The Value for Money and Innovation Policy and Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to review a Cabinet Member decision regarding the transition from the Household Support Fund to the Crisis and Resilience Fund, including a revised budget. This review was initiated by a call-in from two committee members.

Call-in of the Cabinet Member Decision: Transition from the Household Support Fund to the Crisis and Resilience Fund – Revised Budget

The committee was scheduled to review a decision made by the Cabinet Member for Value for Money and Finance concerning the transition from the national Household Support Fund (HSF) to the new local Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF). This transition involved a revised budget for the CRF and cost of living support, which included a reduction in planned discretionary crisis payments.

The decision had been called in by Councillors David Boothroyd and Iman Less, members of the Value for Money and Innovation Policy and Scrutiny Committee. The call-in process allows committee members to request a review of a Cabinet Member decision if they believe it may have been taken improperly.

The report pack outlined six reasons provided for the call-in:

• Failure to formally consult service providers: It was argued that delivery partners should have been formally consulted, rather than just informally engaged, about the implications of the funding reduction and increased demand. The council's response indicated that no statutory duty to consult arose, as the decision related to discretionary funding within a new scheme and did not withdraw a statutory service.
• Failure to properly consider the combined impact with the Free School Meals decision: Concerns were raised about the combined impact of reducing crisis payments and the separate decision to remove free school meals for Key Stage 3 pupils. The report stated that officers were aware of both proposals and considered potential interactions, with mitigating factors such as national welfare reforms and local support arrangements highlighted.
• Failure to have regard to professional advice in the Equality Impact Assessment: This reason suggested that the proposed mitigations, which involved officers working through community hubs, did not account for potential changes to these hubs and that other mitigations might not be delivered due to budget cuts. The council's response indicated that community hubs were one of several access points and that future service delivery would aim for improved, not reduced, provision.
• Failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty: It was asserted that the Equality Impact Assessment identified negative impacts on several protected characteristics, and the proposed mitigations were deemed ineffective. The council's response maintained that due regard had been given to equality implications and that proposed mitigations were designed to preserve support routes and target resources effectively.
• Inconsistency with the Budget and Policy Framework: This reason questioned whether the decision aligned with the budget and policy framework approved by Full Council. The council's response stated that the decision was an exercise of established powers for in-year budget management and adjustments, in line with financial regulations.
• Failure to assess increased demand in other areas: The call-in suggested that the impact of reducing support to vulnerable households on other council and partner services had not been properly assessed. The report acknowledged uncertainty regarding potential future demand but stated that this did not make the decision inconsistent with the Budget and Policy Framework, as the impact of changing an untested scheme was difficult to precisely model.

The committee was asked to consider the information presented and decide whether to note the decision or refer it back to the Cabinet Member for reconsideration.

The report also detailed the policy context, including the shift from the HSF to the CRF, the council's financial pressures, and the need for budget management. It included extensive Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs) that analysed the potential impacts of the revised CRF on various protected characteristics, such as age, disability, gender reassignment, race, sex, sexual orientation, and religion or belief, as well as socio-economic and geographical considerations. These assessments outlined potential negative impacts and proposed mitigations, such as assisted application routes, clear communications, and partnerships with voluntary and community sector organisations.

The agenda also included standard items such as noting membership changes, receiving declarations of interest, and approving minutes from a previous meeting.