A larger NHS ICB must not leave Harrow’s vulnerable adults and children behind

The approved merger of North West London and North Central London Integrated Care Boards, due to take effect on 1 April 2026, will create the largest ICB in England, covering 13 boroughs and around 4.5 million people. The merger itself is not contested. What warrants scrutiny are the consequences of this scale for local accountability, particularly for Harrow and for adults and children with special needs.
ICBs decide how NHS funding is allocated locally, including services for people with disabilities, complex health needs, and safeguarding concerns. For Harrow residents, this is not abstract governance. As decision-making moves further from local communities, the risk is not simply reduced focus but reduced visibility. In larger systems, accountability must become clearer, not weaker.
Looked After Children are especially vulnerable during major system change. Their care depends on statutory NHS responsibilities, including designated doctors and nurses, health assessments, safeguarding escalation, and coordination across boroughs and providers. These arrangements exist to prevent vulnerable children being lost within complex systems.
In this context, current safeguarding transparency at ICB level is concerning. Public information describes roles, but does not clearly identify named statutory post-holders or provide straightforward routes for contact and escalation. Responsibility appears to sit behind generic inboxes, limiting visibility when serious concerns arise. This is compounded by outdated safeguarding information that does not consistently reflect current statutory guidance.
As things stand, Harrow residents cannot easily find clear explanations of how Children Looked After health responsibilities will operate after the merger, how safeguarding oversight will function across 13 boroughs, or how unresolved concerns will be carried through transition. Internal planning may exist, but public assurance matters when vulnerable children are involved.
Local authorities retain statutory responsibility for Looked After Children, raising legitimate questions about how Harrow-specific concerns will be heard within the largest ICB in the country. Scale can bring opportunity, but it can also bury risk. Clear, proactive transparency would strengthen confidence and help ensure that vulnerable adults and children are not overlooked in a larger system.
Also read our letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Who holds the challenge in Harrow’s children’s services governance?

Following our recent article examining the blunt use of legislation to appoint an interim Director of Children’s Services in Harrow, attention must now turn to a wider safeguarding concern: whether the structural design of the Director of Children’s Services (DCS) role itself provides sufficient independence, challenge and accountability within the system.
Safeguarding failures do not arise solely from poor practice. They also arise from weak system design, where accountability is blurred, challenge is muted and assurance becomes circular. Sustainable improvement requires more than changes in leadership; it requires honest scrutiny of whether existing governance structures are fit for purpose.
Working Together to Safeguard Children is explicit that effective safeguarding depends on clear accountability, robust assurance and effective escalation when concerns are not being addressed. Independent scrutiny and professional challenge are not optional safeguards but core components of a functioning child protection system.
Yet the current design of the DCS role concentrates extensive responsibilities within a single post. These include operational leadership of children’s social care, strategic safeguarding leadership, quality assurance functions, oversight of Independent Reviewing Officers, Child Protection Conference Chairs and the Local Authority Designated Officer role, as well as representing the local authority within the safeguarding partnership. In practice, this means the same role is responsible for delivering services, overseeing compliance and assuring the quality and safety of practice.
This concentration raises a fundamental governance question: where does independent internal challenge sit? Ofsted’s inspection framework places strong emphasis on effective scrutiny, escalation and learning from failure. However, when oversight is structurally embedded within the same leadership responsible for service delivery, there is an inherent risk that assurance becomes self-referential and insufficiently independent.
Learning from serious case reviews and national safeguarding reviews has repeatedly highlighted the dangers of blurred accountability and failures to challenge or escalate concerns. Safeguarding systems are deliberately designed to avoid such conflicts of interest, recognising that scrutiny cannot be fully effective when it is absorbed within operational leadership.
Given Harrow’s status under intervention, there is a strong case for examining whether the current configuration of the DCS role aligns with the expectations set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children and reflected in Ofsted’s framework. This is not about individuals, but about whether safeguarding governance in Harrow provides the independent challenge and assurance that protecting children demands.
Safeguarding systems must be designed to withstand pressure, not depend on good intentions alone.

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

The operation of Section 18 of the Children Act 2004, and the safeguarding governance risks now associated with its routine use, is not a local or isolated issue but a matter of clear national interest.

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?

Harrow cannot afford to look away from knife violence

On Boxing Day, a man in his 50s was stabbed in Station Road, Edgware – not late at night in some distant borough, but on one of Harrow’s busy high streets. Police were called following what appears to have been a group attack on the car he was travelling in. The victim was taken to hospital, and an investigation continues.
Harrow is not among London’s most dangerous boroughs, and that fact is often repeated whenever serious violence occurs. But relative safety offers little comfort to those directly affected, nor should it be used as a reason to downplay incidents that are becoming disturbingly familiar to local residents. Knife crime may not dominate Harrow’s statistics, but it is present, persistent, and deeply damaging.
Over recent years, the borough has seen a series of knife-related attacks involving different victims, locations and motivations – from group assaults to hate-driven violence and disputes that escalated catastrophically.
Harrow Council and its partners point, rightly, to strategies now in place: the Serious Violence Duty, community safety plans, data sharing, youth diversion and partnership working. On paper, these are sound. Where such approaches have been properly funded and consistently delivered elsewhere, violence has fallen, proving this is not an intractable problem. The question is whether residents can see, and feel, the impact locally.
Strategy documents alone do not deter someone from carrying a knife. They do not intervene in a brewing conflict, challenge the normalisation of weapons, or reassure communities shaken by repeated incidents. That work requires presence: in schools, youth services, neighbourhood policing and community-led prevention. It requires urgency, not reassurance by default.
This is not about spreading panic or portraying Harrow as unsafe. It is about refusing complacency. A borough can be comparatively safe and still fail those harmed by serious violence. A community can be stable and still demand better.
If Harrow wants to remain a place where people feel secure going about their daily lives, it must treat knife violence not as an uncomfortable anomaly, but as a preventable harm that demands sustained attention, honest scrutiny and visible action, now, not after the next incident.

