Chuka Umunna MP

The government’s planned cuts in housing benefit will hit 5,470 households in Lambeth according to new figures obtained by the office of Chuka Umunna MP, with many facing the possibility of being forced out of their homes.

The Liberal Democrat – Conservative government announced cuts to the Local Housing Allowance in June’s Budget, which applies to those on low incomes living in private rented homes. Claimants’ entitlement will reduce from 50 per cent of local rent levels to 30 per cent, while a new maximum allowance will be applied.

Because property prices and rent levels are higher in inner London than elsewhere, the cuts will have a disproportionate affect on areas like Lambeth and it is feared that they could lead to many being forced to leave the area entirely.

In Lambeth, 1,520 two-bedroom properties will see their housing allowance fall by an average of £25 a week – totaling £1,300 a year.

Commenting on the changes, David Orr, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation said:“The housing benefit caps could see poorer people effectively forced out of wealthier areas, and ghettoised into poorer neighbourhoods.

“Some people affected by housing benefit caps may successfully find a home in cheaper areas, but many will end up in expensive bed and breakfast accommodation, while thousands will simply become homeless. Unless ministers urgently reconsider these punitive housing benefit cuts, we may see more people sleeping rough than at any stage during the last thirty years.”

Chuka Umunna MP said: “The government’s housing benefit cuts for those living in private rented accommodation are grossly unfair and, as these new figures show, will disproportionately affect areas like ours and many of my constituents.

“I am deeply concerned that people in Lambeth will be made homeless or forced to leave the area as a result.

“The Lib Dem Tory coalition government said it would implement public spending cuts in a way which would not heavily hit the poor and vulnerable – it is doing precisely the opposite with these measures.”

The building of the Streatham Hub has been fraught with delays since its inception more than 10 years ago.

History

Tesco Plc (“Tesco”) purchased the site where Streatham Ice Rink is currently situated almost a decade ago. In June 2001 the retailer published plans to demolish the Ice Rink – these were abandoned following strong opposition from local user groups, community and voluntary organisations.

New plans were approved by Lambeth Council (the “Council”) in February 2003 with a Section 106 Agreement associated with the scheme – which has become known as the ‘Streatham Hub’ – being concluded between the Council and Tesco in December 2007.

Under the agreement the development was set to provide new leisure facilities, a new supermarket and 250 new homes for the Streatham area where Streatham Ice Arena is currently located. There would also be a new transport hub linking road and rail. The Council said that as part of the deal Tesco would not be allowed to open its supermarket until the new leisure centre and ice rink open. Planning consent was granted to Tesco on this basis in December 2007.

In 2009 Tesco indicated to the Council that it wished to revise the scheme on account of economic conditions which it said meant the 2007 plans were no longer financially viable. With respect to their revised proposals, residents were alarmed when in October 2009 representatives from Tesco refused to guarantee that it would be able to ensure continuity of ice pending the development being completed (under the original plans the old ice rink would only close once the new ice rink opened, thus ensuring continuity of ice). Continuous ice provision is essential for the many user groups of the ice rink including Olympian skaters and the famous Streatham Redskins ice hockey team.

Keep Streatham Skating

In October 2009 I established a cross party coalition to campaign for continuity of ice to be retained following the public meeting that month. Various online and off line petitions, and a Facebook group, were established which thousands of residents signed. Following this campaign, Tesco and Lambeth came forward with revised proposals under which the old ice rink would close before the new one opened but temporary ice provision paid for by Tesco would be put in its place somewhere near by.

The revised proposals were approved by the Tesco Plc board in March 2010. This approval was of some significance since on the last two occasions when the scheme had gone to the Tesco Board for approval, no approval had been forthcoming; on this occasion the scheme was promoted by the Chief Executive himself and given Board approval.

Hands Off Our Common

As part of the revised proposals, the option of putting a temporary ice rink on Streatham Common whilst the new rink is built was discussed and considered. However, whilst many of the user groups of the ice rink were supportive of this plan given its close proximity to the current ice rink site, regular users of Streatham Common were deeply opposed and a campaign – Hands Off Our Common (HOOC) – was established in May 2010 to reject the revised proposals. Groups involved with HOOC included Sustainable Streatham, Streatham Action, Friends of Streatham Common and the Streatham Society.

