Harrow Monitoring Group

Northwick Park A&E waits improve as four-hour performance rises

Accident and Emergency performance at Northwick Park Hospital is showing clear signs of recovery, with new figures indicating that 84.2% of patients are now seen within four hours. The latest data points to a sustained improvement in service delivery over both the short and longer term.
Analysis by Harrow Labour highlights a 6.1 percentage point increase over the past year at London North West University Healthcare Trust, alongside a sharper 9.1 point rise in the last month alone. The scale and pace of this recent improvement suggest that operational changes may be beginning to take effect.
Although performance remains below the NHS constitutional standard of 95% of patients seen within four hours, the upward trend marks a significant shift after years of sustained pressure on urgent care services. This progress mirrors wider national developments, with A&E waiting times now at their lowest levels in more than four years.
National data also shows that NHS waiting lists have fallen by nearly 400,000 compared with levels recorded at the time of the last General Election, reversing a prolonged period of growth. At the same time, ambulance response times have improved to their fastest average levels in five years, pointing to broader gains across the urgent and emergency care system.
Earlier this month, the government announced the rollout of 36 new and expanded Community Diagnostic Centres across England, supported by £237 million in funding. The initiative is intended to move more diagnostic activity out of acute hospital settings, enabling earlier diagnosis and helping to ease pressure on frontline hospital services.
Councillor David Perry, Leader of the Harrow Labour Group, described the figures as evidence of steady but tangible progress, while acknowledging that further improvement is still required.
The political background remains contested. Labour attributes the recent gains to its programme of investment and reform, while criticising the previous Conservative government’s handling of the NHS. The debate highlights the continued prominence of healthcare performance in public policy, particularly in areas such as Harrow where demand for emergency care remains high.
Despite the positive momentum, health experts caution that maintaining and building on these improvements will depend on sustained workforce expansion, continued capital investment, and stronger integration between hospital and community services. Even so, the latest figures from Northwick Park Hospital offer cautious optimism that meaningful improvements in A&E performance can be achieved as wider system pressures begin to ease.

Consumer protection at arm’s length: is Brent and Harrow Trading Standards really working for residents?

Brent and Harrow Trading Standards operates as a joint service funded by the two councils, a structure shaped largely by long-term reductions in local government funding. While this shared arrangement may deliver financial efficiencies, it has also narrowed the scope of what residents can realistically expect from consumer protection. The service now appears to focus primarily on high-risk and serious cases, leaving many everyday consumer concerns effectively unprioritised.
For residents, the most visible consequence is the lack of direct access to Trading Standards. All complaints must be routed through the Citizens Advice Consumer Service, a national helpline where waiting times of 15 to 30 minutes are not uncommon. Callers generally receive advice, but there is no assurance that their complaint will be investigated, followed up, or even acknowledged by the local Trading Standards team, including where concerns relate to the quality or safety of consumer goods. Complaints may be logged for intelligence purposes, yet consumers are rarely informed about what, if anything, happens next. This approach creates a sense of distance and opacity between the service and the residents it is intended to protect.
Although this approach is in line with national guidance and reflects how many Trading Standards departments now operate, it weakens local accountability and public confidence. There is little publicly available information on resident satisfaction, and no clear evidence that ordinary consumers feel supported when they raise concerns. Broader dissatisfaction with council services, particularly around access and responsiveness, only reinforces the perception that enforcement is remote and opaque.
In one case, an imported egg boiler sold in the UK was reported on public safety grounds due to an apparent electrical fault. Three months later, the response stated that a “suitably qualified electrical test engineer” could not be identified to assess the unit, with no subsequent follow-up or resolution. Instances of this kind risk reinforcing the perception that even potentially hazardous products are not subject to timely or effective scrutiny.
Whether the service is fit for purpose depends on the benchmark applied. It appears to meet its statutory minimum obligations within severe resource constraints, but as a visible, accessible consumer protection service for local residents, it falls short. By prioritising efficiency and risk management over engagement and transparency, Brent and Harrow Trading Standards risks being seen not as a safeguard for consumers, but as a distant system that rarely intervenes unless harm is already serious or widespread.