Funding boost gives Harrow firmer financial footing

Labour councillors have responded to the Government’s announcement on Harrow’s future funding, while the Council’s finance portfolio has clarified the precise figures and timescales involved.
The draft local government settlement confirms additional funding for Harrow from 2026/27 onwards, giving the Council increased spending power and a stronger platform to manage pressures across core services. This forms part of the Government’s wider reforms to local government finance, designed to reverse years of instability and rebuild councils’ capacity to plan responsibly for the long term.
The settlement comes after more than a decade in which Harrow experienced severe reductions in government support, leaving the Council exposed to growing pressures in adult social care, housing and children’s services. The new approach to funding marks a clear shift towards sustainability, transparency and fairness.
Harrow Labour Group Leader, Councillor David Perry, said:
“This funding will help stabilise the Council’s finances and support the services residents rely on. After years of decline, the Labour Government is beginning the work of rebuilding local government and investing in Harrow’s future.”
Councillor David Ashton, Portfolio Holder for Finance, clarifies:
“This figure is wrong and completely misleading. We are not receiving £100 million in new funding, we are receiving an extra £7.4 million in the draft settlement for 2026/27, and lesser amounts in the following two years. This funding won’t be confirmed until February and could change.
Although it is welcome that we are receiving some extra funding, it isn’t enough to deal with the pressures we are facing on adult social care, an additional pressure of £14.2million in 2026/27, and temporary accommodation, an additional £12.1 million in 2026/27, which the Government has failed to address despite their promises. The Government has also withdrawn funding for the much-needed new School on the Kodak development.”
The Council will continue to engage with government ahead of the final settlement in February, pressing the case for funding that fully reflects Harrow’s needs and allows it to deliver sustainable, high-quality services for residents.

Walks, words and wristbands: when Harrow’s VAWG “Day of Action” becomes a publicity exercise

Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG): Harrow Council’s latest publicity drive, branded “Harrow shows up to support end to gender-based violence,” is polished, upbeat and carefully staged. A mayoral opening, a short town-centre walk, partner speeches and safety packs create the appearance of decisive action. But read alongside our earlier article, “Harrow talks tough on violence against women – but the action still doesn’t match the message,” the contradictions are hard to ignore.
Around 60 people, apparently the majority drawn from partner organisations alongside council supporters, took part in the Walk for Women, listened to brief talks and were signposted to support services. This was presented as an “incredible show of support” and a flagship step towards a safer borough. Yet visibility is not impact. A one-off, choreographed walk does little to explain why women continue to feel unsafe in Harrow’s streets, or to change the behaviour of those responsible for harassment and abuse.
The council insists it is “showing up,” but there is little evidence of follow-through. The Safer Spaces Survey is again promoted, with claims that feedback leads to improvements such as better lighting or CCTV. Yet residents still cannot see where changes have been made, how priorities are set, or whether reported locations are safer. Without transparency, participation risks becoming performance.
Much of the council’s response focuses on reassurance rather than prevention. Safety packs, Safe Havens and short-term patrols may help at the moment, but they quietly shift responsibility back onto women to manage risk. Meanwhile, there is still no visible investment in tackling perpetrators: no behaviour-change programmes, no sustained prevention strategy, no attempt to address the roots of male violence.
The council’s pride in holding a “ninth day of action” underlines the problem. Counting events is not the same as delivering outcomes. What remains unanswered is whether fewer women are being harmed, whether repeat offenders are being stopped, and whether public spaces identified as unsafe are genuinely improving.
The presence of specialist charities along the route lends credibility, but it also exposes the imbalance. These organisations do the hard, long-term work with survivors every day, while the council amplifies its own visibility through managed events and upbeat press releases.
In the end, “Harrow shows up” feels less like progress and more like a photo opportunity. Awareness without accountability, symbolism without structure, and publicity without proof do not keep women safe. Until Harrow invests in transparent, preventative and perpetrator-focused action, its Days of Action will remain gestures that look good, sound right – and change very little.

£17.4m SEND boost for Harrow welcomed – but can troubled services deliver for children?