The campaign was successful and on 26 July 2010 Lambeth Council’s cabinet resolved not to place the temporary ice skating provision on Streatham Common following a report from Council officers citing legal obstacles, practical difficulties and the likely extensive delay resulting from implementation, as the main reasons for not pursuing this: Report to Cabinet, 26 July 2010.

Instead the Council officers’ report recommended that the temporary ice skating provision be placed at Pope’s Road in Brixton, one of 14 options considered by the Council. The officers’ paper lists the advantages and disadvantages of Pope’s Road as follows:

Advantages

• In Council ownership
• Site to be demolished and will be in vacant possession shortly.
• Site large enough
• Good accessibility
• Good public transport links
• Viability of town centre would be enhanced

Disadvantages

• Could raise objections among market traders if temporary car park not provided.
• Loss of car parking for market traders, but can be mitigated by relocating elsewhere on site.
• Possible community safety concerns.
• Opportunity cost to Council for delaying its redevelopment of the site.

The timetable for completion of the entire Streatham Hub scheme envisages the temporary ice rink being opened at Pope’s Road towards the end of 2011 and the new ice rink (along with the supermarket etc) being completed in the summer of 2013.

Some stakeholders who use the ice rink support siting the temporary provision at Pope’s Road so long as Tesco are not permitted to open their supermarket before completion of the new ice rink and the other leisure facilities – this was the view presented to Lambeth’s cabinet on 26 July 2010 by the Secretary of Streatham Ice Skating Action Group. SISAG’s members include representatives of the dance club, figure skating club and hockey clubs who use the current ice rink. In response Council cabinet members confirmed that the Tesco store would not be allowed to open until the leisure facilities had been completed.

Save Skating in Streatham

Some users of the ice rink and local councillors have voiced great concern about the temporary provision being situated out of Streatham and formed a campaign: Save Skating in Streatham (SSS). They worry the ice rink will never return to Streatham and have considerable concerns about community safety, access and parking at the Pope’s Road site. Their petition (which has been signed by 335 people at the time of writing) is here, their Facebook page is here, and their recent letter to me is here. They argued that a site at Stockport Road should be considered but the campaign is now focused on enforcement of original section 106 Agreement under which it was agreed the old ice rink would stay in situ until the new ice rink opens.

I should mention that the Brixton Market Traders’ Association also oppose the temporary ice provision being placed at Pope’s Road – they argued at the 26 July 2010 cabinet meeting that the space could instead provide much needed parking facilities for Brixton Market customers.

My thoughts

Firstly, I should state that, as the Member of Parliament for Streatham, I have no legal power to affect this situation nor am I a party or signatory to any of the agreements between Tesco and the Council – it would be misleading for me to claim otherwise. My role – as an advocate for the area – is to ensure that as many of the voices and concerns of the community as possible are heard when decisions are made.

Secondly, there are a range of stakeholders with an interest in this development but – as the history of the project has demonstrated – those interests are not necessarily aligned and, even within the different groups concerned, there is a diversity of views too; I know this because I have spent much time consulting with all of them. For example, some ice rink user groups are happy to accept Pope’s Road as a temporary solution; others are not. Unfortunately this is not a project that will complete to the satisfaction of all involved – a degree of compromise on everyone’s part will be required.

That said, all are agreed on the principle that we all want to see the Streatham Hub completed as soon as possible, so that we can benefit from the fantastic leisure provision which it will provide, employment opportunities and new homes. My priority has always been to see the project completed as quickly as possible with this aim in mind whilst ensuring that, at the very least, there is ice provision for the current users of the ice rink in the interim.