Harrow Tory candidate reportedly suspended after alleged remarks

A political controversy has emerged in Harrow after a Conservative local election candidate was reportedly suspended following alleged remarks about prominent British public figures. Some local party figures are understood to be “shocked” by the alleged remarks, although no formal public statements have been issued.
Byline Times has reported that the Conservatives have suspended their North Harrow candidate Will Jackson, a claim also made in the Commons by Gareth Thomas, though this has not been directly confirmed by any public statement from the Conservative Party.
Following the report on April 13, the issue was raised in the House of Commons on April 16 by Thomas, who later wrote on Facebook: “I’m genuinely shocked and saddened by reports that Will Jackson, Conservative candidate for North Harrow in the elections next month, has told British-born Asian MPs like Rishi Sunak and Shabana Mahmood that they are ‘not British’ and should ‘go back to Pakistan.’ ”
“He also suggested figures like Anthony Joshua and Dua Lipa are not British.”
Thomas added that he is proud of Harrow’s diverse and close-knit communities, stating that candidates should seek to unite rather than divide residents. He said: “This matter must be taken seriously. I welcome the Conservative Party’s statement that Mr Jackson’s comments are wholly unacceptable and their decision to suspend him,” adding that “serious questions remain about how he was selected as a candidate in the first place, and why he was considered fit to represent our community.”
The candidate has not publicly responded to the allegations, and we have seen no official statement from local Conservative representatives confirming whether support for Will Jackson has been withdrawn.

Women’s voices to shape renewed health strategy, with local relevance for Harrow

Women’s experiences will be placed “at the heart” of a renewed national health strategy published on 14 April, as the government sets out plans to tackle long-standing inequalities in care and rebuild trust in services.
The updated Women’s Health Strategy for England will prioritise listening to women’s concerns and using their feedback to directly influence how NHS services are delivered and funded. Ministers say the approach is intended to address persistent issues where women feel dismissed or misdiagnosed, often described as “medical misogyny.”
Key proposals include improving access to pain relief during procedures, speeding up diagnosis for conditions such as endometriosis, and expanding women’s health hubs to provide more joined-up, community-based care.
A new system linking patient feedback to funding is also expected to hold providers more accountable for poor experiences.
For areas such as Harrow, with its diverse cultural and religious communities, the renewed strategy is likely to intersect with existing local health challenges. Recent data highlights relatively low uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening across London, driven in part by population mobility and barriers to accessing services.
Local needs assessments in Harrow have also emphasised the importance of improving access to contraception and sexual health services, alongside more effective outreach to underserved groups.
Health leaders say the new national focus on community-based care and prevention could help address these gaps, particularly if resources are directed towards borough-level services and engagement.
The renewed strategy forms part of a broader 10-year plan to modernise the NHS, with a stronger emphasis on prevention, digital access and neighbourhood health services.
Central to the reforms is a cultural shift: ensuring women’s voices are not only heard, but actively shape policy and frontline care. Campaigners have welcomed the direction of travel but stress that success will depend on effective local implementation.
As Harrow prepares for wider changes in health and local governance, the challenge will be translating national ambition into tangible improvements for women across the borough.

