Agenda item

The Committee considered a report which presented, for consideration and recommendation to Council, the suggested terms of reference for a new Audit & Risk Committee at Guildford Borough Council.  These were based on the CIPFA good practice model and would align with the terms of reference of Waverley Borough Council’s Audit & Risk Committee.  The report also presented terms of reference for a new Standards Committee which would deal with the ethical framework, constitutional issues, and member development. These terms of reference, if adopted by Council, would meet best practice in accordance with the SOLACE recommendations which had been adopted by full Council, and align this part of the Constitution across both Councils.  It would also mean that this Committee would be disbanded.

The proposed composition of the new Audit & Risk Committee included two co-opted, non-voting independent members, and the composition of the new Standards Committee included two co-opted non-voting parish representatives.

The report noted that the current terms of reference of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee included scrutiny related elements which would not sit appropriately with either the proposed new Audit & Risk Committee or the Standards Committee.  These included the following matters:

(a)  the equality scheme and monitoring equality and diversity policies, 

(b)  Freedom of Information performance monitoring

(c)   Data Protection and Information Security monitoring

(d)  Planning Appeals Monitoring

(e)  S106 Monitoring

The report had suggested that, in future, the equality scheme be adopted by the Executive and monitored by Overview and Scrutiny, and that responsibility for the remaining items should lie with Overview & Scrutiny as part of their overall performance monitoring responsibilities.

During the debate, the following comments were made by the Committee:

·      Support for the principle of the proposed new Audit & Risk and Standards Committees, in line with the SOLACE recommendation. However, concern was expressed that there had been no prior discussion at this Committee or with other backbench councillors regarding the proposals, including how the Committee’s current responsibilities should be allocated.  It was also noted that there had been no discussion with the chairs and vice-chairs of the overview & scrutiny committees regarding the allocation of the residual scrutiny related functions contained in the Committee’s current terms of reference. It was therefore proposed that the matter be deferred to allow for these discussions to take place, the outcome of which would inform the Committee’s further consideration of the proposals.

·      Recognising that it was proposed to move the residual elements of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee’s current terms of reference to the overview & scrutiny committees, and noting the valued input to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee’s discussions by the current four co-optees, it was clarified that it was currently possible for the overview & scrutiny committees to appoint non-voting co-optees.

·      Concern from a co-opted parish member regarding the extent of the remit of the proposed Standards Committee and whether their input might be better channeled by being co-opted to one of the overview & scrutiny committees.

·      Concern that, if this Committee was disbanded, the programmed consideration of the S106 monitoring report would not take place in November as currently scheduled. It was suggested that any changes to the Committee be delayed to the end of the municipal year to enable the committee to work through its scheduled work programme.

·      It was suggested that the proposed terms of reference of the Audit & Risk Committee, specifically monitoring the effective development and operation of risk management in the Council, and monitoring the progress in addressing risk related issues, would enable that committee, rather than overview & scrutiny committees, to consider section 106 monitoring, freedom of information requests, and planning appeals monitoring.

·      The Lead Councillor for Planning commented that overview and scrutiny would be best placed to consider future S106 monitoring reports as they could summon officers from other authorities and the NHS to give evidence as to progress on expenditure of S106 monies on essential infrastructure by those authorities.

·      It was suggested that there should be two co-opted parish members and an independent member, on each of the proposed new committees.

Having discussed the matter the Committee

RESOLVED:

(1)         That the matter be referred back to the next meeting of the Joint Constitutions Review Group for further consideration of:

(a)         the terms of reference of the proposed Audit & Risk Committee and Standards Committee, and

(b)        which committees should be responsible for dealing with those matters within the current terms of reference of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee which are not proposed to be dealt with by the proposed Audit & Risk Committee or Standards Committee.

(2)         That, following further consideration by the Joint Constitutions Review Group, the matter be scheduled for formal consideration by this Committee at its next scheduled meeting on 14 November 2024.