Agenda item

To consider and comment on the Council’s 2022/23 Draft Budget/5-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2022/23 – 2026/27 proposals relating to Children and Young People.

Josephine Lyseight, Head of Finance (People), reported that that the budget proposals for 2022/23 included growth spending of £11.8 million across the Council.  There were also existing savings plans of £12 million, including £4.72 that concerned children and young people.  Short term use of reserves had made the growth proposals possible.  They assumed a Council Tax increase of 1.99% plus a 1% Adult Social Care precept.  The funding for children and young people included social care grant funding. 

The Quarter Two financial position showed a Council wide overspend of £23 million, £12.87 million of which was Covid related.  The respective figures for Children and Young People (C&YP) were an overspend of £7 million, £3 million of which was from Covid.  The Dedicated Schools Grant showed an overspend of £6.3 million.  This key driver for this was the increased number of children with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans.  The proposals provided growth funding for C&YP of £4.172 million in 2022/23 and £5.376 million during the MTFS period.  There were also savings of £1.679 million in 2022/23 and £2.039 million for the period as a whole.  The capital budget included £92.9 for C&YP services during the MTFS period, which was funded by government grant and borrowing.  There was one new scheme included within this, which was for a new in-borough residential care home, which would provide high quality provision at a lower cost.  The projected year end deficit of the DSG was £23.9 million.  The total within the DSG for the forthcoming year was £288.34 million.

Panel Members commented that the language that was used in the report to describe the reasons for the overspend in the High Needs Block of the DSG could be open to the misinterpretation that children with EHC plans were being blamed.  An overspend was inevitable as SEN was inadequately funded by central government.  It was demand led and the Council had a responsibility to deliver services. 

Councillor Zena Brabazon, the Cabinet Member for Early Years, Children and Families, stated that the cause of the overspend was that there was insufficient funding from the government and there was no intention to blame families.  The responsibility for providing support had been extended until the age of 25 for some young people but no additional funding had been provided.  Families had a legal right to support and it was a demand led service. It was welcome that families had rights and the Council wished to avoid cases being referred to a tribunal. The government had pledged to review special needs funding but this had yet to happen.  The issue was not unique to Haringey as every other local authority was in a similar position.   Ann Graham, the Director of Children’s Services, stated that she would speak with finance colleagues to see if alternative language could be used in future regarding this.  She reported that there was also an overspend in the budget for looked after children but there was no blame attached to them either.  Although the service was given a specific budget, this did not mean that it could neglect to provide a service for such children once it was exceeded.  Legal requirements would be fulfilled.  The Council continued with actions to support the budget.

Panel Members noted that there was a commitment by the Council to consult.  However, the documentation was not easy to understand and needed to be made more accessible to members of the community.  Other local authorities had addressed this issue and an option that could be explored was the provision of easy to read version.  

The Panel also requested more information on the budget engagement process.  It was agreed that a briefing would be provided on the outcome of this, including which stakeholders were involved and their responses to the budget proposals.

AGREED:

1.    That consideration be given to the language used in describing the reasons for the overspend in the High Needs Block in future documentation in order to avoid the possibility of it being  misinterpreted as apportioning blame on SEND families;

2.    That work be undertaken to improve the accessibility of the MTFS documentation to promote more effective engagement with the local community; and

3.    That a briefing be provided to the Panel on the outcome of the engagement undertaken as part of the MTFS process, including which stakeholders were involved and their responses to the proposals.