Thirdly, the original s106 Agreement – agreed in 2007 – will be varied by Deed of Variation (if it has not been already) to allow for the revised 2010 plans to proceed. This is because Tesco would not agree to develop the Hub on the basis agreed in 2007, citing current economic conditions and commercial viability. I voiced some scepticism of their arguments in this regard given its pre-tax profits increased during the recession but their position remains unchanged. It is for this reason that Tesco paying for temporary provision pending completion of the scheme was agreed upon this year. There has always been a possibility that, should Tesco not deem the scheme commercially viable, they would walk away from the Hub project altogether leaving the future of ice skating in Streatham in peril – thankfully we did not reach this point. So whilst I have great sympathy with the SSS campaign objective to enforce the original s106 Agreement, I do not see how this can be done given what has come to pass and Tesco’s position. A lot has happened since the original 2007 agreement was concluded and I do not think we can wind the clock back (so to speak).

However, this does not mean that I am entirely happy with the Pope’s Road solution that has been proposed as things stand. It is vital that the concerns raised in relation to parking, community safety, spectator accommodation and transport are addressed ahead of the erection of the temporary provision. I understand that ice skating user groups met with Council officers yesterday and that progress towards the resolution of some of these issues has progressed.

Between now and the construction of the temporary provision at the end of next year, I will do all I can to demand that these issues are resolved. I met with Council officers and cabinet members during the summer with this is mind and I have written to Council officers for an update on progress in this regard which I will publish on this website in due course. I have also spoken with my colleague, Tessa Jowell MP, in relation to the concerns raised by the Market Traders Association of Brixton Market which is located in her constituency.

Finally, I am aware that the user groups of Streatham Swimming Pool feel that their concerns in relation to swimming provision in the vicinity have been overlooked somewhat given the focus on the ice rink. I was a frequent user of the pool myself as a child as I often competed there as a competitive swimmer. It is totally unsatisfactory that my constituents have been having to travel some distance in order to be able to continue to swim on a regular basis. This is an issue I have raised with the Council but my office will be seeking to arrange a meeting between myself and the stakeholder group for Streatham Swimming Pool imminently to see what further needs to be done.

If you wish to contact me further on this issue, please write to me at my constituency office or email me – contact details are here.

Kind regards,

Chuka

Shadow housing minister John Healey joined Streatham MP Chuka Umunna  yesterday on a visit to  Streatham’s Valley Road Estate, one of the thousands of estates across the country whose future has  been thrown into uncertainty as residents wait to hear whether the Decent Homes programme funding it was promised by the last Labour Government will be subject to the coalition’s cuts.

Lambeth Living, the arms – length management organisation which manages the Valley Road Estate, is due  to receive £233 million in Decent Homes programme funding; Lambeth’s other ALMO, United Residents  Housing,  is due to receive £25 million.

This funding is desperately needed so that Lambeth’s homes can be made safe, warm and secure. It will pay for new roofs, new boilers, new windows, new kitchens and new  bathrooms that are desperately needed by residents.

In its 13 years in government, Labour invested billions of pounds into improving the quality of social housing. 1.4 million homes have been improved in council stock alone, and £33bn was invested in bringing social housing up to a decent standard, including the  provision of new windows, heating, kitchens, and bathrooms. Around 300,000 homes nationally remain in line for these improvements under Labour’s Decent Homes programme — the future of which is now subject to the coalition’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

The Lambeth Living ALMO was established in 2008 in order to achieve a 2 – star service to obtain eligibility for Decent Homes programme funding, needed to bring all of the 33,000 homes in Lambeth’s housing stock  up to a ‘decent’ standard. There is now real concern that the new Government may not honour this capital commitment.

Earlier this year, Mr Umunna asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government a  Parliamentary Question about the future of the Decent Homes programme and what eligibility criteria would apply to proposals for the funding.

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local  Government, Andrew Stunnell, a Liberal Democrat, answered that the criteria for the allocation of the funding would be dependent on the overall funding available to the Decent Homes programme, following the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October.

Mr Umunna said:

“Estates like Valley Road are a perfect example of the investment still needed to bring homes up to an acceptable standard. My constituents deserve warm, safe, decent homes in which to live and raise their  families and without the vital decent homes funding this simply isn’t attainable. Residents have already waited too long for the homes they deserve and it  is simply not acceptable that this money may now be withdrawn.”

