“I have seen the devastating impact of violent crime on my doorstep – last year, there were 89 stabbings in Harrow and 202 in Brent” informs the Brent-Harrow London assembly member Navin Shah (photo).
“The consequences for the people involved, their families and the wider community are heart-breaking” he said.
Knife crime has risen by 60% in England and Wales since 2013/14 and by 46% in London over the same period.
The Mayor of London has taken action to clamp down on the rise in violent crime. In 2017, the Mayor launched City Hall’s first ever ‘dedicated anti-knife crime strategy’ that included the establishment of a new Violent Crime Taskforce comprising of 272 officers working to take weapons off the streets and targeting the most dangerous criminals in the capital.
Also, London mayor’s new Violence Reduction Unit will build on the preventative action already taken by the Mayor such as the establishment of the £45 million Young Londoners Fund.
However, the government have been slow to act and inconsistent in their approach to tackling violent crime, reminds Navin Shah. He said Theresa May, the prime minister, had initially suggested police numbers did not make a difference on crime levels, only to equivocate on the issue after.
Likewise, while the home secretary has called on the government to treat knife crime as a public health issue, the health secretary has dismissed this idea, stating: ‘If you say it’s a public health issue that implies it’s nobody’s fault‘.
“We desperately need the government to show leadership on tackling knife crime and not only reverse the cuts that it has made to policing but to properly fund youth services, education and housing services which are all factors which increase the likelihood of a person committing violent crime” said Mr Shah.
Recent rise in the stabbings in Harrow has raised questions about the usefulness of the youth work in Harrow, Harrow Safer Neighbourhood Board and the effectiveness of the Harrow Police & Crime Plan (PCP) priority to reduce the number of young people involved in youth violence and gang crime and to decrease the number of young people carrying offensive weapons. Further concern that the Harrow youth violence scrutiny review lacks rigour .

A one-off increase of £3.8bn would be needed to reverse 8% cuts in per pupil school spending, the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows.
In Harrow 46 of 50 schools have suffered £27.2M cuts to per pupil funding between 2015 & 2019 which on average is £286 per pupil loss – source Harrow school funding cuts (individual school cuts could be worked out).
The IFS says a further £1.1bn would be needed each year up until 2023 to maintain spending in real terms, once rising costs were taken into account.
“It’s the largest reduction in education spending for at least 30 or 40 years or longer, so it’s not surprising it has generated political pressure,” says their economist Luke Sibieta.
School budgets have moved up the political agenda, partly as a result of campaigning by parents and teachers across England (footage of the Together for Education – national protest against school cuts in London on 22 June 2019).

It can only be good that Harrow council scrutiny committee commissioned a review into preventing youth violence as the fear of this crime is high  in the borough.
The purpose of the review was to investigate how the council work might contribute to reducing youth crime and anti-social behaviour.
While the rationale for the review is good, the Preventing Youth Violence Scrutiny Panel report (21 May 2019) has serious shortcomings. The report is more descriptive than evaluative, lowering its usefulness in tackling youth violence.
Much write-up is about the methodology that includes meetings with and references to the youth specific research/field work by the council, police and voluntary sector without evaluating the effectiveness and outcomes of their work, resulting in less well informed and inadequate recommendations.
On the question of the failure to positively engage young people through meaningful activities, the Harrow council has a lot to answer, like the appropriateness of its youth services and the missed opportunities to engage youth. Bottom line is to provide activities to help keep young people away from crime. Young people also need to learn new skills or get advice about school or jobs.
Recent rise in the stabbings in Harrow has raised questions about the usefulness of the youth work, Harrow Safer Neighbourhood Board and the effectiveness of the Harrow Police & Crime Plan (PCP) priority to reduce the number of young people involved in youth violence and gang crime and to decrease the number of young people carrying offensive weapons.
Many believe that a lack of visible police officers in the streets and there being nowhere for young people to go in Harrow are reasons for a rise in violent crime in the borough.
The report is silent on these concerns!
Having detailed the youth work relevant to reducing crime, undertaken by various agencies and at various levels – council and voluntary – the report fails to identify the crucial need to have more and better coordination amongst the providers, a longstanding challenge for Harrow.
The report repeats the gap of intervention services for young people in the transition age group, growing drug use amongst young people and the need for a streamlined approach to ensuring all council strategies consider youth violence as driving out crime – all well known factors in the borough for quite some time.
Some recommendations have serious omissions: the key recommendation ‘each time a strategy or policy is reviewed a specific perspective on reducing youth violence should be included’ looks less meaningful without highlighting a need to map the work of the council where reducing youth violence could have taken place but is not.
While meeting the needs of young people through the Glasgow originated ’lens of a public health approach’ has been repeatedly articulated in the report, there is no appreciation that unlike Glasgow, Harrow has an exciting regeneration programme which could helpfully involve youth,  meet some of their needs and by implications help in reducing the youth-related crime on a long-term basis.

