Agenda item

To consider the Budget report on the Council’s financial position at the end of Quarter 2 of 2025/26.

The report included with this item was first published as part of the agenda papers for the Cabinet meeting on 9th December 2025.

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

Rachel Boston, Finance Manager, introduced the report which set out the Council’s in-year financial position at the end of Quarter 2 for 2025/26 and included the following key points:

• A favourable movement was reported at Q2 compared to Q1.
• Work had been ongoing with the services to review budgets and it had been possible to identify £1.8m of income that had not been fully accounted for.
• Services for older people had stabilised and the average unit cost was decreasing.
• However, there was growth in services for the 18-64 age group, predominantly within mental health and physical disability. The Council had been working closely with the local NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) and there was now a better contribution for packages of care from the ICB.

Responses were then provided to questions from the Panel:

• Cllr Opoku commented that the 18-64 age group was broad and that it would be helpful to see a more detailed breakdown to understand which age groups were most impacted. Rachel Boston clarified that a lot of younger people under 35 requiring mental health support were coming through the system, whereas with cases involving physical health this tended to be from people above the age of 50.
• Referring to paragraph 1.2 of the report, Cllr Connor noted that the outturn variance for the General Fund was £23.4m which represented an improvement of £10.7m. She queried whether further improvements could be expected later in the year. Rachel Boston confirmed that further improvements were expected because of factors such as the ICB contributions. It would be necessary to recast the Council’s demand modelling and pressures for next year to establish a clear position for the budget going forward.
• Cllr Iyngkaran asked whether the trends in demand for services, such as growth in the 18-64 age bracket could be expected to continue in future years. Sara Sutton commented that it was very difficult to make predictions for demand-led services and that there were many variables to build into the modelling assumptions. The team was working on three different scenarios with detailed analysis to improve modelling and forecasting. However, she added that the position was much improved compared to last year which had a considerably higher overspend position.
• Referring to Table 2 in the report, Cllr Connor noted that the total variance for Quarter 1 for Adult Social Services was around £7.5m and that the movement from Q1 to Q2 was £1.8m, resulting in a variance at Q2 of £5.7m. Rachel Boston explained that the £5.7m was expected to reduce further later in the year due to the formal agreement with the ICB over joint funding arrangements.
• Cllr Mason referred to paragraph 1.2 of the report which stated that there was a forecast overspend of £23.4m in 2025/26 with an additional £37m of budgeted spend from Exceptional Financial Support (EFS). She expressed concern about the likely difficulties with the Budget in 2026/27, including the repayment of funds already borrowed from the Government. Sara Sutton said that the draft Budget report for 2026/27 included these details and it was noted that this report would be discussed at the Cabinet meeting the following day. Dominic O'Brien, Scrutiny Officer, advised the Panel that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee would be receiving a report on the Q3 figures on 11^th March 2026 and that any queries about this from the Panel could be referred to that meeting.
• Cllr Connor referred to Table 3 in the report which referred to savings and management actions and showed that £2.23m out of the £3.963m savings for adult social care were currently projected to be fully delivered. She asked for assurances that a greater proportion of the savings would be achieved by the end of the financial year. Jo Baty explained that there had been some delays with bringing in the new commissioning staff who would make a difference as they would be leading on savings delivery next year. The NRS provider failure also held up the service as this became a significant focus of the service for three to four months. The other point to note was that there were interdependencies with other areas of the Council which were also trying to make savings. Any savings not achieved this year would be rolled forward to next year.

Cllr Connor then referred to the 2025/26 savings table on page 43 and commented that it would be useful to have reference numbers next to each saving so that it would be easier to cross-reference these with previous papers. Sara Sutton said that it would not be possible to do this for Q3 as the papers had already been prepared but could refer this suggestion to the finance team as an action for next year. (ACTION)

The Panel then asked questions about the specific savings in the table:

Transitions

·       Cllr Connor noted that the expected cost of transitions was now lower than forecast in 2023 and queried the robustness of the data. Jo Baty said that the finance team had done a lot of work on transitions and that there was a good grip of the data in this area with a known cohort. She added that this was underpinned by governance around transitions that had not been in place 18 months previously.