Rt Hon John Healey, Shadow Minister for Housing , said:

“Labour believes that everyone has the right to a secure, affordable, decent home in a safe neighbourhood. I saw in my visit with Chuka Umunna to the Valley Road estate the important work that’s still needed to bring all homes in Lambeth up to a decent standard.

“It is vital that the new Government honour our Labour Government’s commitment to completing the decent
homes programme, both to fix residents’ broken central heating systems and rotting window frames, and to create hundreds of jobs in south London.”

Recently, Chuka was interviewed in Parliament by young people involved in Southside Radio.

Southside Radio is a youth-led media project and radio station based in Lambeth and operating across South London, providing opportunities for young people and challenging negative stereotypes.

To listen to the interview, follow this link.

To find out more about Southside or listen live, visit http://www.southsideradio.co.uk/

Last week, Chuka led a debate in the House of Commons on youth crime in London, which he applied to hold following the murder of his 15 year old constituent Zac Olumegbon who was killed in July.

In the debate, alarm was expressed at the number of teenage deaths and victims of gun and knife crime in London this year.

Shortly before the debate, Mr Umunna met with members of Lambeth’s Youth Council in Parliament including Lambeth’s Youth Mayor to discuss how youth violence can be reduced in London.

To read a transcript of the debate, including Chuka’s speech and the government’s response from Home Office minister James Brokenshire MP, please follow this link, or alternatively watch it here (begins at 7h 26m 16s in)

The ratio of spending cuts to tax rises is a political choice. Growth, not ideological grandstanding, should come first, Chuka argues in an article for the Litmus newspaper (a collaboration between Left Foot Forward and others) which can be downloaded here.

What the country needed from June’s Emergency Budget was a clear statement of how the new government would secure our economic recovery. What we got was a political attack on the role of the state, predicated on a rewriting of the history of the economic downturn.

The coalition’s argument goes something like this: our economic problems flow from the country’s debt; this debt had nothing to do with a financial crisis that caused tax receipts to drop and benefit payments to rise – it had everything to do with the profligacy of the last government; then, as a matter of economic necessity, the only answer to our problems is to shrink the state over a rigid timeframe. This is nonsense but usefully serves to rebrand the coalition’s political choices as economic necessities.

Now the government is pursuing the most drastic cuts since the Second World War. The aim is to eliminate the structural current deficit over the course of this parliament, with roughly 80% of consolidation measures being delivered through spending cuts and the remainder through tax increases (of which more later).

And the result? Geoffrey Dicks, a member of the government’s new Office for Budget Responsibility told the Treasury Select Committee in July that the Emergency Budget made a double dip recession more likely. Then in August the Bank of England cut its growth forecasts, citing poor business and consumer confidence, tight bank lending and public spending restraint as the reasons.

There is, of course, an alternative way. As President Obama argued in a letter to G20 leaders before they last met, it is not that deficits should not be reduced but that the speed of reduction should be flexible, reflecting economic circumstances rather than political whim. The same can be said of the choice of spending cuts to tax increases – the coalition’s consolidation package is overwhelmingly based on the former and not the latter, which is unfair and economically questionable.

Landman Economics and the Fabian Society have shown how the poorest 10% of households will, proportionally and in real terms, shoulder a greater burden than the wealthiest 10% as a result of the June Budget. For example, the Chancellor who earns £145,000 per year will proportionately bear a smaller burden of deficit reduction than Sandra Sanchez who cleans his department’s offices for under £15,000 per year.

The sense in going for the coalition’s consolidation ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is called into question by a recent IMF paper that said spending cuts must “protect the poor and unemployed” in order to be sustainable and that tax increases “need to be part of the solution”. This is supported by a study by Ray Barrell of the NIESR who found that spending cuts of 1% of GDP reduce growth by 0.37% in the first year, but that an equal-sized consolidation through tax would reduce growth by just 0.11%.

