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 lateness were received from Cllr Thayahlan Iyngkaran and from Cllr Lucia das Neves.

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).

Dominic O'Brien, Scrutiny Officer, reported that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had considered a Quarter 1 update report on the Corporate Delivery Plan at its meeting on 18^th September 2025. One of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) referred to in the report related to the number of complaints upheld by the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. Cllr Connor had requested that this issue be brought to the Scrutiny Panel for a response from officers/Cabinet Member. This would therefore be considered under Item 11 on the 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 Members’ Register of 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 interest are

defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Cllr Pippa Connor declared an interest by virtue of her membership of the Royal College of Nursing.

Cllr Pippa Connor declared an interest by virtue of her sister working as a GP in Tottenham.

Cllr Felicia Opoku declared an interest in relation to any discussions about the proposed merger of Integrated Care Boards (ICB), noting that she worked closely with ICB colleagues in a professional capacity.

Helena Kania declared as interest in Item 8 as a former co-Chair of the Joint Partnership Board.

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.

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as an accurate record.

Referred to page 3 of the Supplementary Agenda Pack, Cllr Opoku noted that graphs had been provided in response to the request for a breakdown of the number of physical and mental health conditions in younger adults with a care package. The context of the request was that the number of cases in the 50-64 age cohort had recently increased. However, the graphs only displayed the case numbers for the broader 18-64 age cohort. She requested that a breakdown of case numbers for more specific age cohorts be provided. (ACTION)

Cllr O’Donovan asked about the progress of the report for the Scrutiny Review on Hospital Discharges. Dominic O’Brien responded that the final version of the report was scheduled to be submitted to the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 27^th November 2025.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 30^th June 2025 be approved as an accurate record.

To consider the Budget report on the Council’s financial position at the end of Quarter 1 of 2025/26.

The report included with this item was first published as part of the agenda papers for the Cabinet meeting on 16^th September.

Members are required only to scrutinise the areas of the report related to the Panel’s remit, including Adult Social Care and Public Health.

In opening this item, Cllr Connor informed the Panel that the Quarter 1 Finance Update report provided had originally been part of the agenda papers for the meeting of the Cabinet on 16^th September 2025 and that the Panel was required only to consider the sections of the report that related to the areas within its remit, such as adult social care.

Jo Baty, Director of Adult Social Care, provided an overview of the report, informing the Panel that Adult Social Care had an overspend of £7.6m at the end of Quarter 1 of 2025/26. The report illustrated the higher demand for services between 2019 and 2025 with an increase of the number of older adults accessing services by 34% and younger adults by 30%. Over the same period, the weekly financial commitments had increased by 64% for older adults and 60% for younger adults. This reflected the pressures of the market and other factors such as difficulties with recruitment and retention of care staff. There was less choice within the market compared with 10 years previously and providers felt able to charge more, particularly for cases with more complex needs. The cost of residential placements for younger adults with learning difficulties was now around £1,800 per week which represented a 29% increase since 2020. A nursing placement for an older adult with a physical disability was now £1,315 per week, also an increase of 29% since 2020.

Jo Baty explained that the Council’s response to rising costs included working with neighbouring Boroughs and sub-regional partners, for example with market management, maximising joint funding with health and looking at best practice with early intervention and prevention. She added that the Integrated Care Board (ICB) had similar financial challenges and so the Council was proactively working with them on hospital discharge and admission avoidance. The Council was also working with care home providers to look at opportunities for collaboration and integrated workforce development.

With regards to savings, the full year target for Adult Social Care was just under £4m. There had been challenges in securing extra resources for commissioning staff which was needed because this was the engine room of Adult Social Care in working proactively with providers, implementing the care strategy and driving down costs.

Officers then responded to questions from the Panel:

• Referring to paragraph 6.18 of the report, Cllr Connor requested clarification about the Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) required by the Council. Sara Sutton, Corporate Director of Adults, Housing & Health, explained that, as at the end of Quarter 1, the Council was expecting to require the full £37m of EFS from the Government for 2025/26. The capital and the cost of the borrowing would have to be repaid over the longer-term. The rate of interest was clarified as 6.2%. Sara Sutton noted that this would create an additional budgetary pressure of an additional £2.91m that could otherwise have been used for other spending. She added that, overall, this represented a significant financial crisis which the Council was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To consider the findings and recommendations of a review of the Haringey Joint Partnerships Board.

