Agenda and draft minutes

No apologies were received.

Any member of the Council who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether their continued participation, in the matter relating to the interest, would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly if the interest may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests, or whether they should leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

A previous declaration of interest had been made by Liz Murrall, who explained that she was on the Board of Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd. The Chair did not deem this to be a disqualifying interest.

The minutes of the Meeting of held on 26 January 2026 are submitted for confirmation.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2026 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the inclusion of additional actions missing from the minutes and the action log.

The Director of Grenfell Legacy and Corporate Strategy presented the report, explaining that an audit was undertaken and received a rating of ‘limited assurance.’ The Committee previously considered the audit at its meeting in September 2025 and requested that an update be provided on the progress of recommendations. The progress report focused on specific processes for EQIA but also covered broader questions around culture and decision making. The Committee heard that the idea was to make sure Equalities were routinely considered in service planning and delivery, not only before a decision was made, but also after with monitoring and reviewing.

The Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development added that there had been a notable improvement in consideration of Equalities through training programmes, the networks across the Council and completion of EQIAs and it was now about maintaining momentum to give the attention it deserved.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions about the report.

Members of the Committee individually:

1.    Questioned whether training could be provided to Councillors following the election as part of their induction.

2.    Suggested that Equalities considerations be earlier within decision reports produced by the Council, so they were not lost at the end or assumed to be an afterthought.

3.    Queried how Equalities could be used to improve decision making, as it was not often addressed with officers in Committee meetings when scrutinising reports and decisions. The Committee also considered how EQIAs could be embedded within the organisation as part of recommendation 1. It was queried whether an EQIA form could be provided to the Committee to demonstrate how it worked in practice.

4.    Asked how Equalities work was being resourced by the Council.

5.    Sought clarity on how culture change was measured in light of Equalities. The Committee also sought clarity on how staff could see the effects of the culture change.

6.    Asked when the report could be brought back to the Committee to review progress.

7.    Requested additional information be provided on the Council’s networks and Equalities Board attendees.

8.    Questioned whether the cyber-attack had created additional inequalities to be mitigated.

9.    Asked about the Fairer Action Plan and what the measure was of improving Equalities in decision making.

10.Queried whether Artificial Intelligence could improve Equalities considerations at the Council.

The Committee heard, in response to questioning that:

1.   Members received training on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion already as part of the Member Development Programme, but training could be provided on EQIAs specifically and Equalities within reports.

2. EQIA sections within decision making reports could be brought earlier, and officers were encouraged to look at making reports a live document.

3. It was hoped that conversations around Equalities Impacts would take place earlier within the decision-making process to ensure they were addressed. Decisions were reviewed to ensure that Equalities were addressed within the report and also monitored in the event that any changes arose that needed to be addressed. Certain actions contained revision points to ensure this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Assistant Director Corporate Finance presented the report, explaining that the Code set out the professional standards for local authorities in managing finances. Of the 17 standards, 14 were self-assessed as fully compliant and three as partially compliant. The results were supported by positive assurance, and the Corporate Challenge Peer Review considered the Council to be financially stable, and managing to set a balanced budget in light of the Fairer Funding Review demonstrated the Council’s resilience.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions about the report.

Members of the Committee individually:

1.    Noted how encouraging and important the report was, particularly in light of increasing financial pressures.

2.    Questioned how standards relating to how the Council engaged with key stakeholders in terms of financial strategy and the annual budget, and the methodology in determining value for money positions, were now fully compliant since the previous review. The report contained no explanation of how the issues had been addressed given there was scope for improvement identified previously.

3.    Queried whether some areas could now be considered as fully compliant in light of the cyber-attack. Council tax in particular was identified as an issue, and it was asked whether information relating to the cyber-attack could be included in the report, such as the effect of collecting council tax late.

4.    Asked whether it would be possible to have an external assessment to validate the self-assessment the Council undertook.

5.    Sought clarity on how residents and the public could be engaged earlier in the budget setting process, as part of the initial process prior to the formal consultation period. The credibility of future income streams was also questioned.

6.    Queried whether there were enough business partners to monitor the budgets.

7.    Questioned whether the external review could take place during the cyber-recovery phase in order to assess the Council whilst the issues remained, especially as the majority of the report demonstrated that the Council was fully compliant.

8.    Sought clarity on whether the Council did have good value for money as stated in the report, given previous decisions had been proven in time to not be good value for money.

The Committee heard, in response to questioning that:

1.    In the majority of areas even when the Council was assessed as fully complaint, the Council could always do more. It was important to maintain the standard set when an area was addressed as fully compliant. For example, particular officers would speak to colleagues within the service to receive an update.

2.    The impact of the cyber-attack could not be understated. The Council’s finance and HR system Oracle recovered fairly quickly, so payments could be made to staff and suppliers. The Council’s revenues and benefits system Civica is still in the process of being recovered which directly affected collection of council tax and paying benefits to/from residents. The Council recognised the impact on residents of having three council tax bill amounts in one amount, and it was likely that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Head of Internal Audit presented the item, stating that the report before the Committee was in draft form and the team was still liaising with various departments. It was recognised that the aims of the administration could change as a result of the election in May and this would need to be reflected in the Strategic Internal Audit Plan.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions about the report.

