Agenda and draft minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to Agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda front sheet, in respect of filming at meetings, and Members noted the information therein.

None.

Cllr White reported that revised versions of the Scrutiny Protocol and the Scrutiny Panel remits had been tabled as an item of urgent business.

Dominic O’Brien, Scrutiny Officer, explained that two significant changes were proposed to the Scrutiny Protocol. The first change was to paragraph 9.2 which clarified that a Committee member from the largest opposition group was responsible for chairing the Budget Scrutiny process. The second change was to add a new section (Section 10) to set out the formal role of Overview & Scrutiny in the scrutiny of local health services as specified in national legislation and guidance. In addition, the Scrutiny Panel remits had been revised through the addition of two new bullet points to the remit for the Adults & Health Scrutiny Panel to clarify its role in the scrutiny of health services.

Cllr Gunes queried whether the scrutiny of health services had previously been part of the remit of the Adults & Health Scrutiny Panel or whether the scope of the remit was being widened through the amendment. Dominic O’Brien explained that the Panel had always had a focus on health services but that the remit did not reflect this as it tended to be based on the Cabinet Member’s portfolio. The amendment was therefore intended as a clarification rather than a significant change to the remit. Cllr White added that the changes would also help to ensure continuity of the scrutiny function in the future by setting out clearly in writing the health scrutiny role as currently performed.

The Committee approved the recommendations as summarised in the report.

RESOLVED – That the revised Scrutiny Protocol document be approved by the Committee.

RESOLVED – That the revised Scrutiny Remits and Membership 2025/26 document be approved by the Committee.

None.

None.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of 19^th June 2025 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meetings held on 19^th June 2025 be approved as an accurate record.

To scrutinise the provisional outturn for 2024/25 for the General Fund (GF), Housing Revenue Account (HRA), Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the Capital Programme compared to the original budget agreed by Council in March 2024.

The report provided for this item was originally submitted to the meeting of the Cabinet on 15^th July 2025.

Cllr Carlin, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, introduced the report on the 2024/25 Provisional Financial Outturn. She informed the Committee that the cost of delivering essential services had outstripped funding, particularly in adult social care, children’s social care and temporary accommodation. An agreement had been made with the government for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) to be provided but, due to the hard work of officers to make additional savings and through the use of contingency funds and reserves, the amount of EFS required had been reduced to £10m in order to balance the budget.

Cllr Carlin then answered questions from the Panel, with contributions to the responses also made by Josephine Lyseight, Director of Finance & Deputy S151 Officer, and Frances Palopoli, Head of Corporate Financial Strategy & Monitoring:

·         Cllr White acknowledged the work that had been carried out to make savings but expressed concerns that quarterly finance updates to the Committee throughout the year had continued to show a level of overspend. He queried what more could be done to tackle this. Cllr Carlin agreed that this was concerning and highlighted some contributory factors. She noted that the areas of additional spend were mainly related to statutory services which the Council was obliged to provide and the number of cases, for example in adult social care, had been rising in Haringey. The number of cases had also been rising in most other Boroughs and so there was a lot of work underway to understand the causes of the drivers of the demand such as ill-health. There was also strict monitoring of the costs of these services in order to minimise the levels of funds used. Cllr Carlin added that the Council did not always receive enough funds from the NHS for certain types of care packages and that there was an ongoing programme of work to address this.

·         Asked by Cllr Gunes about fair funding for local government services, Cllr Carlin said that conversations were ongoing at national and regional level but that, with pressures on national government finances, local government overall had not received a significant increase in funding. She added that there was also action internally, including the implementation of new spending control panels.

·         Cllr Connor observed that the proportion of proposed savings that were actually achieved appeared to be reducing year by year, suggesting that the nature of the savings required after previous cuts were now becoming more difficult. She queried how the Committee could have confidence in the savings proposals for 2025/26. Josephine Lyseight acknowledged that the proportion of savings being achieved had reduced and said that there were measures in place to strengthen the process for 2025/26.