Transport for London is proposing some changes to the bus network in Harrow town centre, particularly between Harrow bus station and Northwick Park Hospital.
They are seeking views on the proposed changes to routes 186, H9, H10 and H14.
Their proposals are to:

• Withdraw route 186 between Harrow bus station and Northwick Park Hospital. Route 186 would terminate at Harrow bus station
• Extend route H14 from Northwick Park Hospital’s main entrance to terminate at St Mark’s Hospital, following the existing alignment of route 186. This would give an increased frequency of buses servicing St Mark’s with a bus every 9 to 10 minutes compared to every 12 minutes now
• Move the terminus of circular routes H9/H10 from Harrow bus station to Northwick Park Hospital. This would give a more direct bus link between the South Harrow area and Northwick Park Hospital
• Withdraw bus routes H9/H10 from Northwick Avenue and Rushout Avenue, in both directions, and instead operate a more direct service along Kenton Road between Kenton station and Northwick Park roundabout

Public views matters. The TfL previously consulted on the withdrawal of route 223 between Northwick Park Hospital and Harrow bus station and following the consultation feedback, they are no longer proposing this and the route 223 will continue to terminate at Harrow bus station.
Click here for the consultation which is open until Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Harrow East Labour becomes the first CLP (constituency Labour party) to send the Momentum backed  Labour Against Racism And Fascism motion – End Immigration Detention – to the Labour conference 2019.
The motion asks an incoming Labour Government to end the Detention Estate and adopt a community-led response for migrants that challenges xenophobic sentiment and supports the vulnerable, promoting wellbeing and combating criminalisation of migrants.
A community-based approach to immigration and asylum systems, without detention, to encourage social inclusion and promote human dignity.
“The UK is the only EU country that detains migrants indefinitely and every year detains thousands of migrants, some held indefinitely in inhumane conditions. The system of immigration detention is also costly and ineffective.
“We need a system that is fair and treats vulnerable migrants with dignity. I am delighted Harrow East CLP supports this motion” said Harrow councillor Pamela Fitzpatrick (photo), Labour parliamentary candidate for Harrow East.
The UK has one of the largest immigration detention networks in Europe having over 8 detention centres and locks up thousands of people in immigration detention every year – for example, in 2018, 24,748 people were put into detention.
The motion reminds about the out of control violence and mental ill-health faced by detainees – 11 reported deaths in 2017, 2 suicide attempts per day, a 22% rise in suicide between April and June 2018.
Also reminded is the inhumane conditions and cases of rampant racist, sexual and sexist abuse by staff reported at Yarl’s Wood detention centre.
On 8 May 2019, Amnesty International UK handed in 100,000-strong petition to end indefinite immigration detention, alongside Liberty, Women for Refugee Women, Freed Voices and the Asylum Justice Project.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton, a planning expert who has been kept away from the planning committee by her successive group leaders since her return to the council in 2011, grumbles that the Harrow Labour administration is not providing real opportunities for a cross-party work on regeneration programme.
Delivering action plan for the Heart of Harrow Opportunity Area is a £1.75Bn investment programme into Harrow and Wealdstone town centres which will deliver 5,500 new homes, two new schools, around 3,000 new jobs and a district heating network to service major sites.
Cllr Marilyn Ashton, deputy leader of Harrow opposition Tory group, said the planned meetings to further the cross-party work have not always taken place, seemingly because of the lack of commitment by Cllr Keith Ferry, responsible for planning and regeneration at the council.
The two councillors seem to have somewhat love and hate working relationships – when Cllr Ashton chaired the planning committee during the pre 2010 one-term Tory administration, Cllr Ferry was an opposition member on the committee and the public gallery observed that he frequently did not speak throughout a meeting in protest if not happy with some aspects of the chairmanship.
Regarding working together on an upcoming regeneration project, Cllr Ashton said, “We’re going into what is essentially a joint venture with the private sector and we would like to be involved in the decision-making”.
Cllr Ashton’s offer seems a departure from the opposition’s past confrontational approach, particularly under the previous leader of her group Cllr Hall.
The council works much better when the opposition works as a critical friend, assisting the administration whenever possible and suggesting healthy alternatives whenever necessary.
In responding to Cllr Ashton, Harrow council leader Cllr Graham Henson said “We genuinely would like to work cross-party and I’ve seen this take place on a number of council committees”.
Harrow seems to be doing well in carrying out its regeneration programme. For example, some developments around the Harrow Town Centre:

The Labour is the big winner in Harrow in the European Parliament elections, securing 16,312 votes (Lib Dem: 14,116 Brexit Party: 12,004 Green: 5187): source
Tories with 9814 vote are in the fourth place and in London no longer have any MEPs having lost the two seats they won in the 2014 European Parliament elections.
In EU referendum Harrow East and Harrow West constituencies voted to Remain though Harrow East MP Bob  Blackman didn’t know how his constituency voted and pleads for Brexit.
Mr Blackman in a most marginal seat heavily relies on his divisive approach to attract the Indian and Jewish background voters by taking sides with international disputed matters.
In emotion-raising argument, he argued that Brexit would enable more and better trade opportunities with India and Israel.
His general Brexit theme alerted the hardliners, “Western powers are caught between contrasting policy alternatives in key areas, including their dealings with the Middle East and their visions for the future of Iran and its regional power structure”.

