Agenda item

To receive and make recommendations on the 2026/27 Draft Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026/2031.

The Panel received a report for their consideration and comment, on the Council’s draft 2026-27 Budget and 2026-31 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) proposals that related to the Panel’s remit. The report included the Budget/MTFS report that went to Cabinet on 11^th November, along with appendices that set out the General Fund revenue and capital budget proposals relevant to the Children & Young People’s Scrutiny Panel. The report was introduced by Neil Sinclair, Head of Finance and Ann Graham, Corporate Director of Children’s Services as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9-78. Also present for this item were the Director of Early Help, Prevention and SEND and the Director of Safeguarding & Social Care. Cllr Brabazon, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Families was also present for this item.

Mr Sinclair identified that the financial position of the Council overall continued to be very challenging, driven by increasing demand and the rising cost of services. The Council was seeing trends from the current year continue into next year, with significant overspends in Social Care, TA and inflation costs. Other areas of overspend for next year included housing benefit overpayments and the Council’s property estate. The Panel was advised that the current forecasts showed that an additional circa £30m was required to cover the projected overspend for 2026/27. There were £7m worth of new savings/ costs reductions in the budget and £14.9m of previously agreed savings due to be delivered next year (£21.9m in total). The current projection for Exceptional Financial Support was £57m  for 2026/27. This was in additional to £10m of EFS for 2024/25 and £37m of EFS in 2025/26. The Panel was advised that the final figures would be known at the end of the financial year, once the existing budget was subject to closure. The Cabinet Member advised the Panel that Children’s services had managed their budget well, including their contributions to overall savings for the Council. The Cabinet Member commented that the numbers of agency staff had gone down, the number of placements had gone down and the Safety Valve programme had been managed. There continued to be an overspend in the Dedicated Schools Grant, which was related to SEND, and was deemed to be manageable. Cllr Brabazon set out that in the context of a budget that where costs had risen significantly, the service had done a commendable job in containing the budget.

The following arose as part of the discussion of the report:

1. The Panel sought clarification around the budget pressure relating to Rising Green youth centre and queried where the funding would come from to replace the grant funding that had come to an end. In response, officers advised that a dedicated report had been submitted to Cabinet that set out all of the issues in relation to funding. The Panel were advised that the youth centre would be funded corporately as a growth budget in order to maintain that service provision for the next two years. The service was committed to finding an alternative venue to provide a youth centre following those two years.
2. The Panel queried whether the Rising Green youth centre would continue to be funded to the same level over the next two years. In response, officers advised that there were some cuts to the overall youth provision, with the targeted youth service being brought under Early Help and reductions being made as a result. However, Rising Green would remain operating for the next two years and it was envisaged that a new site would be found following that two-year period.
3. The Panel queried the additional funding proposed around employing additional staff to manage the steep rise in Subject Access Requests and whether those additional staff were required, given that it was possible to extend the deadlines for responding for complex requests. In response, officers advised that the overall volume of cases in that service exceeded what they could manage, and so even though they could extend the deadlines for complex cases, demand far outstripped capacity.
4. The Panel queried whether, following the replacement of the 2025/26 grant for the Families First Partnership Programme, there were any alternative sources of funding that were being explored. In response, officers advised that when the grant was initially released it was given to the Children’s services base budget but the government subsequently issued amended guidance. Following discussions with the Corporate Director of Finance, it had been agreed that it would not be a pressure within the Children’s Services base budget for next year. It was commented that Haringey was not alone in finding itself in this position.
5. In relation to previously agreed savings and whether these would be delivered in full, officers acknowledged that they would not be able to deliver the savings for the current year, due to the £1.4m grant issue and not having any time to plan for how to mitigate this. The current assumption was that all of the previously agreed savings included in the March 2025 Council report across 2026/27 to 2030/31 would be delivered in full.
6. In relation to the cost pressure arising from tribunals, the Panel sought clarification as to whether there was scope to reduce the number of cases ending up at tribunal, given the costs involved. In response, officers advised that costs varied widely according to what package of care the tribunal related to. Officers advised that they had undertaken some modelling to see the level of workforce they would need to meet the current level of complaints. The service was developing a team of four staff to manage a dispute resolution process with the aim of preventing cases escalating to the point of going through the courts. Currently there were around 75 cases going to tribunal and only one person working on them. Consequently, it was very hard to keep on top of demand.
7. In response to a follow-up question about the additional team of four staff, officers advised that savings deriving from this team would be savings to the High Needs Block rather than the General Fund. The Safety Valve programme was due to end the overspend in the HNB by March 2028.
8. The Panel commented on the importance of managing relationships with parents when it came to reducing the number of cases going to tribunal, for example, and questioned if there was another way to manage relationships within the service. In response, the Corporate Director set out that  Subject Access Request could involve someone who was in care 20 plus years ago needing to know something about their birth parents. The Council could have no current relationship with that person and, in that context, managing relationships in a different way would not affect that person’s need to find out a specific piece of information. In relation to tribunals, officers advised that these were often about a parent trying to ensure that their child’s needs were met and the Council could have a good relationship with that family. Within the SEND process there was a statutory requirement for a formal route of redress if parents were not happy with a decision taken by the local authority or a health authority. Officers set out that there was a lot of work going on within the service to ensure that it had good relationships with service users. The Panel noted that there was a very well established parent carer forum in Haringey, that had 500 members and published a newsletter. The Council also had its own newsletter and it was commented that the combined circulation was in the thousands. The Cabinet Member emphasised the fact that the SEND system was fundamentally adversarial in its set up and that there wasn’t enough money in the system. People had a right to go to a tribunal if they were not happy.
9. In relation to a question around the saving proposal around introducing specialist foster carer allowances to attract more foster carers, officers confirmed that training would be part of a wider package of support offered to foster carers, including looking at how children were matched with foster carers. Officers set out that there was a clear expectation that people who undertook these placements also undertook enhanced training.
10. The Panel queried whether there were any concerns around incentivising foster with pay bands based on tiers of complexity/need. In response, officers acknowledged that it was an issue that they had deliberated on, and assurances were provided that there would be processes in place to ensure that foster carers had the requisite skill set in order to undertake these placements. Officers emphasised the importance of placing children locally, where the organisation could provide support in order to achieve the best outcomes for those children. In contrast to the huge costs charged by some independent care agencies, the service was seeking to put in place packages of support to children and foster families in order to keep placements in-house, rather than going through agencies. The Corporate Director of Children’s Service emphasised the importance of children having a family experience for as long as they could.
11. In reference to the proposed saving around care leavers accommodation, the Panel questioned whether, if successful, there was scope to deliver more units for care leavers. In response, officers acknowledged that that it was an exciting proposal and that the service was incredibly proud to have young adults moving into their own accommodation. It was estimated that there were either 104 or 109 care leavers moving into supported accommodation. In terms of getting them ready to move into permanent accommodation, it was suggested that it was important to provide them with the opportunity to input into what they needed to make it work.
12. In response to a question about the level of overspend, officers advised that overall, the Council was projecting an in-year overspend of about £34m. Some of these pressures were recurring and some were one-offs, and they would need to be built into the 2026/27 budget forecast.

RESOLVED

That the Panels scrutinised the proposals presented in the report and appendices.