Members of the Committee individually:

1.    Noted the high number of audits in the report and questioned whether they could all be completed.

2.    Questioned how the Council could become a leading council on using Artificial Intelligence to better its services. It was also requested that someone attend a future meeting to reassure the Committee that AI was benefitting residents and how it could be used further.

Action for: Strategic Director of Grenfell Partnerships, Communities and Transformation

3.    Requested that the Strategic Risk Register, Audit Risk Register and the Audit Plan all be brought together better to provide a more cohesive picture. This would also help the Committee to understand how risks had been managed.

4.    Suggested that there be a consolidation of IT systems where possible across the Council to prevent a future issue similar to the one that happened as a result of the November 2025 cyber-attack. Different departments using different software unnecessarily led to a longer recovery phase, and it was asked whether internal audit could look at processes to limit human error and issues in future.

5.    Queried the resourcing the Audit team had and whether budget constraints would affect the team’s functionality.

6.    Sought clarity on how the Council audited Public Health England, in light of large-scale outbreaks such as Covid-19 and Meningitis B.

7.    Felt reassured that the Audit team sat outside of the Executive function of the Council and asked that an update be provided of the audits that had taken place when they had, providing asbestos management as an example.

8.    Asked whether housing allocations would be included in the Audit Plan as it was not yet listed.

9.    Suggested that for the potential audit relating to Grenfell and Communities it would be pertinent to speak to the relevant ward councillors.

The Committee heard, in response to questioning that:

1.   Officers were confident in the number of audits within the report. It was felt it was better to over-plan, and the final audit plan would be compressed as specific audits and risks were considered during the year. The focus was identifying audits for quarter one with the plan for the rest of the year being refined during the year.  Some audit work was focused on collecting better data which could be used in audits to improve the audit process. 

2.   For AI to benefit the Council, there needed to be human understanding of what to do with the information it provided as well as how to programme it to generate the right results, and the cyber-recovery team were investigating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To Follow.

The Head of Policy and Resilience presented to the Committee and explained that the paper had already been approved by the Leadership Team in October 2025, but it was felt a Committee should have sight of its contents, and any comments could be fed into the next paper relating to the external review of the Council’s resilience functions. He highlighted that the 14 recommendations made could be grouped into the following categories: capacity and burden on key staff, cross council integration, and practical operational improvements.

The Chair invited the Committee to comment and ask questions about the report. Members of the Committee individually:

1.    Queried typographical errors contained in the cover report.

2.    Questioned why the report had specifically come to the Audit and Transparency Committee and whether it would be best placed instead to be taken to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for specific oversight and scrutinisation of its contents prior to decision by the Leadership Team.

3.    Challenged the contents of the report, specifically relating to consulting the Scrutiny Chairs, as not all had been contacted regarding the review. The Committee also challenged the lack of engagement with ward councillors and residents’ associations in the review and also stated the review had not considered secondary deaths and how to prevent them.

4.    Noted that the recommendations contained in Appendix One were shortened versions of the recommendations contained in the full review document, and that there were important points raised and actions suggested that were not included within that appendix. It was felt that the contents of the full recommendations could be lost or overlooked as a result.

5.    Expressed concern that the response rate to the survey conducted in the review was low, given the results would be used for mapping.

6.    Noted that some of the recommendations had already been met, such as conducting large-scale exercises, and sought clarity on whether the Council had been able to emphasise the importance of strengthening business continuity with external suppliers as stated in recommendation 14.

7.    Questioned whether recommendation 8 suggesting that a meeting taking place between the Chair of Audit and Transparency Committee and the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review the resilience functions would negate the need for the paper to be tabled at a Committee meeting.

8.    Asked whether the Community Resilience Task Force suggested to be established as part of recommendation 11 would be divided into different areas of the borough.

The Committee heard, in response to questioning that:

1. The Council was still in the middle of its cyber response phase following the cyber-attack in November 2025, but once it was ready an annual resilience report would be taken to the Leadership Team and could be scrutinised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The report when approved did not contain details relating to the cyber-attack, so these would be included in the annual resilience report.

2. Any lack of engagement found with the review could be built into the next one undertaken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Committee discussed the action tracker and forward plan and requested that the headings and numberings of the actions be aligned with those contained in the minutes for clarity with an updated version to be shared with the Committee once it had been reviewed.

The Committee suggested that in order to ensure the audit data was complete for the 2025/26 municipal year, specifically relating to Councillors who had filled in their declarations of interest forms prior to the election, that Members be sent a reminder in advance to complete their relevant forms so as to not need to follow up with all departing Councillors or those not re-elected following the election and therefore risk an incomplete audit.

Action for: Senior Governance Co-Ordinator

The Committee noted the update.