Harrow West MP Gareth Thomas has welcomed confirmation that Harrow will receive £17.374 million as part of Labour’s national programme to expand provision for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), promising new specialist places and improved local support.
The funding forms part of a multibillion-pound national investment aimed at creating around 50,000 specialist places across England. Mr Thomas said it would help deliver high-quality facilities more quickly, particularly for children with autism and ADHD, and described it as a decisive break from “years of Tory neglect”.
However, the announcement has reignited questions about whether new capital investment alone can address the deep-rooted problems in Harrow Council’s children’s services. The authority remains under a government improvement notice following Ofsted’s judgement that services were “inadequate”, citing systemic delays, weak oversight and inconsistent practice.
Leadership instability continues to dog the service. The recent departure of another Director of Children’s Services has left the council’s Managing Director temporarily holding the statutory role, reinforcing concerns that constant turnover is undermining sustained improvement.
Families continue to report long waits for Education, Health and Care Plans, poor communication and limited early help, leaving support reactive rather than preventative. High caseloads, staffing pressures and reliance on agency workers remain significant challenges, while placement shortages complicate decisions for vulnerable children.
Critics argue that without stable leadership, stronger accountability and a more child-centred culture, additional SEND funding risks being absorbed by a system still struggling to function effectively. They also question whether the council’s slogan of “putting residents first” reflects the lived experience of families navigating SEND services.
Findings from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and recent monitoring by His Majesty’s Inspectors suggest that progress is emerging but not yet embedded, with improvements heavily dependent on new staff and developing systems.
As Harrow prepares to receive its £17.374 million allocation, the key question remains whether the funding will translate into lasting improvement for children with additional needs – or whether longstanding structural and cultural weaknesses will continue to limit its impact.

City Hall welcomes Harrow Monitoring Group’s call for more accessible planning documents and consultations

City Hall has issued a formal acknowledgment of the Harrow Monitoring Group’s recent submission to the Mayor of London, commending the organisation for its “important” and “constructive” contribution to the ongoing debate about accessible and inclusive public consultation in the planning system.
In a detailed response (MGLA121125-8307), London Plan Manager Marissa Ryan-Hernandez thanked the Group for clearly articulating the challenges faced by communities – particularly those in diverse boroughs such as Harrow – when confronted with dense and technical planning documents. She noted the Group’s Response to the Harrow Local Plan Main Modifications (2025) as a practical illustration of these issues. City Hall affirmed that the concerns raised “align with our own priorities,” emphasising that the complexity of planning materials can create significant barriers to meaningful engagement.
The response highlighted the Greater London Authority’s commitment to improving accessibility through a combination of statutory consultation, digital engagement, and targeted outreach, including the use of “Easy Read” summaries, videos, interactive tools, and co-produced materials with inclusion-focused organisations. These methods, City Hall stated, are designed to support the Mayor’s Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Strategy and help ensure that Londoners from all backgrounds are able to participate effectively.
The Harrow Monitoring Group’s recommendations – calling for clearer language, visual aids, and more inclusive engagement methods – will now be fed into internal discussions and future reviews of public participation practices. City Hall confirmed that the issues raised will be shared with relevant teams and considered in the development of forthcoming guidance on community involvement in planning.
[Hope that Harrow’s planning regime will have no difficulties in following the good practices identified by the GLA, particularly in ensuring that planning documents and consultations are understandable, accessible, and meaningful for all residents.]
City Hall’s response concludes by recognising the Group’s engagement as a valuable resource for strengthening transparency, equity, and community trust in London’s planning processes.

Much of £11bn Covid scheme fraud ‘beyond recovery’: what does that mean for Harrow?

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. 

Arise makes its mark: Harrow’s new political party launches energised first canvass in Marlborough Ward

Arise, Harrow’s newest political force, burst onto the local scene on 7 December 2025 with its first canvassing session in Marlborough ward, the seat currently held by the Labour opposition leader on Harrow Council. The party, founded on 27 August and launched in Harrow with the support of Jeremy Corbyn MP, is led by former councillor, parliamentary candidate, and Peace and Justice Project director Pamela Fitzpatrick.
Ms Fitzpatrick, who is standing as Arise’s lead candidate in Marlborough, told residents that the party’s determination would not be dampened by weather or political pressure. “We’ll be out whether it’s raining or sunny because Harrow deserves better than what we’ve got. Whether it’s Labour or Conservative in council or in government, we have the same thing: people are struggling in Harrow, and they need change,” she said, as volunteers took to the streets for the party’s debut community outreach.
Joining Ms Fitzpatrick on the Marlborough slate are Sheila Guhadsan and Asha Mohamed, both long-standing community activists whose local engagement forms part of the party’s claim to offer a fresh, grounded alternative to traditional politics.
Arise’s introductory leaflet describes the group as an exciting new movement created by residents who feel that Harrow has been neglected for too long. While several candidates bring political experience, the party emphasises that its strength lies in those who are already embedded in neighbourhood initiatives, volunteering and organising to deliver practical support.
Arise’s early vision for Harrow sets out a bold local agenda, including new community spaces, free council-provided home care, publicly owned and operated care homes, and a civic centre restored to the heart of the borough. The party also pledges to address the persistent lack of support for children with special educational needs and to convert empty flats into council housing. With its first canvass complete and its message beginning to resonate, Arise has signalled that it intends to be a serious contender in next year’s council elections.