So a different ratio of spending cuts to tax rises is called for. Labour proposed 66:33, and built into its plans flexibility to alter the timetable for deficit reduction according to levels of growth. Given the mounting threat of return to recession, moving even further to a ratio of 50:50 deserves consideration.

A 50:50 ratio would improve the distributional impact of deficit reduction by bypassing half of George Osborne’s proposed spending cuts. It would allow us to retain the growth-boosting Regional Development Agencies, investment allowances and the R&D tax credit. Indeed, in 1994 the then Chancellor, Ken Clarke, told the Commons that a 50:50 ratio would “meet the objective of healthy public finances”.

A revised ratio along these lines would entail finding an additional £9.5 billion in tax rises, on top of the deficit reduction plan proposed by Labour at the election. Tripling the bank levy (in line with IMF proposals) would raise £5 billion; introducing the proposed mansion tax would raise £2 billion; retaining the supertax on banker’s bonuses would raise £2 billion; and, moving to per plane air duty would raise £3 billion. These measures would collectively raise enough to achieve the 50:50 ratio, with £2.5 billion left over that could be used to fund tax credits for job creation, or incentives to get banks lending to small businesses.

Deficit reduction is not a precise science. But scores of leading economists tell us that strategic tax increases could play a bigger role. Even the European Commission – known as a hub of “spending-cutters rather than tax-risers” – now says that examples from recent history have “weakened” the case against tax rises.

So does George Osborne believe the current Justice Secretary got the ratio wrong in the 1990s or is he simply choosing an ideologically convenient but irresponsible fiscal policy over something better and fairer?

Chuka Umunna is the Labour Member of Parliament for Streatham and a member of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee.

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, led a debate in the House of Commons yesterday evening in the wake of 15 teenage deaths and 1375 teenage gun and knife crime victims in the Capital this year.

 According to the latest statistics provided to Mr Umunna’s office by the Metropolitan Police, in this calendar year to date there have been:

• 15 teenage homicide victims;
• 1230 knife crime victims (non-fatal); and,
• 145 gun crime victims (non-fatal),

in Greater London.

Mr Umunna applied to hold the debate following the murder of his 15 year old constituent, Zac Olumegbon – who was killed in a planned attack in July close to his school in West Norwood. Violent incidents between young Londoners have been ongoing during the summer parliamentary recess.

 Speaking in the debate, Mr Umunna said:

 “We have a problem in London and have had for years. We know it, and our young people certainly know it, because too many of them are living with the fear that it will affect them right now.”

 “In fact, only last Friday in the Tulse Hill part of my constituency, one teenager was shot in the face by a gunman on a bike while trying to get on a bus.

 “Yes, many of the teenagers affected are involved in gangs, but just because much of what happens is gang-related does not mean that we can wash our hands of it. It is our problem. These are our young people, and this violence is a scar on our community, whatever our background and circumstances.”

Amongst the solutions to the violence Mr Umunna pointed to the need for more things for young people to do, more training and employment opportunities, better family support, greater police numbers and appropriate sanctions.  However Mr Umunna raised serious concerns about future government assistance in the context of severe public spending cuts:

“I have several deep concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, about the Government’s future role.

“It is crucial that we have the monies so that we can channel the energy of our youth in a positive direction, away from the activities that lead to violence and, tragically, sometimes to the loss of young lives.

“If we invest in prevention—in occupying our young people with decent things to do that can expand their horizons and increase their opportunities—it reduces the chances of them entering the criminal justice system. We know how much it costs to put a young person through that system. In the long term, therefore, it would actually cost us more as a community not to spend money addressing this issue than it would to invest the money now.

“It is worth emphasising again that the people working in this arena are saving lives. We cannot put a price on reducing youth violence on London’s streets. We have to do everything that we can to reduce that.”

Responding for the government, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Crime Reduction, James Brokenshire MP, failed to give any commitments in relation to future funding of youth provision or the police in London, which Mr Umunna raised in his speech.  Mr Brokenshire said:

“There are real challenges here, in terms of the existing financial situation and the funding issues, and obviously the Government’s priority is to ensure that the economy is put on a strong footing. We will, therefore, be looking very closely at these decisions. However, given that the comprehensive spending review has not yet concluded—we will be announcing the details on 20 October—it is not appropriate or helpful for me to speculate.”