Councillor Kareema Marikar,  ex-Harrow mayor, breached the code of conduct by bringing the council into disrepute, finds the council’s Standards Working Group.
Cllr Marikar visited high ranking officers of the Sri Lankan Army during her trip last year and posted photos of her meeting in which she is wearing the mayoral chain.
“She conducted herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing the Council and her office as Councillor into disrepute by uploading photographs of herself and a member of the Sri Lankan military onto Facebook causing distress to the local community” the Standards found.
Members of Harrow’s Tamil community got upset by the mayor posting pictures of her meetings with the army officers on social media alongside messages praising the soldiers for their service, given the army officials’ involvement in the Sri Lankan civil war which killed many of their kith and kin in their former home country.
Tamils handed in a petition calling for her to resign and complained to the Harrow Council’s Standards.
In the known history of Harrow mayor’s office, this was the second protest against a serving mayor – previous was in 1989-90 by the Asian Parents Group during the mayor’s controversial visit to a primary school.
Standards recommended and the Monitoring Officer concurred that Cllr Kareema Marikar should be censured and that a notice should be placed on the Council’s website and in a local newspaper. Not sure whether a Harrow Mayor has been formally condemned before.
As an ambassador of the borough, mayor’s position is graceful but for last few years, Harrow mayors seem to be associating more with their background and acting accordingly – this is most unhelpful.

Soon after the European Parliamentary elections, Labour is likely to start process to select their London assembly candidate for Brent and Harrow as Navin Shah, the sitting assembly member, has seemingly decided to step down (not announced in this window).
Navin Shah has ably retained the seat since 2008 when he defeated Tory member Bob Blackman who is now controversial MP for Harrow East  (Navin Shah came very close to defeat him at the last general election).
Prominent local names floating for the selection, are:
The Momentum supported Aghileh Djafari-Marbini, mum and NHS worker, who has been very active in challenging inequality and social injustice, particularly in the area of health provision, in tune with Corbyn.
“In more recent years, coming from a family of NHS workers has given me renewed sense of urgency for what the Labour Party can offer our country” she said.
She is a well known supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and once said: “socialism have become active again in droves since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader”.
Aghileh Djafari Marbini stood for London Labour regional board and was a Labour candidate for Headstone North ward at the last council election (did not win but did very well in a traditional Tory ward).
Brent councillor and a council cabinet portfolio holder Krupesh Hirani, a university graduate in politics, who has a lot of experience in the political sector and held a number of posts in this area.
During the Operation Black Vote Shadowing Scheme Mr Hirani was mentored by dynamic David Lammy MP – he seems to have good grip on a variety of socio-political matters, significant to a wider society.
Though Mr Hirani is seen more at certain cultural activities, he believes in representing all. Mr Hirani informs that he has spent his working life with organisations that support disabled people.
Mr Hirani is proud of the local area and said: “I have been educated through the Brent state school system and am passionate about the area”.
Harrow councillor and past mayor Ajay Maru who has a Masters in hairdressing and has opened three hair salons and a training centre in the borough. Mr Maru is a friendly face at cultural events, mostly Asian.
Mr Maru is interested in local communities – for example, he believes that the UK should look to strengthen its relationship with India amid uncertainty around Brexit.
At the re-launch of the Labour Friends of India, Mr Maru spoke of the important connection between the two countries.
“This is about improving interaction and engagement between the UK and India and making the relationship greater than it already is” he said.
Either of these local hopefuls could easily beat the Tory’s out of borough candidate.

The Trussell Trust which runs food banks in Wealdstone and South Harrow reports a 24 per cent increase in food banks demand in Harrow.
Between April 2018 and March 2019, 2,617 three-day emergency food supplies were given out in Harrow.
The emergency supplies are nutritionally balanced, non-perishable tinned and dried foods that have been donated by people in the local community.
More and more people are struggling to eat because they simply cannot afford food, partly because the current five week wait for Universal Credit is leaving many without enough money to cover the basics. Evidence shows that other changes to the social security system are also major driver of food poverty.
According to the Trust for London, 27 per cent of children in Harrow are living in poverty – that is, the children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the median income. Higher levels of poverty are in Edgware, Greenhill, Roxbourne and Wealdstone.
Navin Shah AM, London assembly member for Harrow and Brent, describes the increased demand as “scandalous”.
“Whilst the Government is well aware of the key factors that are driving so many local families into food poverty, they are choosing not to act” he said.
Previously the Trust for London said that Harrow’s progress in addressing poverty is a case of mixed picture.
“In a number of areas it is performing well, especially in relation to some health and educational outcomes, but doing poorly in relation to affordable housing and is least progressive when it comes to council tax and low income families amongst London’s boroughs”.
Economically, London is a wealthy city but that wealth is not shared by all – the richest 10% of London’s households own 50% of the capital’s wealth, the poorest 50% of Londoners own just 5% of the city’s wealth.
What happens in macro, is likely to happen in micro!