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 in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein’.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Orford Williams.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business (late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with as noted below).

None.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th February were agreed as a correct record.

The Panel received a report which provided details of the Council’s financial position at Quarter 1 of the 2026/27 financial year including the General Fund (GF) Revenue and Capital budgets. The report was originally published as part of the agenda papers for Cabinet on 15^th September 2026. Overview and Scrutiny considered the report at its meeting on 17^th September. The Panel was asked to scrutinise the elements of the budget that were relevant to its remit. The report was set out in the agenda pack at pages 9-82. The Corporate Director of Children’s Services was present for this item, along with; the Director of Safeguarding and Social Care, the Director of Schools and Learning. The Cabinet Member for Children, schools and Families was also present for this item. The Head of Finance for CYPS was also present. The following arose in discussion of the report:

a.    The Panel noted that the projected position for Children’s Services in the General Fund at Q1 was an overspend of £3.12M. This position had been managed down through management actions from a position of circa £4.5m. Of the £3.12M projected overspend, this was made up of £2.986M of base budget pressures and £137k of non-delivery of savings (from an overall savings target of £857K). Some of the main pressures on the base budget included Home to School transport (£356k), Placements (£821k), Digital Savings (£772k), and a corporate 5% staffing reduction (£2.1M). Within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), the High Needs Block was projecting an overspend position of £8.4m. 

b.    In response to a question, officers advised that they did undertake benchmarking, using DfE data to understand how effective a school was at managing its budget.

c.    In response to a further question, officers set out that they were working with schools to have joint procurement arrangements and that the Council was encouraging schools to work more collectively around the common problems that schools faced. It was acknowledged that there was more work to be don’t in this area.

d.    In response to a questions about the cost to the Council from academisation, officers advised that there were set guidelines by the DfE on what happened with a school deficit or surplus and that there was a reconciliation process between the DfE and the academy partner. There should not be a net cost to the Council arising from a school with a deficit becoming academised but, officers commented, that sometimes this did happen.

e.    In response to a question, the Corporate Director advised that the level of children in care remained fairly stable at around 300, but what had changed was the complexity of need in the placements that were being made and that this created a cost pressure. The Corporate Director commented that her job was to make sure that children were in the right placement at any particular time, and that placement gave them the best life chances. The service was looking to maximise in-house provision where it could, as this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The panel received a report which provided an update to members of Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel on the second annual review of the statutory Youth Justice Plan for 2024-2027. The annual review provided insight into the key strategic priorities, progress and activities undertaken over the past year. The update was introduced by Matthew Knights, Head of Service – Youth at Risk, as set out in the published agenda pack at pages 83-138. The Corporate Director of Children’s Services was present for this item, along with; the Director of Safeguarding and Social Care, the Director of Schools and Learning. The Cabinet Member for Children, schools and Families was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this report.

a.    The Panel sought assurances around Priority 3 and questioned what was being done about speech and language therapy and the correlation between people who ended up in the criminal justice system who had undiagnosed SEND, including speech and language needs. The Panel commented that the number of people with speech and language needs had increased in the report. In response, officers advised that the reason the Board set this priority was because the data showed that more needed to be done by partners to focus resources in this area. It was highlighted that previously the service did not have a speech and language therapist. Now every child that came into the criminal justice system was screened for speech and language needs as part of the assessment process. Officers advised that the uptake in children being diagnosed was as a result of more children being screened and that that it also reflected in an increase in the number of children willing to sit down with the Health and Wellbeing team and undertake an assessment. Officers commented that this was a positive outcome.

b.    The Chair of SEND Power commented that the Panel had received similar assurances two or three years ago, and she questioned whether the service having a speech and language therapist had just been put in place. In response, officers acknowledged that this may have been referenced previously in an annual report. The Corporate Director advised that, as the Chair of the Partnership Board, the reason she made it a priority was because there was a national issue around children not getting support or diagnosis in this area. The criminal justice system then became the last opportunity to diagnose them. The Corporate Director advised that speech and language needs tended to manifest through children with challenging behaviour in school and that this led to exclusions. It was commented that, in an ideal world, all children would have access to speech and language assessments through their primary school. The Cabinet Member echoed these comments and acknowledged that there was a significant amount of evidence that showed the importance of early childhood interventions for speech and language therapy. The Panel was advised that one of the proposals in the SEND reform white paper was the introduction of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