A number of guests were introduced to the Panel:

• Pip Canons – CEO, Community Catalysts
• Natasha Benn – Interim Chair, Joint Partnership Board (JPB)
• Amanda Jacobs – JPB Member
• Lourdes Keever – JPB Member
• Cathy Stasny - JPB Member
• Dan Rogers – CEO, Public Voice CiC
• Jano Goodchild - Participation and Co-production Manager, Public Voice CiC
• Rachel Sanders – Project Officer, Public Voice CiC
• Phil Stevens – CEO, Disability Action Haringey

Dan Rogers, CEO of Public Voice CiC, began the introduction of the report, informing the Panel that Public Voice was a voluntary/community sector organisation contracted to facilitate the Joint Partnership Board (JPB). The JPB provided a forum where commissioners and advisers of services and residents worked together on service improvements and facilitated co-production. The JPB also facilitated a set of reference groups that represented seldom heard people, including a carers group, an older person’s group and a disabled person’s group. The reference groups developed their agendas and worked together on important issues. The Chairs/co-Chairs of the reference groups then worked together the JPB to discuss issues that were having an impact on the wider community and inequalities. In 2024, a number of JPB members requested a strategic review of the function of the JPB, including strengthening the governance of the Board and representation of the community.

Pip Canons, CEO of Community Catalysts, explained that they had helped to facilitate a process that would enable everyone to have their voices heard and to co-produce some priorities for action. Prior to Community Catalysts joining there had been an initial independent review carried out by the Public Health team. Community Catalysts were then asked to look at the findings of that review and involve the JPB reference groups to build on those recommendations. The process had been thorough with enthusiastic engagement which represented an opportunity to embed an important citizen voice within the governance structure and help make improvements to services. The process looked at issues through a ‘live well’ lens and an ‘age well’ lens leading to specific recommendations:

• Improve and embed co-production principles and approaches.
• Governance and accountability – including stronger links with key governance structures within the Council and the NHS in order to effect real change.
• Improve functioning of JPB – by ensuring that it has the right structure, roles and resources to be fit for purpose and enable people to fully participate.
• Inclusion and wider community reach – it was felt that there was a particular gap around learning difficulties and mental health where additional engagement was required to ensure that these groups were represented. Reaching out to marginalised groups was also an important element of inclusion, such as by producing materials in the right formats and in appropriate languages.

A series of questions then followed from the Panel:

• Cllr Peacock commented that she was involved with the largest pensioners group in the Borough and suggested that this group be included in the engagement process as it had not been included in the list of JPB  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To receive an overview of the integration of the Connected Communities service within Adult Social Care.

In introducing this item, Sara Sutton explained that the report provided an update on the work to make savings but also to change the shape and nature of the Connected Communities service (which was now being named the Independence and Early Intervention (IEI) Team). The aim was to focus on integration and providing support for residents at the earliest stage. This should be seen as part of the overall change and transformation agenda.

Christina Andrew, Head of Resettlement, Migration & Inequalities, explained that the slides in the agenda pack set out the background to the restructure, the vision for the new service and the financial savings that had been made and also the consultation process. The new team was based on a model of proactive support, aligning with the neighbourhood focus developing in adult social care through the localities model and the neighbourhood model being developed with health partners. The aim of the new team would be to reduce the need for adult social care packages, enable people to live independently in the community for as long as possible and to reduce the intensity of the packages where they were needed.

Christina Andrew said that there was also a focus on tenancy sustainment through a matrix management model with the housing team. Part of the funding for the service came through the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The restructure process was in the final stages and there had been strong engagement throughout the consultation process from staff and the unions. The full £700k savings target had now been delivered, including by holding vacancies. 50% of the funding for the service was now through the Better Care Fund (BCF) meaning that there was now a significant contribution from health. There was an aim to complete integration of the service by the beginning of November with the team based in the Central locality.