Big promises, tight purse: Harrow’s election reality check

As the May 2026 local elections approach, Harrow Labour’s commitments focus on visible improvements: freezing council tax by 2027, introducing one hour of free parking, doubling street cleaning, creating an anti-social behaviour squad, and strengthening enforcement on fly-tipping and rogue landlords, alongside improving Children’s Services and Adult Social Care ratings.
David Perry, Leader of Harrow Labour Group, said of the pledges: “We are hopeful that with our positive agenda, we can build a future to be proud of together. Let’s bring change to Harrow this May.”
These priorities clearly reflect resident concerns, but their delivery depends on limited fiscal headroom. The London Borough of Harrow already directs around two-thirds of its £203 million budget toward statutory services, leaving little flexibility.
The financial backdrop is tight. Despite improved funding, Harrow still faces a gap of roughly £9.6 million, with recent budgets relying on one-off measures rather than sustainable savings. This raises immediate questions about affordability. Freezing council tax, for instance, would constrain one of the council’s main income sources, particularly given its heavy reliance on council tax compared to other London boroughs.
Other pledges, such as increased street cleaning or new enforcement teams, carry ongoing staffing and operational costs. Without detailed public costings, it remains difficult to assess how these commitments would be funded alongside existing pressures. Improving social care services, already among the most financially strained areas, would likely require sustained investment rather than simple reprioritisation.
The Conservatives’ platform, based on publicly available information, follows a similar pattern: free parking, enhanced street services, environmental improvements and stronger enforcement. While some build on existing schemes, they too imply additional costs within the same constrained budget.
There is also a notable gap in transparency. Harrow Conservatives were formally asked to provide their full election statement outlining their intentions and policies, with the Leader of the Conservative Group copied in and a clear deadline set for response. At the time of writing, no reply has been received. That silence risks appearing dismissive, denying residents the opportunity to properly scrutinise their plans, cost assumptions, and, critically, how they would address Children’s Services, rated ‘Inadequate’, and Adult Social Care, which ‘Requires Improvement’.
Ultimately, both parties promise cleaner streets, safer communities and lower costs. The challenge is that these goals pull in opposite financial directions. Voters are therefore not just weighing ambition, but credibility, whether these pledges can realistically be delivered within Harrow’s financial limits, or whether difficult trade-offs, largely absent from campaign messaging, will prove unavoidable.

Mystery deepens as cross-borough Tory allies missing from their party’s candidate lists

In the closely connected boroughs of Brent and Harrow, where diverse communities, civic issues and political networks frequently overlap, questions are mounting after two well-known Conservative councillors, noted for their collaborative work across borough boundaries, have not appeared on their party’s official lists of candidates for the upcoming council elections.
Kenton ward councillor Sunita Hirani in Brent and Harrow Weald councillor Ramji Chauhan in Harrow have, over the years, demonstrated visible cooperation on shared community matters affecting residents across both boroughs. Their mutual support for civic initiatives has been widely recognised.
Against this backdrop, their absence from the respective candidate lists has come as a surprise to many local observers, particularly as both councillors had previously been reselected by the party in preparation for the May elections.
In Brent, the Kenton ward selection process has already attracted attention, with earlier deselection and reselection developments widely discussed in local political circles and media. Hirani’s omission now adds a further layer of uncertainty to a process that has already been under scrutiny. She has since announced that she will stand as an independent candidate for Kenton ward and is listed accordingly.
[Update: Since publication of our earlier article, a statement by Sunita Hirani on her Facebook page has come to light, providing further context to the story. She wrote: “My membership of the Conservative Party was recently suspended, shortly before the close of nominations on 9 April 2026. Despite my repeated requests for clarification, no clear reason has been communicated to me …
“I have decided to resign my membership of the Conservative Party and continue my work as an Independent Councillor.” The Conservative Party has not publicly commented on this statement.]
In Harrow, the situation is equally striking. Ramji Chauhan is a longstanding councillor, a former mayor and an active public figure whose regular social media updates on ward work continued until very recently, indicating a clear intention to seek re-election. His absence from the final list of nominated candidates has therefore prompted particular curiosity among residents and party supporters.
There has been no clear or convincing public explanation from the Conservative Party, either locally or nationally, regarding these developments, nor any statement from Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ).
Given the councillors’ prior reselection, their visible and ongoing engagement with constituents, and their collaborative work across borough lines, calls are growing for greater transparency.
As the election approaches, local residents and party members alike are seeking clarity on why two established and closely allied figures are no longer Conservative candidates and, notably, why Cllr Chauhan, previously an active and visible campaigner and a well-recognised member of the Harrow East Conservatives Association, is missing from the party’s political literature and has not been seen participating in campaigning for the party now.

