The Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner’s revelation that nearly £11 billion of Covid-era public money has been lost to fraud and error nationally – with most of it now “beyond recovery” – should prompt serious reflection in every local authority that handled pandemic funds, including Harrow. While the borough received substantial support at the height of the crisis and worked visibly to distribute help to businesses and vulnerable residents, the new national report exposes a vacuum of clarity about what happened to vast sums of public money. Against this backdrop, Harrow’s own Covid funding footprint now demands far greater openness than is currently available.
Harrow received significant Covid-related support: close to £589,000 in Winter Grant Scheme funding, around £67 million in business grants to some 2,500 firms, another £17.3 million in council-delivered business support, and more than £16 million in external recovery funding. The borough supported thousands of households, channelled money to local charities and community groups, and launched an economic recovery strategy intended to help rebuild after the crisis. These efforts were visible and, at the time, widely welcomed.
Yet the national picture – billions lost, weak oversight, and major gaps in data quality – raises unavoidable questions about how well local systems everywhere, including Harrow, functioned under pressure. The issue is not about accusing the borough of mismanagement; it is about recognising that the sheer scale of the Government’s pandemic spending, much of it rolled out through councils at speed, means the public is entitled to know precisely how local programmes performed. At present, residents simply cannot see a clear, itemised account of how much was reclaimed, how much was written off, and how much ultimately achieved the outcomes claimed for it.
One compelling reason Harrow is especially well-placed to provide that clarity is that the senior manager who oversaw key elements of the Covid-era response remains in a senior position at the council today. This continuity of leadership offers the borough a rare opportunity: firsthand institutional memory, deep knowledge of what was done and why, and the ability to lead a thorough, credible retrospective review without relying on incomplete records or faded recollection. If any authority can reflect meaningfully on the quality, impact and value of its Covid spending, it is one where those who led at the time are still present to account for the decisions made.
The lack of detailed, retrospective reporting from Harrow does not imply impropriety – but it does leave a transparency gap that should now be closed. If the borough’s processes were robust, a full, public breakdown would strengthen trust. If challenges emerged, residents deserve to understand what they were and how they will be addressed in future emergency spending. In a national context where billions have evaporated into unrecoverable losses, reassurance cannot rest on silence or assumptions.
Harrow’s Covid response undoubtedly provided essential support to thousands of people at a time of crisis. But good intentions do not replace clear accounting. The Government’s own findings show that extraordinary spending brings extraordinary risks – and that without transparent follow-up, the public cannot properly judge whether the system did what it was meant to do. With the national scandal now laid bare, the burden shifts to local authorities, including Harrow, to demonstrate that their handling of public money stands up to scrutiny. Residents have every right to ask for that clarity – and every reason to expect it.
Harrow received significant Covid-related support: close to £589,000 in Winter Grant Scheme funding, around £67 million in business grants to some 2,500 firms, another £17.3 million in council-delivered business support, and more than £16 million in external recovery funding. The borough supported thousands of households, channelled money to local charities and community groups, and launched an economic recovery strategy intended to help rebuild after the crisis. These efforts were visible and, at the time, widely welcomed.
Yet the national picture – billions lost, weak oversight, and major gaps in data quality – raises unavoidable questions about how well local systems everywhere, including Harrow, functioned under pressure. The issue is not about accusing the borough of mismanagement; it is about recognising that the sheer scale of the Government’s pandemic spending, much of it rolled out through councils at speed, means the public is entitled to know precisely how local programmes performed. At present, residents simply cannot see a clear, itemised account of how much was reclaimed, how much was written off, and how much ultimately achieved the outcomes claimed for it.
One compelling reason Harrow is especially well-placed to provide that clarity is that the senior manager who oversaw key elements of the Covid-era response remains in a senior position at the council today. This continuity of leadership offers the borough a rare opportunity: firsthand institutional memory, deep knowledge of what was done and why, and the ability to lead a thorough, credible retrospective review without relying on incomplete records or faded recollection. If any authority can reflect meaningfully on the quality, impact and value of its Covid spending, it is one where those who led at the time are still present to account for the decisions made.
The lack of detailed, retrospective reporting from Harrow does not imply impropriety – but it does leave a transparency gap that should now be closed. If the borough’s processes were robust, a full, public breakdown would strengthen trust. If challenges emerged, residents deserve to understand what they were and how they will be addressed in future emergency spending. In a national context where billions have evaporated into unrecoverable losses, reassurance cannot rest on silence or assumptions.
Harrow’s Covid response undoubtedly provided essential support to thousands of people at a time of crisis. But good intentions do not replace clear accounting. The Government’s own findings show that extraordinary spending brings extraordinary risks – and that without transparent follow-up, the public cannot properly judge whether the system did what it was meant to do. With the national scandal now laid bare, the burden shifts to local authorities, including Harrow, to demonstrate that their handling of public money stands up to scrutiny. Residents have every right to ask for that clarity – and every reason to expect it.
Harrow Monitoring Group 