The Panel received a report on the Haringey SEND & Alternative Provision Strategy Consultation 2026-29. Attached to the report was a copy of the SEND and Alternative Provision Strategy. The report provided the Panel with an update on the outcome of the formal public consultation in relation to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Strategy for Haringey 2026-2029, as well as the changes that have been made to the strategy as a result of the feedback, and the next steps. The report was introduced by Jack Newton, Director: Schools & Learning, as set out in the published agenda pack at pages 139-185. The Corporate Director of Children’s Services was present for this item, along with the Director of Safeguarding and Social Care, and the Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families. The following arose during the discussion of this report.

a.    In reference to co-production and the emphasis that the strategy put on the inclusion of the voice of the child, the Chair questioned how the voice of the child was being considered for children with an EHCP, but who were homeschooled or otherwise not in a school setting and therefore may be subject to reduced provision. In response, officers advised that they were not aware of the extent to which these children were consulted as part of the strategy, but that it was recognised that those children should be involved. Officers agreed to come back with a written response to the Panel. (Action: Jack Newton).

b.    The Panel sought clarification about how the Council supported children with SEND who didn’t want to attend school. In response, officers advised that there were a variety of reasons why a child might not want to be in an educational setting, and that it was important that they were a welcoming place for all children. For a child with an EHCP, they would have a coordinator for that plan and they would be responsible for working with the partnership in order to meet the needs of that child, as set out in that plan and to look at how they could support the family to access an educational setting. The Cabinet Member emphasised that there was also a range of alternative provision and online tutoring. The Cabinet Member also set out that it was crucial to understand why a school maybe unwelcoming and to listen to the young people about why they did not want to attend school.

c.    The Chair of SEND Power commented that for a child with ADHD, the reasons that they did not want to go to school were primarily sensory i.e. noises, smells, a feeling of not being safe. It was suggested that additional funding arising from the Pupil Premium should be used to help support a child to learn at home.

d.    In response to a question, officers advised that timeliness in relation to completing an assessment under the Care Act 2014 was 20 weeks and that this was a national benchmarking indicator. 

e.    The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Verbal Update.

The Panel received a verbal update from the Corporate Director of Children’s Services around the schools white paper titled "Every Child Achieving and Thriving". The Director of Schools and Learning was present for this item, along with the Director of Safeguarding and Social Care, and the Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families. The following arose during the discussion of this report.

a.    The Panel noted that in February the government released the long awaited white paper on schools. As an appendix to the white paper they also published their SEND strategy. It was speculated that this was to make a point around SEND inclusion within schools. The Council had previously agreed its Education Strategy, which was largely in line with the government’s strategy, as it was based on inclusion.

b.    The Panel was advised that the Council had submitted a local SEND reform plan over the summer, which they were waiting to hear back on. If successful, it would come with additional grant funding of around £8.4m towards reducing the budget pressure in the High Needs Block.

c.    Officers commented that that there were three reforms in this area that had links; Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life, Every Child Achieving & Thriving, and the SEND reforms. It was commented that although the white paper was not legislation, the government had started to release funding to start the SEND reforms but had not yet agreed LBH’s local SEND reform plan.

d.    Officers set out that the SEND reforms included fundamental changes to the system, which included moving away from EHCPs as the basis for accessing services. Instead, support plans would be offered to every child who needed it and only those children who it was necessary for would have an EHCP.

e.    The Panel was advised that there would be further updates to the Panel as and when appropriate.

f.      The Cabinet Member gave assurances that she wanted officers to look at the physical environment of schools to ensure they were inclusive; so that there were windows that opened, the spaces were comfortable, the spaces had suitable lighting and acoustics. 

RESOLVED

Noted

RESOLVED

Noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·       26 November

·       14 January

·       25 March