Built Heritage ignored: officer silence undermines Harrow’s claim to pride

A detailed letter sent on 26 January to Harrow Council’s senior officers, raising substantive concerns about the treatment of built heritage in the Local Plan, has received no response despite reminders and escalation to the Managing Director.
Built heritage refers to human-made structures, sites, and landscapes that represent significant historical, cultural, or architectural value.
While Marilyn Ashton, Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Planning and Regeneration, has provided a political explanation citing national policy constraints and housing targets, the absence of any officer engagement leaves critical technical and governance issues unanswered.
The issues include the failure to treat built heritage as strategic infrastructure, weak handling of non-designated heritage assets, and the lack of a credible delivery framework. The silence raises questions about accountability, professional responsiveness, and whether the Council is willing to engage with evidence-based critique. At the same time, the Council promotes civic pride through public messaging, creating a growing gap between rhetoric and the stewardship of Harrow’s historic environment. This disconnect carries reputational risk and undermines confidence in the Council’s ability to manage growth while sustaining the character and identity of the borough.
There is still an opportunity to correct course. Officer engagement, even at this stage, could reset the conversation, acknowledging the issues raised, clarifying the Council’s position, and outlining how the identified gaps might be addressed within existing constraints. Such a response would not require abandoning the Local Plan or denying the realities of national policy; it would require demonstrating that within those realities, the Council is willing to think rigorously and act strategically about the assets that define Harrow as a place.
Full article, including the letter to the senior directors, here

Harrow Council faces criticism over Good Friday message

Harrow Council is facing criticism over its latest Good Friday message, with critics arguing that the wording reflects a calculated attempt to appeal to Christian voters while sidestepping the theological and historical weight of the occasion.
The message, which states that “Good Friday – the Friday before Easter Sunday is an important day for Christians where they remember the trial and death of Jesus Christ,” has drawn scrutiny for what some see as an overly cautious and reductive portrayal of one of Christianity’s most significant events.
They contend that describing the event simply as the “death” of Jesus Christ omits the widely attested historical consensus that he was crucified, a form of execution deeply tied to the political and religious tensions of the time. The crucifixion is broadly regarded by historians as one of the most well-documented events of the ancient world, supported by early Christian writings as well as Roman and Jewish sources. By avoiding explicit reference to crucifixion, the council is accused of softening the narrative in a way that diminishes its meaning.
The timing and tone of the message have also raised questions about political intent. With shifting electoral dynamics and the growing presence of Reform-aligned politics, including in Harrow, some observers interpret the council’s outreach as an attempt to appeal to Christian constituents against a wider political context in which Reform and similar currents have increasingly sought to emphasise Britain’s identity as a “Christian country,” a framing that dissenters argue risks conflating faith with national identity in an increasingly diverse society. While such engagement may be seen as politically pragmatic, objectors say it also raises concerns about the instrumentalization of religious observance for electoral gain.
The language used has proven particularly contentious among those who view Good Friday as inseparable from the symbolism of sacrifice and conviction. As one local religious observer put it, “not nails, but love held him,” a phrase that emphasises the theological significance of crucifixion rather than a generic death. In this context, the council’s phrasing is seen by some as lacking both precision and sensitivity.
For many, the issue goes beyond semantics, pointing to a broader pattern of public bodies using neutralised language to avoid offence but inadvertently causing it. Critics say the message appears to balance inclusivity with political expediency, without fully recognising the depth of religious belief.
The episode highlights the challenge for public institutions addressing matters of faith in a politically charged climate, where even subtle wording can carry significant cultural and historical weight.