·       Cllr Iyngkaran noted the costs of the growth in the number of cases in the 18-64 age bracket, particularly with mental health, and queried whether there could be some underestimation of issues and therefore an underinvestment in services. Rachel Boston said that it had been possible to profile the data and cohort much better over the last few months and that, while there was a reduced number of cases this year, a rise was expected in 2027/28. While some variance was to be expected, the data was now considered to be more stable.

·       Cllr Mason raised the issue of legal challenges on behalf of young people going through transitions, including the costs to the Council and the impact on the young people if they did not receive the services that they required. She asked whether the number of legal challenges had increased in recent years. Jo Baty responded that she did not have the data for this but was happy to look into this. (ACTION) She added that a particular challenge for parents and carers in this area was that the availability of services for adults was significantly lower than for children and so the wraparound support that children received at school changed when people transitioned to adulthood. It was therefore important to work with schools and colleges to manage expectations from the age of 14 onwards about transition arrangements and to improve the planning for this. Other issues included late diagnosis and the length of time required to obtain an autism diagnosis. Cllr das Neves highlighted circumstances of children aged 14 or 15 who would be in children’s services but about to leave by the time of receiving their diagnosis. She suggested that this could be a useful future topic to discuss at a joint meeting of the Adults & Health and the Children & Young People Scrutiny Panels. Cllr Connor concurred with this and noted that the Chairs of these Panels had previously agreed to conduct further scrutiny of the data around transitions. (ACTION) Cllr das Neves added that it was important to make the distinction between, mental health, autism, and learning disabilities.

·       Cllr O’Donovan observed that the Panel had previously received information about the Haringey Integrated Transition Service which aimed to reduce costs and queried whether the savings in this area was evidence that the service was now working. Jo Baty responded that the service was working for the people supported by it and noted that the service currently had around 50 cases. She added that there was a lot more to do and the aim was to work with more young people and families in a more integrated way.

·       Asked by Cllr Brennan whether private companies could carry out assessments for educational care plans, Jo Baty confirmed that this was the case.

Staffing savings for Adult Social Services

·       Asked by Cllr Brennan to provide further details of this saving, Sara Sutton explained that this related mainly to agency roles to support the CQC inspection which was not required in the long-term. However, the front-line capacity was being increased. It was also clarified that this did not involve reductions in the capacity of the commissioning team.

Integrated Connected Communities

·       Asked by Cllr Connor for further details about the delivery of the savings, Sara Sutton explained that the consultation and engagement with the team had been completed and that the savings were on track to be delivered in full. A number of vacancies had been held and a number of people had been able to secure permanent roles at a higher level. There would be one compulsory redundancy as part of the changes but that related to an individual who did not apply for any roles as they were moving out of the area. The new Independence & Early Intervention (IEI) Team would have 17 full-time equivalent roles and would be part of the new ‘front-door’ to services being implemented from Q1 of 2026/27.

Developing Community Support model

·       Cllr Connor observed that this saving relied more on a change in behaviour rather than direct budget cuts and asked what would happen if that change in behaviour did not transpire and why the full saving had not been achieved. Jo Baty explained that, while there would be a cultural shift, there would also be efficiencies and more use of digital within the front door redesign. Prior to the change, there were five teams all working differently and this would be replaced with one team with a consistent offer. She added that the savings would be made through the front-door redesign and would require a consultation with staff. Sara Sutton explained that any shortfall in the savings by the end of the year would need to be mitigated.

·       Helena Kania asked how the NHS budget cuts would impact on the saving, given that the service relied on collaboration with the NHS ICB. Sara Sutton acknowledged that the dynamics in the relationship with the ICB had shifted following their structure changes and so the Council would need to work more closely with providers. She suggested that a discussion on the collaborative approach and the neighbourhood health agenda could be a topic for a future Scrutiny Panel meeting. (ACTION) She added that another area potentially impacted by this was the Continuing Healthcare (CHC) work where there had recently been a lot of work to improve funding arrangements. Cllr das Neves commented that the forthcoming merger between the North Central London and North West London ICBs was notable as the spending on CHC was considerably higher in North West London. Cllr Connor informed the Panel that the meeting of the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee would be looking at the NHS 10-year plan which may be relevant to this discussion. Cllr Connor highlighted the risk to the Council receiving fair funding from health partners and recommended that the Panel continued to monitor this issue. (ACTION)