·         Referring to paragraph 6.3 of the report, Cllr Connor noted that corporate budgets had underspent by £24.4m and queried the reason for this. Cllr Carlin explained that this comprised of a number of factors including the corporate contingency budgets and reduced borrowing costs resulting from the reductions to the capital programme. She clarified that the Council was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To scrutinise a report on the business planning process for the 2026/27 Budget and five-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2026/31.

The report provided for this item was originally submitted to the meeting of the Cabinet on 15^th July 2025.

Cllr Carlin introduced the report on the draft 2026/27 budget and the 2026/31 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), noting that it set out the latest information on the risks and opportunities for setting a balanced budget in 2026/27 including details of the national context and inequalities within the Borough. She also highlighted the shifting demographics with Haringey no longer representing a cheap place to come and live. However, there were still increasing numbers of people aged over 65 and high numbers of people in insecure private accommodation.

Cllr Carlin, Josephine Lyseight and Frances Palopoli then answered questions from the Panel:

·         Cllr White referred to Table 5 on page 95 of the agenda pack (which set out the figures for the projected budget gap for 2026/27 to 2029/30) and noted that, according to paragraphs 11.4 and 13.3 of the report, the projections were already budgeting for the use of £37m of EFS in 2026/27 in addition to the budget gap of £44m. He added that the cumulative budget gap over the four years from 2026/27 to 2029/30 was over £161m, which appeared to be a very high figure in the context of an overall annual budget of approximately £300m, and expressed concern that this appeared to represent a financial cliff edge which was going to be difficult to avoid. Cllr Carlin acknowledged that the situation was very challenging but did not accept that nothing could be done. She said that it would not be possible for the Council to simply cut its way out of the problem as many of the viable cuts had already been made and because cuts to preventative services would result in higher costs in the future. It was therefore necessary to look much more deeply at what the Council does in order to make sure that everything that the Council delivered was necessary. It would also be important to look at any changes to the money coming in from the NHS and from central government in areas such as adult social care and homelessness.

·         Expanding on the previous answer, Cllr White highlighted paragraph 14.6 of the report which stated that, in the future, not everything may be affordable which may mean spending more in areas of greatest need and significant reductions in other areas. However, he noted that the majority of the Council’s revenue budget was spent on demand-led services and so major cuts in other areas such as parks or libraries may not be sufficient to meet the challenge. It appeared that there needed to be a funding source for demand-led services that was sufficient. Cllr Carlin commented that it would be necessary to look at what was driving the demand, whether this would level off in future and how this compared to similar Boroughs. The Council would also need to continue to push down on non-essential spend including by improving recruitment and management structures in order to run an essential and lean Council without damaging future resilience. Josephine Lyseight added that the Council would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To note the current 2025/26 work programme for the Committee and to propose any amendments as required.

Dominic O’Brien, Scrutiny Officer, informed the Committee that the annual questions session with the Leader of the Council had been scheduled for the next meeting on 18^th September 2025. The next Committee meeting after this would be on 20^th October 2025 with the agenda reserved for non-finance items.

Cllr White commented that a prominent item arising from the Scrutiny Café consultation event was the experience of residents when communicating with the Council. He therefore suggested that an agenda item be arranged on this with the Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequalities. (ACTION)

Cllr White and Cllr Connor requested that the Scrutiny Officer make contact with the relevant officers to progress and complete the Committee’s Scrutiny Review on Violence Against Women and Girls. (ACTION)

·         Thurs 18^th Sep 2025 (7pm)

·         Mon 20^th Oct 2025 (7pm)

·         Thurs 27^th Nov 2025 (7pm)

·         Thurs 11^th Dec 2025 (7pm)

·         Mon 19^th Jan 2025 (7pm)

·         Thurs 12^th Feb 2025 (7pm)

·         Thurs 12^th Mar 2026 (7pm)

·         Thurs 18^th Sep 2025 (7pm)

·         Mon 20^th Oct 2025 (7pm)

·         Thurs 27^th Nov 2025 (7pm)

·         Thurs 11^th Dec 2025 (7pm)

·         Mon 19^th Jan 2026 (7pm)

·         Thurs 12^th Feb 2026 (7pm)

·         Thurs 12^th Mar 2026 (7pm)