Governance by silence and token councillor sanctions: when “Putting Residents First” rings hollow

Harrow Council’s leadership continues to claim it is “putting residents first,” yet its approach to communication suggests a model driven more by managing appearances and ensuring compliance than by genuine openness. While certain audiences are actively engaged through curated, sometimes nationalistically framed messaging, the wider public is left navigating an opaque and fragmented picture on issues of real consequence.
This is most evident in children’s services. The borough remains without a permanent Director of Children’s Services, operating under interim arrangements amid ongoing recruitment. At the same time, Ofsted has identified instability, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has upheld a complaint involving fault, procedural failures, and wider governance concerns that caused injustice. Remedies, including financial redress, have been required. Yet there has been no clear, accessible explanation of what this means in practice, no update on recruitment timelines, no plain-language account of interim safeguards, and no direct statement on what has changed in response to these findings. Instead, residents must piece together the position from dispersed and technical documents. This is not active communication; it is minimal disclosure.
The Ombudsman’s findings, which go to the functioning of the system rather than an isolated error, should have prompted visible accountability. Instead, the response has been procedural, focused on compliance rather than rebuilding trust through transparency.
A similar pattern appears in the handling of member conduct. The Council’s Standards Working Group found that Councillor Perry, also Leader of the Opposition, breached the Code of Conduct by using Council resources, specifically the hybrid mail system, for party-political purposes. The sanction imposed was censure, with a requirement for publication in both a local newspaper and on the Council’s website.
While this satisfies the formal requirement, the execution raises concerns. There is no readily accessible or visible notice on the Council’s website or through its social media outlets, undermining the purpose of the sanction. In a local democracy, such findings must be clearly and proactively communicated; otherwise, accountability is reduced to a technicality rather than a meaningful public record.
Taken together, these cases point to a consistent pattern: the Council meets its legal obligations, but fails to be open and transparent with residents. Communication is selective, highly visible messaging that appeals to identity, certain community sentiment, and political positioning is actively promoted, while serious problems are not clearly explained and are left buried in technical reports and procedures.
If Harrow Council is serious about putting residents first, it must move beyond this compliance-based approach and adopt clear, structured, and accessible communication. Without that shift, the claim risks remaining a slogan rather than a standard.

