer to make that final...

Yes, I actually would outlaw hybrid decision making where you're delegated to someone,

subject to someone else because you are then not sure who is actually making this decision.

So I do think it should be to a named officer.

We are talking really about probably anodyne changes to two sentences.

So I wouldn't potentially worry too much about that.

Not withstanding the point that Councillor Francis made about particular other sentences.

So I would suggest that we delegate in section 151 officer.

Is that agreed?

Agreed? We're in abstention.

Okay. Yeah, yeah, good.

Yeah, and everyone will see that revision.

Thank you very much for that.

We worked our way through the conundrums that were placed

in our way by the end, helpfully, helpfully by the envoy.

Right, okay.

Thank you very much.

We are now on to the...

Item 4 .5

4 .5?

The audit committee

The audit annual report

Which is in one of the supplements

Yes, one of your Holland and Barrett supplements

Which one is it?

This one

Not that one

David, two sentences on this.

Thank you, Chair. This is the draught annual report of the Order Committee. It's the Order

Committee's annual report, so it's attached for comment and consideration by the Committee.

And of course, members may wish to consider amendments and additions of whatever nature

they wish to nominate.

This is in accordance with best practise and again, SIPFAA guidance.

So it contains three elements, which is statements on how it complies with this SIPFAA position

statement, how the committee has discharged its responsibilities, and a proxy performance

assessment based on some of the comments and findings from EY that were made recently.

So we've not had a formal performance assessment of this committee, but we do have some actions

that are being taken forward to improve the committee's effectiveness, and those are reflected

in this report.

I should leave it there, Chair.

Thank you. I found you. Finally found my copy.

Are there comments on... I've got some observations but I'm not sure they're terribly worth repeating.

Councillor Vasti.

Thank you, Chair. Are your comments about the bullet points?

Thank you for this. It's good to see a report after a number of years.

So thank you for putting this together.

I think it's helpful to a point, but I wonder whether it actually needs a bit more fleshing out.

This is actually our report to the Council.

We need to be demonstrating the work that we've done over the last sort of 12 months

to the council because we're accountable to them.

The areas that I thought would be helpful to expand upon were on page 11.

Sorry, apologies.

Under page 13, where we've got basically the agenda items,

I wonder if it's helpful to have something around the internal audit reports that we've delved into,

some of the corporate risk, the directorate risk registers that we've delved into as well,

in order just to bring out some of the discussion that we've had in those meetings.

My other comments are around, oh yes, page 9,

the independent and effective model.

There's a bullet that says, be independent of the executive,

and then the evidence of compliance is in part,

the audit committee contains a cabinet member.

I think tonight we've got three, so I wonder whether

that needs to be updated.

Audit Committee membership on page 11.

Right at the bottom, we've got the ability to challenge the executive and senior managers

when required.

And it says, yes, challenge can be evidenced through focus on statutory recommendations.

I'd agree with that.

I don't know whether we've had a lot of challenge on the limited assurance internal audit reports.

We've certainly had discussions with you, David, but I don't think we've had the challenge

to the executive and the senior managers that that compares against.

And then within that section, I think there's over the – I guess it's less so this year,

but over the course of the administrative term, there's been a number of changes to

the audit committee.

and I do think this is one committee where it is helpful to have consistency in membership from year to year.

And I wonder whether it's worth reflecting the changes to the committee and how many of us have stayed the course,

Councillor Ahmed, and how many of us have returned to the committee after a brief absence.

Thank you. So I have a query about the list of items that have been considered. So on

On the 28th of July the committee also had an updated report I believe or had a further

discussion on the basis of minutes about what is covered by Project Autumn and Project Winter

and that isn't reflected here and in fact I don't think that we've had a

further substantive update on that item it's just come whatever discussion

there's been it's just been in the through the prism of what EY themselves

have reported so for accuracy I think that needs to be included there and and

And I think it would be helpful for this committee to get an update on that item.

»» So, Chair, just to explain the reasoning.

But just to explain the reasoning behind that.

So I think autumn, winter and anything in relation to home care was a part 2 item.

So I think that's why it's been omitted from here.

I mean, should the committee wish to do so, we could make reference to it.

but I just need to make sure that that's done in the proper fashion.

So it wasn't a deliberate omission in terms of we would exclude that.

It was simply for the matter that those were confidential items.

I mean, I think the discussion was obviously restricted,

wasn't available to the public,

and in fact I didn't participate in it myself.

But the fact that it was discussed or was brought to the committee,

and then obviously was on the back of a whole series of reports that were received, some verbal, some written in the year prior to that as well.

I think that that is important to note it for the record.

Can I just confirm this is scheduled to go to the March full council?

I'll be happy to take it.

with those amendments.

Okay.

So is that approved?

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

We're not being like presented but as we know those of us that go to the full council meetings

there's not always time for anything.

Like we know that there's nothing that that can be done but if chair if you could use

your best endeavours to ensure that there's at least a brief opportunity to discuss the

work of the committee over the past year.

I think that would be beneficial for all members and the public.

Oh yeah, the chair should present it.

That's a great idea.

I don't want to interpose myself in such a meeting.

Okay, thank you for reminding us that, Abdulazay.

In which case, if that's agreed, which I've probably said that.

We are now on to five, I think.

Is that right?

The work plan.

I think we should take this as presented,

rather than go through it.

Shall we do that?

In which case, I think that's any other business,

which I don't have.

And then the exclusion of the custom public,

because you've got restricted minutes to...

Let's quickly read the statement.

In view of the contents, the remaining items of the agenda,

which is simply the minutes of a meeting that was exempt,

it is recommended to adopt the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 72 as amended,

and that we meet for the section to consider business on the grounds

as it contains information defined as exempt in part 1, section 12a of the Local Government Act.

So therefore we now turn off the webcast.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Audit Committee - Thursday 12 March 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Audit CommitteeThursday, 12th March 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Audit Committee
Thursday, 12th March 2026 at 6:30pm