Agenda item

This report presents the collaboration risk register for its six-monthly review by the Joint Governance Committee (the Committee). The register was last presented to the Committee in March 2023. Since then, it has been updated by officers, including the assessment of scores and updates to mitigations.

Recommendation to Committee

1.              That the Committee reviews the collaboration risk register and the changes to the risk ratings suggested by officers and agrees any further changes.

2.              That the Committee ask officers to undertake a comprehensive review of the register, including risks; mitigations and scoring, with a view to making it more succinct and focused on the key threats to success of the collaboration.

Councillor Follows informed the Committee that it would discuss the structure of the Collaboration Risk Register (CRR) first. He advised that he felt the CRR had too many columns which made it quite confusing to review.  Councillor Follows felt that the target columns were unnecessary and should be removed.  Councillor Follows commented on the Risk Strategy and felt that 28 risks were too many.  He also advised that it would be helpful to add dates where risks were identified.

Councillor Follows invited Councillor Spence, the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee to address the Committee. Councillor Spence agreed with Councillor Follows, advising that there are over 20 risks, and some of the risks could be merged. Councillor Peter Martin addressed the Committee, he also agreed with the comments, noting that the targets and further planned action columns were confusing, he agreed that one or two of the risks could be merged.

Councillor Bigmore addressed the Committee, and he commented on the difference between action priorities and risk appetite.  He also queried the ratings column and how a risk would move from high to medium.  Councillor Spencer informed the Committee that he had previously been a Chief Risk Officer.  He advised that the appetite was important but was happy with where the inherent residual risks were now.  Councillor Spencer queried the control measures which he felt were key to control.  He expressed that currently, it seemed to be more like a narrative than a risk register.

Councillor Follows suggested a task and finish group be formed for a short period to support officers with the structure and the deliverables for the CRR.  He suggested that the task group be formed of Councillors from both Guildford and Waverley and nominated himself, Councillors Kiehl, Bigmore, and Booker.  He also thought that it was important that Councillor Spence as the chair of the Waverley Audit and Risk Committee and Councillor Bellamy as chair of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee should be co-opted into the task and finish group meetings.

Ian Doyle, Joint Strategic Director of Transformation and Governance addressed the Committee. He advised that he agreed with the comments and would welcome support from a task and finish group.  Councillor Kiehl addressed the Committee and queried whether it was a living document, who reviewed the register, and who else viewed the register.  Ian Doyle confirmed that it was the Joint Governance Committee that would view and be responsible for reviewing the CRR.

Moving to the CRR deliverables, Councillor Bigmore queried risk no.1 on the Register: the partnership lacks clear objectives.  He suggested that they had completed the initial work and that they were now out of mandate and queried what the next steps were.  Responding to Councillor Bigmore’s comments, Robin Taylor, Joint Executive Head of Organisational Development addressed the Committee.  He advised that his team was now working on the vision statement, project plan, and funding options.  Robin Taylor informed the Committee that several recommendations would be brought forward, including recommendations on how the two Councils will work together and plans for joint governance arrangements.

Councillor Follows advised the committee that there would be an All-Councillor briefing and formal discussion in late November.  Councillor Brooker addressed the Committee, and he informed the Committee that he was not a fan of the collaboration and had particular concerns with risks no. 5, 8, 11, 13, and 25.  He commented on the officer split and sought reassurance on the practicalities of this.  Councillor Follows highlighted the risk of undoing the collaboration and noted that the task and finish group would evaluate all the risks as part of its objectives.

Councillor Robini addressed the Committee, he highlighted a communication risk with the public.  He felt that more communication was required to ensure public support for the collaboration.  Councillor Follows noted that external communication would improve when the internal communication and understanding of councillors and staff were improved.  He noted that it was important to articulate the financial savings and that there would be internal and external comms messages emanating in the next few weeks.

Councillor Peter Clark addressed the Committee, and he commented on the risk of people misunderstanding the comms messages both internally and externally.  Councillor Martin informed the Committee that the Conservative Party did not support the collaboration, but he would do what he could to support this work.  He advised that the Committee should be cautious about combining difficult risks.  Councillor Ward agreed that there were too many columns on the CRR and agreed that merging some of the risks was sensible.  He also agreed that the comms message to the public should be clear so that they are well-informed about the collaboration.

Councillor Bigmore was concerned that risk no.10 should be a higher risk.  Councillor Follows agreed and noted that a number of the capacity and resources risks had already had an impact and should be reevaluated and mitigated.  Councillor Robini felt that I.T. should be a higher risk, noting that there was no shared platform.  Councillor Follows advised that it was a high priority and would be tackled one service area at a time.  Councillor Follows noted that it was a very large task and there was a fundamental update required to the Members’ interfacing basics.

Councillor Martin noted the risks concerning governance, and he commented on simultaneous Executive meetings.  He also commented on the joint management resources, over-stretched capacity, and one council’s priorities over the others.  About the proposed governance arrangements, Councillor Follows advised that this was something that the Joint Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Susan Sale, was working on and would be communicated in a language everyone could understand.

Tom Horwood, Joint Chief Executive, addressed the Committee and confirmed to the Committee that the Joint Management Team (JMT) was not paid for by GBC, however, the weighted balance of tasks was not equally balanced either, e.g., that the Environmental Services work at GBC was larger than that of WBC.  He noted that modifications had been made under the relevant areas by the section 151 Officer during the budget setting to reduce the disparities.

Tom Horwood informed the Committee that all the members of the JMT were fulfilling their contractual obligations.  He noted that the JMT had been in place for just over one year and this had allowed them the time to understand what changes needed to be made. 

Councillor Martin asked how the JMT ensured that any one council was not monopolising the time of officers.  Robin Taylor explained that the JMT worked in a pattern of ebb and flow and responded to tasks as needed.  Robin Taylor also advised that the JMT had significant experience in responding to issues i.e., the Guildford Financial event.  Robin Taylor advised the Committee that in reality, the JMT would deal with situations as they arose i.e., ebb and flow which would continue to change and impact risk and would continue to exist.  Ian Doyle advised the committee that Robin Taylor had described a real risk and that the CRR was a live document.

Councillor Victoria Kheli addressed the Committee, she advised that she was surprised that there were only two red risk indicators relating to capacity resources considering the quantity of work and the proposed timeline.  She also suggested that the financial situation and commentary be circulated to Members of the Committee.  Councillor John Robini commented on the number of Committees that Senior officers needed to attend and suggested that officers attend via Zoom where possible.

The Committee resolved to the following:

1.               The Joint Governance Committee reviewed and noted the report and proposed a Task and Finish Group to review further changes and provide a steer pending a review from Finance.

2.               The Committee appoints a Task and Finish Group to support Officers in undertaking a comprehensive review of the Collaboration Risk Register including risks; mitigations and scoring, with a view to making it more succinct and focused on the key threats to the success of the Collaboration.

3.               That a new Task and Finish Group be appointed and shall be formed from Members of the Joint Governance Committee.