Two years without assurance: why Harrow’s accounts still can’t be verified

Independent audit exists to give the public confidence that their money is being properly managed. In Harrow Council, independent audit assurance has not been provided for two consecutive years.
This is not normal. It is not routine. And it is not acceptable.
The Council has published its accounts, but the independent verification that gives those figures credibility has not been completed. Residents are effectively being asked to rely on numbers that no external auditor has been able to confirm.
For the second year running, the Council’s auditors, Forvis Mazars, have issued a disclaimed opinion. In simple terms, this means they could not confirm the accounts are accurate because they were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to form a view.
No fraud has been identified, but that is not the point. The purpose of an audit is to establish whether financial statements can be relied upon. That basic test has not been met.
Every council is legally required to produce annual accounts showing how public money has been spent, and those accounts must then be independently verified. When that process fails once, it raises concern. When it fails twice, it indicates recurring challenges in the system.
As residents prepare to vote, the issue is no longer just how this situation arose. The question is whether the council can demonstrate that it is being resolved.
A second disclaimed opinion indicates challenges in the Council’s governance and oversight arrangements. This is not about individual effort; it is about whether the Council’s governance framework is equipped to manage the pressures it faces.
When key responsibilities are concentrated in a small number of roles, the risk is not simply one of workload; it is reduced capacity for challenge, limited separation of duties, and weakened oversight. This points to a structural issue rather than an individual one.
The Council’s accounts are prepared by officers, with overall responsibility resting with senior leadership, including the Managing Director and the Section 151 Officer, who holds statutory responsibility for financial administration. However, accountability does not end there.
The Audit and Governance Committee is intended to provide rigorous scrutiny and ensure that material issues are not only identified but resolved. The recurrence of the same outcome for a second consecutive year raises questions about how the Committee’s processes address recurring issues and ensure audit outcomes are resolved.
Absent clear evidence of intervention and improvement, it is difficult to conclude that the Committee is operating with the level of rigour and impact its mandate requires.
The Council has pointed to national audit backlogs as a major factor, citing the National Audit Office’s Local Audit Reset and Recovery Implementation Guidance. These backlogs, combined with statutory deadlines, have meant auditors often lacked the time to complete their work and gather sufficient evidence.
However, this explanation primarily reflects timing and process constraints at a national level. It does not fully address the position in Harrow. This is not simply a case of delay; it is a case where assurance has not been obtained.
While national guidance explains why some opinions are disclaimed due to system pressures, it does not remove the significance of an outcome where the accounts cannot be verified.
Alongside the audit disclaimer, a significant weakness has also been identified in the Council’s financial arrangements, specifically in relation to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), which funds special educational needs provision.
The Council is carrying a growing deficit in this area, and auditors have concluded that its recovery plan is not yet sufficiently developed to provide assurance. In practical terms, there is a financial problem, and the proposed solution is not yet fully established to withstand independent scrutiny.
The Council attributes the DSG overspend to rising demand for Education, Health and Care Plans, increasing complexity of need, and insufficient local provision, pressures that are reflected nationally. However, while this provides context, the scale of the deficit remains significant, and the extent of local mitigation measures to manage demand or control costs is not yet clear from available information.
The distinction is critical: national factors may explain the pressures, but they do not account for the absence of assurance.
After two years without verified accounts, the central question is clear: can the Council demonstrate that its financial management and governance are robust enough to restore trust, and, crucially, provide a convincing explanation for why independent audit assurance remains absent? While explanations have been offered, they have not resolved the underlying concern. Until they do, that assurance remains lacking.
In response, Cllr David Ashton, the Council’s finance lead, focuses primarily on process compliance and audit logistics. He emphasises that statutory deadlines were met, that the accounts were prepared in line with required standards, and that oversight was maintained through the Governance, Audit, Risk Management and Standards Committee.
He links the disclaimed opinion to delays on the part of the external auditor, arguing that insufficient time to complete audit procedures, rather than any issue with the accounts themselves, was the determining factor. This is presented as a sector-wide issue, largely outside the Council’s control.
However, this explanation focuses on procedural compliance and timing. It does not provide detail on measures taken to address the recurrence of disclaimed opinions or ensure that sufficient evidence would be available to support the audit. In essence, it explains what happened, but not why the outcome was not prevented, or what has changed to avoid recurrence.

References

Auditor’s Annual Report 2024–25 (Harrow Council)
Confirms auditors were “unable to complete the audit procedures necessary to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence” before publication, meaning they could not form an opinion on the accounts.
Governance, Audit Committee papers (Feb 2025)
Notes that a disclaimer of opinion would be issued on the Council’s financial statements.
Auditor’s Annual Report 2024–25 (detailed findings)
Identifies a “significant weakness in arrangements” relating to the DSG deficit, which grew from £1.8m to £13.8m and is projected to increase further.
External Audit Update report (Nov 2025)
Highlights concerns about the lack of sufficient alternative actions and ongoing risks linked to the DSG recovery plan.
Governance, Audit Committee papers (Nov 2025)
Confirms auditors reviewed the DSG recovery plan and assessed whether “appropriate and realistic plans are in place”, indicating ongoing scrutiny concerns.
Auditor’s Annual Report 2024–25 (governance section)
Concludes there are significant weaknesses in governance arrangements, including areas such as financial sustainability and internal controls.
Governance, Audit Committee agenda and reports
Confirms ongoing reporting to the committee on audit findings and value-for-money conclusions.
Audit Completion Report (Feb 2026)
Provides the formal audit reporting framework and confirms continuing audit work on the Council’s financial statements.
External Audit Update (committee report)
Shows the audit remained in draft/reporting stages, reinforcing that assurance had not been fully concluded.