Review of the Council’s Reablement model

·       Asked by Cllr Connor about the implementation of the saving for patients, Jo Baty observed that the reablement service had fared well in the recent CQC report. She said that it was a good service but expensive because it required improvement and an updated approach so there were huge opportunities for savings. An initial report on this had been drafted by the Head of Integrated Care and brought through internal governance with a more structured discussion with staff expected to follow.

Supported Living Contract

·       Noting that this saving had been delayed, Cllr Connor requested further details about the expected timescales for implementation. Sara Sutton said that a financial analysis on this was expected over the next few days so further details would be available soon, but she expected that some savings could be made in-year with a larger proportion of the savings rolled into delivery for next year. Work was ongoing to identify areas for mitigation based on opportunities in other areas.

·       Cllr Connor referred to the Panel’s previous concerns about the annual review of supported living contracts and asked about any current backlogs in this area. Sara Sutton clarified that the saving was not predicated on this but acknowledged that there were waiting lists in some areas and there were additional resources available to assist with reducing these. The actual substantive saving would be generated by changing the model of commissioning and the backlogs would be addressed over time by way of the overall proposals around staffing capacity. Cllr Connor requested data on the current waiting lists for assessments. (ACTION)

5% Staff saving

·       Asked for further details by Cllr Connor on this saving, Sara Sutton explained that this was partly included in the previously discussed saving while there had also been a saving in the public health team following a recent retirement of a staff member.

Public health

·       Cllr Iyngkaran referred to the saving on 0-19 years Public Health Nursing Services efficiencies. He expressed concerns about the recent reductions in the uptake for vaccines and queried whether this saving would have an impact on vaccine delivery to the community. Sara Sutton explained that this saving was achieved through back-office efficiencies rather than staff reductions and therefore would not impact on the vaccination programme. Cllr das Neves spoke about the targeted work with specific representatives to increase vaccination rates in particular communities but noted that falling vaccination rates was a wider national problem.

The Panel then asked questions about the capital forecasts:

Aids, Adaptations & Assistive Tech – Home Owners (201)

·       Cllr Connor noted that the status of this item was that it was on budget but not on time. Jo Baty explained that this related to the procurement of new contractors as part of the improvements necessary with aids and adaptations. Contracts had been signed recently and it was expected that the timescales would have improved by the time of the Q3 report.

Community Alarm Service (211)

·       Asked by Cllr Mason for assurances about the delivery of this service, Jo Baty said that the digital IT platform had just been signed off so this was all in hand. Sara Sutton noted that this item referred only to the capital element of the budget for this service which was combined with a revenue element.

Canning Crescent Assisted Living (213)

·       Cllr das Neves provided an update on this item, informing the Panel that services at the Roger Sylvester Centre - Canning Crescent had started operating in the autumn but that the formal opening had taken place earlier that week. All Councillors would soon receive an invitation to visit the Centre. This was a Council project with support from partners in the NHS and voluntary sector. The service operated as a neighbourhood mental health hub, providing more crisis beds and also hosted the Clarendon Recovery College.

·       Asked by Cllr Connor about future income from placements, Sara Sutton explained that income wouldn’t come to adult social care but that there would be rental income to Corporate Property. She welcomed the opening of the new facilities and added that this resulted in the overall number of available crisis beds increasing from 7 to 13. This would enable more people to be supported in the community and avoid hospital admissions and out-of-Borough placements.

·       Panel Members welcomed the opening of the new facilities, commenting that it was important to have this support available to residents and placing on record their thanks to the officers and Councillors for their hard work on delivering this project.

Locality Hub (225)

·       In response to a query from Cllr Connor on why this item was on hold, Sara Sutton explained that this related to the Neighbourhood Resource Centre and that there was a proposal to remove this item from the General Fund capital budget in next year’s proposals and move it to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) because it was an HRA asset. This was due to an anomaly in the historical papers.