Cllr das Neves commented that this saving had been a significant and challenging part of the previous year’s budget process but that the changes were leading to the kind of services that the Council would like to see more of. She hoped that neighbourhood working and some of the developments coming forward in the NHS 10-year plan would complement this change. She also welcomed the new name of Independence and Early Intervention (IEI) Team as this would avoid confusion with other services nationally.

Cllr das Neves, Sara Sutton, Jo Baty and Christina Andrew then responded to questions from the Panel:

·       Asked by Cllr Brennan whether Councillors would have a point of contact within the IEI Team for casework, Christina Andrew explained that there would be five new ‘neighbour connector’ roles in the new structure with a specific localities focus. Two each of these would be the East and Central areas, with the other one in the West area, reflecting the need in the Borough. It hadn’t yet been established exactly where they would be based for drop-ins but this would be a key part of the model. The referral pathway would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

Dominic O'Brien, Scrutiny Officer, explained that this item followed the consideration of a Quarter 1 update report on the Corporate Delivery Plan at the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 18^th September 2025. A KPI in the report was:

Number of complaints upheld by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman per 10,000 population - The Ombudsman investigated 61 complaints and 53 were upheld (87%). Adjusted for Haringey's population, this is 20.2 upheld decisions per 100,000 residents. The average for authorities of this type is 9.1 upheld decisions per 100,000 residents.

It was also noted that further details about this was provided in the Annual Feedback & Resolutions report which was scheduled to be brought to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 20^th October 2025. A report on the Council’s response to the Ombudsman was provisionally scheduled to be brought to the Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel on 16^th December 2025. However, the purpose of the current Urgent Business item was to have an initial discussion on the key points.

Sara Sutton commented that the number of upheld complaints related to the Council as a whole but reported that the specific adult social care data would also be made available. It would then be possible to bring a more detailed analysis of this information to the Panel in due course. She noted that 70% of all contacts to the Ombudsman about Haringey were either outside of the jurisdiction or were closed. In addition, Haringey had achieved 100% resolution of the Ombudsman’s recommendations arising from upheld complaints. However, she acknowledged that the number of upheld decisions in proportion to the population was high and the Annual Feedback & Resolutions report outlined a number of actions that the Council was taking to resolve this. An improvement plan was in place for the timeliness and quality of responses. Significant progress had been made over the past quarter in relation to statutory adult social care complaints with on-time performance increased by 29% compared to the previous year. The new Infreemation system referred to earlier in the meeting would enable improved tracking of Ombudsman cases.

Cllr O’Donovan noted that there were explanatory paragraphs for each case on the Ombudsman website and suggested that it would be useful to go through these paragraphs at the December Panel meeting to ascertain what lessons could be learned for the future. (ACTION)

Cllr das Neves assured the Panel that she read every Ombudsman report and also discussed them with senior officers when there was learning to be established. Jo Baty observed that there had historically been an email-based culture within the Council which could overcomplicate cases so there was a need to streamline the processes. She added that it would also be beneficial to have earlier conversations with residents because going to the Ombudsman should usually be a position of last resort. Sara Sutton added the importance of candour and transparency, apologising at the earliest opportunity when the Council had not got things right and identifying consistent themes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Cllr Connor noted that the next meeting of the Panel in November was on the 2026/27 Budget and that there were currently too many items pencilled in for the December meeting so these would need to be reduced.

In accordance with the Committee Procedure Rules, the Panel agreed to continue the meeting after 10pm in order to conclude the item under discussion.

The Panel discussed possible topics for its next Scrutiny Review which would need to be completed by February 2026. It was determined that a project on communications with residents should be brought forward, including digital communications and inclusion, the accessibility of information on the Council website and the Haricare resource. (ACTION) It was noted that the issue of communications had been frequently raised by residents, including through the Scrutiny Café consultation event.

·         13^th Nov 2025 (6.30pm)

·         16^th Dec 2025 (6.30pm)

·         9^th Feb 2026 (6.30pm)

-       13^th November 2025 (6.30pm)

-       16^th December 2025 (6.30pm)

-       9^th February 2026 (6.30pm)