Apologies for absence were submitted by Cllr Stephanie Petit and Cllr Roberto Weeden-Sanz.

Any member of the Council who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the meeting while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether their continued participation, in the matter relating to the interest, would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly if the interest may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests, or whether they should leave the meeting while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2025 will be submitted for confirmation at the next ordinary meeting of the Committee.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2025 were deferred to the next ordinary meeting of the Committee.

i.         Adult Social Care and Health Budget Proposals 2026/27

ii.         Adult Social Care and Health Statutory and Discretionary Spending

The Chair introduced the item and invited Cllr Josh Rendall (Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health), and Council officers Visva Sathasivam (Director of Adult Social Care), Anna Raleigh (Director of Public Health), Usman Khan (Deputy Director of Public Health) and Tom Dennerly (Head of Finance – Adult Social Care) to present the report. The Lead Member highlighted:

1.     Savings proposals totalling £3.5m for 2026/27 and the potential for further savings of £3.8m from 2027/28 onwards, but assured the Committee that savings would not affect front line services.

2.     Budget growth pressures were the result of more people accessing adult social care services.

3.     The Council was continuing to invest in Adult Social Care with existing capital projects scheduled to be unaffected by budget savings.

The Chair invited comments or questions from the Committee. Members of the Committee:

4.     Queried whether the total proposed growth of £1.5m to manage demographic pressures was sufficient considering the 12% increase in service users in 2024/25. Officers advised that the 12% increase, whilst unprecedented, was not expected to be repeated based on modelling. Numbers of service users were closely monitored, and this helped project levels of future need. Officers were confident that current data indicated a reversion to 2023/24 growth levels, and therefore the proposed budget growth was sufficient.

5.     Sought assurance that quality, choice and dignity would be maintained for service users despite budget savings and highlighted the importance of maintaining a manageable caseload for front line workers. Officers referred to the Outstanding CQC rating achieved by the service and were determined to maintain a high quality service with prudent financial management. They noted that the budget growth proposal would ensure that the service would continue to provide the right services to the right people at the right time.

6.     Challenged the Council to work with NHS partners and voluntary and community sector organisations to effectively manage long term financial pressures and ensure services remained available to residents.

7.     Noted the in-year outturn position was vulnerable to demand shocks over the winter period and asked whether there was sufficient contingency to ensure a balanced budget at year-end. The Lead Member was conscious that there would be no grant from the NHS to manage winter pressures, with potential knock-on effects on hospital discharge. Officers said they met regularly to monitor demand, pressures and key risks and were confident that the final in-year position would be balanced.

8.     Discussed the Public Health budget, including reasons behind underspends in the 2024/25 and the appropriateness and sustainability of redirecting Public Health Grant funding across the Council to address budget pressures in other departments while contributing to public health outcomes. Officers advised that the Public Health reserve fund had built up over a long period of time and, on the advice of OHID, needed to be drawn down to a level which is more commensurate with managing contingency pressures. Funding was being redirected in accordance with the objectives in the Council Plan and the Public Health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Chair introduced the item and invited Cllr Josh Rendall (Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health), and Council officers Visva Sathasivam (Director of Adult Social Care), Anna Raleigh (Director of Public Health), Usman Khan (Deputy Director of Public Health) and Tom Dennerly (Head of Finance – Adult Social Care) to present the report. Officers were confident that all performance targets would be achieved.

The Chair invited comments or questions from the Committee. Members of the Committee:

1.     Suggested a 40% target for the percentage of service users who have a direct payment was low. Officers advised the target reflected the number of service users that were eligible to receive a direct payment. The target was intentionally ambitious and emphasised that RBKC had the second highest uptake of direct payments in London.

2.     Asked how performance and performance monitoring would be maintained amid increased financial pressures. Officers advised that performance monitoring was an essential part of budget setting, as the data gathered informed budget allocation across the service. The directorate also continuously reviewed its performance and budget position which enabled it to respond quickly to any challenges that arose.

3.     Asked how targets were set. Officers advised that targets were generally set based on national averages and balanced between being robust and achievable.

4.     Queried low targets for the percentage of NHS Health Checks offered. Officers explained that NHS health checks were conducted as a nationally prescribed Public Health programme over a five year period. The 20% target reflected the need to systematically invite 100% of the eligible population for a health check over the five year period.  The eligible population is people aged 40-45 without a pre-existing health condition, e.g.,  heart disease.

5.     Discussed maintaining performance levels and statutory support capacity through workforce redesign.

6.     Asked how robust data quality checks were. Officers advised the business analysis team worked across Adult Social Care and with the Quality Assurance team to obtain qualitative and quantitative data from providers and safeguarding partners and ensure validity. A performance board had oversight the checks and the process formed part of the Council’s corporate performance monitoring, underscoring the importance of robust checks.

7.     Asked whether performance was tracked by ethnic group or other protected characteristics to identify possible variations in outcomes. Officers assured members that performance was tracked across groups using Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs), tracking referrals and care assessments.

The Chair invited comments or questions from other Councillors in attendance. Members:

8.     Suggested future performance reports provide a more detailed assessment of performance across a range of indicators, including hospital discharge, procurement and contract monitoring.

The Chair closed the discussion and recommended that future performance reports include more detailed assessment of performance across a range of indicators.

The Chair introduced the item and invited the Committee to discuss the work programme. Members:

1.     Reiterated a desire to have greater oversight of budget delivery and budget setting.

2.     Suggested the 2026/27 Committee work programme consider the impact on residents of service changes as a result of budget savings.