Lawful but risky: Harrow’s interim children’s services leadership under safeguarding scrutiny

Harrow Council’s emergency decision to designate its Managing Director as interim Director of Children’s Services following the unexplained departure of the statutory director raises serious questions about safeguarding governance, leadership capacity and transparency, particularly given the council’s ongoing status under Department for Education intervention.
While the council may argue that it has complied with Section 18 of the Children Act 2004 in making an interim appointment, safeguarding is not secured by legal designation alone. It depends on independence, professional oversight, effective challenge and clear escalation routes, all of which appear weakened by the current arrangement.
The Director of Children’s Services, a registered social worker holding statutory responsibility for children’s services, left her role with no public explanation. This article does not suggest wrongdoing; senior leaders leave posts for many legitimate reasons. Nevertheless, in a local authority under an improvement notice, an unexplained departure at the top of children’s services inevitably raises concerns about continuity, stability and risk. In such circumstances, transparency is itself a safeguarding mechanism, and silence does little to reassure staff, partners or the public.
These concerns are intensified by the apparent absence of any attempt to appoint an experienced external interim through agency arrangements to provide immediate professional grip, independence and safeguarding expertise. In Harrow’s case, there is no evidence that the post has been advertised, no indication that agency options were explored, and no explanation of why such routes were rejected. In a fragile service under regulatory scrutiny, this omission raises legitimate questions about governance and risk management.
Equally unclear is why internal professional leadership appears to have been bypassed. Most local authorities have Assistant Directors or other senior children’s services professionals with extensive safeguarding experience who are capable of providing interim continuity. The council has not explained whether such options were considered, why they were deemed unsuitable, or what assessment informed the decision to default to corporate leadership rather than professional children’s services leadership.
The most significant issue, however, is structural. In a properly functioning safeguarding system, the Director of Children’s Services holds statutory responsibility for children’s social care, while the Managing Director or Chief Executive provides independent oversight and serves as the escalation point if concerns arise about children’s services leadership. By appointing the Managing Director as interim DCS, Harrow Council has collapsed that separation. The same individual now holds statutory responsibility for children’s services and is also the person to whom concerns about that leadership would ordinarily be escalated. Even with the best intentions, this creates a closed loop that significantly weakens independent challenge at the highest level.
Concentrating statutory responsibility, corporate authority and escalation power in a single individual during a period of government intervention is therefore a high-risk governance decision.
There are also unresolved questions about capacity and effectiveness. The DCS role is neither nominal nor purely strategic; it requires deep engagement with frontline practice, direct oversight of improvement activity, and sustained involvement with regulators. The council has not explained how the Managing Director will realistically undertake the operational groundwork of the DCS role alongside existing corporate responsibilities, nor what risks arise if either role is diluted during a critical improvement phase.
Although the arrangement has been described as temporary, recruitment to a permanent DCS post in a council under government intervention is rarely quick. Without a clear timetable, a published options appraisal or explicit interim safeguards, “temporary” risks becoming open-ended, normalising a leadership model that removes independent escalation precisely when strengthened oversight should be expected.
Further governance concerns arise from the impact on Harrow’s Multi-Agency Safeguarding Arrangement. Under Working Together to Safeguard Children, effective safeguarding depends on independent challenge between statutory partners.
In Harrow, the Managing Director also holds the role of Lead Safeguarding Partner. As a result of the interim appointment, the same individual now represents the local authority as a statutory safeguarding partner and provides leadership and assurance across the safeguarding partnership. While lawful, this weakens the independence the partnership model is designed to secure and risks making escalation self-referential rather than genuinely challenging.
Until clearer explanations are provided, legitimate safeguarding questions remain unanswered in a local authority responsible for protecting vulnerable children – questions that deserve clear, timely and transparent answers.
Follow-up:  Who holds the challenge in harrow’s children’s services governance?