Agenda and 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 Abela and Cllr Amin.

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).

There were no items of Urgent Business. The Panel agreed to vary the order of the agenda so that Item 9 on the published agenda would be taken as the first substantive item (Item 7). The minutes reflect the order the items were discussed rather the order on the published agenda

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 on 14^th July were agreed as a correct record.

The Panel considered a report on Haringey’s Youth Strategy 2025-2030, which sought their views on the launch of the strategy and the associated plan for implementation. The report was introduced by Jackie Difolco, Director: Early Help and Prevention as set out in the agenda pack at pages 7 – 62. The Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and families was present for this agenda item, along with the Director for Children’s Services.  As part of the introduction to Youth Strategy, Natasha Williams, Youth Voice and Participation Coordinator introduced a number of young people who supported the development of the Youth Strategy. The Young People spoke to the Panel about their experiences of engaging with their peers on the strategy. The young people were introduced to the Panel: Maximilian Malcom Gray; Jeremiah Kofi Boahene-Boakye; Selina Ait Mokhtar; and Yasin Dogar.  The following was noted in summary of their comments:

• Jeremiah commented that there was a lot of young people in the borough who had unique talents, including in the arts. In areas such as: music, drama, dance, theatre, fashion. It was important, therefore, that young people were encouraged to find their talents, particularly as these could often be overlooked without a forum for expressing them. It was suggested that the London Borough of Culture was a way for people to come together and for them to develop their talents in a safe space. It was suggested that young people thought differently to adults and that finding further opportunities for the Council to engage with the voice of children was encouraged.
• Max emphasised the importance of education and tutoring support, through programmes such as Get your Grades. Max commented that these services were not evenly located across the borough and that accessing the Rising Green youth centre was a 30-40 minute journey each way from the west of the borough. It was suggested that there should be an expansion of the Get Your Grades up programme across the borough, in order that they influence more people. Max commented that a lack of youth provision could be a causal factor in young people becoming involved in crime. Max recounted his recent experience of being mugged at knifepoint and suggested that a number of his peer group has experienced something similar. In relation to Recommendation 6, the number of youth services in Haringey, at 110, was welcomed. It was commented that the number of people attending Rising Green was around 90 but that there were around 1075 pupils attending Fortismere alone. It was suggested that more needed to be done to publicise these services, especially through social media.
• Yasin commented that in relation to Recommendation 6 on engagement, Haringey had done some good work like Rising Green, but it was commented that this tended to happen in smaller groups. Haringey should be finding ways to spread awareness. The need to build relationships was highlighted as a key factor going forward. Yasin also suggested that Haringey needed to find ways to empower young people, including through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Panel received the Q1 2025/26 Budget Monitoring report, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 16 September. The report was introduced by the Corporate Director of Children’s Services by exception, who gave an overview of the overall budget position in Children’s Services and highlighted any significant areas of overspend, as set out in the second agenda pack at pages 1-144. Neil Sinclair, Head of Finance was also present for this item. In summary, the Director highlighted the following:

a.    The service was projecting a £4m overspend on a budget of £77.43M. The reasons for this were attributed to three key areas. The first was non-delivery of savings relating to digitalisation. This equated to 40k last year and £750k for this year and last year. The Corporate Director advised that the service was continuing to work with Digital Services to identify areas that could be made more cost effective through digitalisation.

b.    The second area of budget pressure was around non-delivery in full of the organisation wide 5% staffing savings. The service had achieved £530k of the £2.18m over two years. The Corporate Director advised that she had worked on getting the service to the right size for eight years and that it was currently at the lowest levels of agency staffing it had been. It was also noted that the service was ahead of target for reducing its overall headcount.

c.     The third area contributing to the forecast pressure was the allocation of the social care prevention grant (£1.43m) in the budget process to offset placement pressures. The grant is ring fenced for implementing social care reforms which was not known at the time. It is currently being forecast as a pressure until the full financial implications of the reform are known.

d.    The Panel commented that it was not always clear when cost savings were put in the budget as to how they would be achieved. In response it was acknowledged that this was a discussion better suited to the budget scrutiny process.

e.    The Panel queried what didn’t happen in regard to digital savings that meant that the savings wasn’t achieved. In response, the Corporate Director advised that each directorate was apportioned a part of a wider savings target to be realised. The Director commented that achieving savings through digital change might be easier to achieve in some services than it is in Children’s, given the people-focused nature of the work. Some savings had been made but the full savings target had not been met.

f.      The Panel requested further information in relation to the closing of schools and whether there was a more comprehensive breakdown that could be provided that set out what the closure of a school looked like in terms of financial costs from redundancy etc, but also the costs associated with having a building that was no longer in use. In response, the Corporate Director commented that every school as unique and that every school had a different set of circumstances.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Panel received the Q1 2024-26 Corporate Delivery Plan Performance Update, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 16 September. The report was introduced by the Corporate Director of Children’s Services by exception, who gave an overview of any areas of significant underperformance, as set out in the second agenda pack at pages 145-203. Richard Hutton, Performance Manager was also present for this item.

