Artificial intelligence offers Harrow Council opportunities to improve administration, accessibility and service delivery. But residents need evidence of better outcomes, reliable information and safeguards that work in practice. The material reviewed by Harrow Monitoring Group did not provide a coherent public account of which systems are operating, their results and risks, or who holds overall managerial and political responsibility.
The risks depend on the task. Drafting a routine notice raises different concerns from summarising a safeguarding disclosure, assessing a household’s circumstances or identifying someone for investigation. Assurance must therefore examine each application, the information it processes and its influence on professional judgement. Residents should understand the impact of AI on their treatment and have an accessible way to question an outcome and secure correction.
The implications also extend to recruitment, procurement, contracts and assessments of legality or risk. AI-generated material can contain invented information, omissions or bias. Responsible officers must verify its evidence and reasoning, while the Legal Department should check significant legal conclusions and contractual changes.
Harrow’s position raises a wider question about independent oversight. The Information Commissioner’s Office, Competition and Markets Authority and Office of Communications (Ofcom) have distinct regulatory responsibilities and undertake proactive work as well as responding to concerns. Their activities do not collectively provide a common programme of routine inspection of councils’ overall AI practice comparable in function to Ofsted or CQC inspection. Who, then, independently checks that council AI works fairly, reliably and effectively before harm occurs?
Harrow could draw on Barnet’s application records, Brent’s audit disclosures and Hillingdon’s programme explanation to give residents and councillors sufficient evidence to assess benefits, risks and responsibility. We have asked the council’s Managing Director to put our following paper before Cabinet and refer it to the relevant committee chairs. Given its wider significance, we have also shared the study with government departments, regulators, the Local Government Association, external auditors, and academics.
The HMG’s paper, AI at Harrow Council: a study of its benefits, risks and institutional responsibility, is at:
https://harrowmonitoringgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AI_use_by_councils_-final.pdf
The risks depend on the task. Drafting a routine notice raises different concerns from summarising a safeguarding disclosure, assessing a household’s circumstances or identifying someone for investigation. Assurance must therefore examine each application, the information it processes and its influence on professional judgement. Residents should understand the impact of AI on their treatment and have an accessible way to question an outcome and secure correction.
The implications also extend to recruitment, procurement, contracts and assessments of legality or risk. AI-generated material can contain invented information, omissions or bias. Responsible officers must verify its evidence and reasoning, while the Legal Department should check significant legal conclusions and contractual changes.
Harrow’s position raises a wider question about independent oversight. The Information Commissioner’s Office, Competition and Markets Authority and Office of Communications (Ofcom) have distinct regulatory responsibilities and undertake proactive work as well as responding to concerns. Their activities do not collectively provide a common programme of routine inspection of councils’ overall AI practice comparable in function to Ofsted or CQC inspection. Who, then, independently checks that council AI works fairly, reliably and effectively before harm occurs?
Harrow could draw on Barnet’s application records, Brent’s audit disclosures and Hillingdon’s programme explanation to give residents and councillors sufficient evidence to assess benefits, risks and responsibility. We have asked the council’s Managing Director to put our following paper before Cabinet and refer it to the relevant committee chairs. Given its wider significance, we have also shared the study with government departments, regulators, the Local Government Association, external auditors, and academics.
The HMG’s paper, AI at Harrow Council: a study of its benefits, risks and institutional responsibility, is at:
https://harrowmonitoringgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AI_use_by_councils_-final.pdf