In summary, the Director highlighted that the Only indicator with an overall Red RAG rating was the rate of first time entrants into the youth justice system per 100k population. It was noted that the latest figure was 277 per 100k children in the borough and that this represented a 14% increase. The service would be undertaking a deep dive of the first time entrants cohort to better understand the increase. The Corporate Director commented that the Youth Justice Plan was an item on the agenda later in this meeting.

RESOLVED

Noted.

The Panel received a report which provided an annual review of the statutory Youth Justice Plan for 2024-2027 which provided insight into the key strategic priorities, progress and activities undertaken over the past year. The report was introduced by Jackie Difolco, Director Early Help, Prevention and SEND, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 63-112.  The Corporate Director of Children’s Services was present for this agenda item, along with Cllr Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families. The following arose during the discussion of the report:

1. The Panel were advised that the Council received its first single inspection of the Youth Justice Service for 11 years in March 2025. The overall grade was good, with some outstanding features. As part of the inspection, there were six recommendations for improvement. The Panel were advised that these areas for improvement were incorporated as a feature of the latest version of the Youth Justice Plan.
2. The Panel commented that to some extent, changes in the approach taken by the police could have an impact on performance in relation to some of the indicators in the Youth Justice Plan, and that this was largely out of our control. The Panel enquired about the extent to which the increase in first time entrants was linked to a change in approach by the Met, or something that was happening in the borough. In response, officers advised that they needed to do a deep dive into the data to get a better understanding. It was commented that the service worked closely with police colleagues who had a range of approaches at their disposal, depending on the severity of the offence. The service had set up an internal panel with Youth Justice and other partners including police to discuss intelligence on children at risk of offending, with the aim of bringing the Turnaround project to them so that the case didn’t become a first time entrant into the criminal justice system.
3. The Panel queried performance measures four and five, which related to children with emotional/mental health need and children with a substance misuse need. The Panel questioned why the targets were set at 80% if performance was 65% and 46% respectively. In response, officers advised          that the service wanted to be very ambitious for our children and that it was unlikely these targets would come down. In relation to substance misuse, the provider had seen a large turnaround of staff which may have contributed to performance. In relation to referrals to young people with emotional and mental health needs, staff were being encouraged to ensure that a referral to specialist services such as CAMHS was made.

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the contents of the report and plan, and directed any comments and observations to the director of Early Help, Prevention and SEND.

The Panel received the Children’s Social Care Annual Performance Report for 2024/25. The report provided an analysis of the performance data and trends for measures relating to Children Looked After, Children on Child Protection Plans and Children in Need. The report was introduced by Dionne Thomas Director of Safeguarding & Social Care and Richard Hutton, Performance Manager as set out in the agenda pack at pages 113-140. The following arose in discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel sought clarification about the rate of Section 47 enquiries initiated per £100k and why Haringey’s performance was not in line with its statistical neighbours. In response, officers advised that different local authorities made different decisions locally about when they would initiate a S47 enquiry. Haringey’s performance in this area was ascribed to it making a local choice that exercising our safeguarding responsibilities was of paramount importance.

b.    In response to a follow up question, officers commented that to some extent this was about officers exercising their professional judgment. Officers clarified that Haringey had similar numbers of children on Child Protection Plans and a similar rate of referrals, but that varying performance in his area reflected at what point an individual child dropped out of the system. Some authorities had higher instances of Initial Child Protection Conferences and some had higher rates of S47 enquiries.

c.     The Panel sought clarification about the percentage of assessment completed in 45 working days and the extent to which a slight drop of in performance might be ascribed to a degree of complacency. In response, officers gave reassurance that there was no complacency in the team and that the service looked at performance in this area on a weekly basis. The Corporate Director advised that the service would always prioritise their capacity for seeing children and conducting the assessments. This could mean that paperwork needed to be caught up on later.

d.    The Panel queried what action had been taken in relation to the recommendations for improvement made in the Ofsted report. In response, officers advised that these areas for improvement had been taken very seriously and the service had in fact already began working to improve them prior to the Ofsted inspection in 2023. Ofsted conducted a focus visit in 2025 to test the effectiveness of the work done since 2023. Although it wasn’t a graded visit, officers advised that they received incredible feedback from Ofsted about the improvements made. Further work on each of these areas would continue.

RESOLVED

That the report was noted

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the work programme.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·       18^th November 2025

·       15^th January 2026

·       26 February 2026

·       18^th November 2025

·       15^th January 2026

·       26^th February 2026