Both Mr Umunna and Mr Brokenshire paid tribute to the Metropolitan Police during the debate.  Mr Brokenshire said:

I also want to pay tribute to the work of the Metropolitan Police Service in tackling youth violence in London. Just one example of that is Operation Blunt 2. For more than two years, this dedicated team has been targeting stop-and-search powers to take weapons off our streets. Since April this year alone, it has carried out 55,759 searches and 5,629 weapons sweeps, and seized 591 weapons.

In addition, Mr Umunna warned against demonizing young people stating:

“I think our youth are fantastic. They are full of energy and life, vibrant and hugely talented, and they are absolutely part of what makes this city great.

“I do not want this debate to detract from those comments, as the worst thing that we can do is demonise our young people. We should not forget that 99% of London’s youth are not involved in serious youth violence.”

Shortly before the debate, Mr Umunna  met with members of Lambeth’s Youth Council including Lambeth’s Youth Mayor to discuss how youth violence can be reduced in London.  Mr Umunna had invited them to watch the proceedings in the House of Commons chamber gallery.

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham and a member of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, called the Chief Executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to account today over her department’s handling of overpayments and underpayments of income tax, and demanded to know why his constituents should have to pay for the mistakes of HMRC.

Last year, HMRC implemented a new National Insurance and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) system. During the switchover to this new system between June 2009 and August 2010 the department was unable to deal with the backlog of millions of un-reconciled cases from previous tax years.

In August 2010, HMRC began the process of reconciling overpayment and underpayment of taxes for the 2008-09 tax year, and it was revealed that millions of taxpayers would be receiving reconciliation notices informing them that they were owed payments or asking them to pay more in tax to make up for their previous tax payments being miscalculated by HMRC. 1.4 million people are estimated to have underpaid and 4.3 million overpaid income tax during the past two years due to errors in their PAYE tax code – resulting from miscalculations by HMRC tax officials.

The Treasury Select Committee called HMRC’s top civil servants to answer questions about the operation of the PAYE system, including Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax, Bernadette Kenny, Director General of Personal Tax, and Lesley Strathie, Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive of HMRC.

Referring to the worry the prospect of paying more tax would cause constituents in the lead up to Christmas, Mr Umunna challenged Ms Strathie asking, “Is your organisation fit for purpose? Can you understand why people think it’s not?”.  Ms Strathie insisted that the standard yearly reconciliation process had been inaccurately portrayed in the media as a mistake, and that this was the reason people had lost confidence in her workforce—but maintained that PAYE works for the majority of taxpayers.

Mr Umunna also asked “How many people have been notified of over or underpayment so far?” Mr Hartnett said HMRC had sent out 45,000 notifications so far (out of around 6 million). He also mentioned that the first 14,000 to receive compensation for overpayment had already cashed their refunds. Mr Umunna then asked Mr Hartnett “when do you expect to complete the notification process?”  to which Mr Hartnett said it is expected to be completed by Christmas this year. Mr Umunna pointed out that many of his constituents would be anxious to hear whether they would be affected by the reconciliation process between now and then and asked “can you speed up the notification process?”  Mr Hartnett explained that it was an automated process and the technology was still being tested, but that a decision would be taken on 21 September 2010 as to how quickly they would be able to notify individuals.

Concerned that some of the 1.4 million people who are being told they owe HMRC money for underpaid tax will have to pay 3 per cent interest on the money if they cannot pay their bill immediately, Mr Umunna said “I find it quite extraordinary that people who don’t know they’ve underpaid are now being charged interest—what can I tell constituents who come to my surgery asking why they should have to pay for the mistakes of HMRC?.”  In response to this question, Ms Strathie announced that a concession would be made on interest payments: people will first be notified about the payments and the interest will only be charged if they ignore the notice for three months and do not return a self assessment form.

Mr Umunna tabled a parliamentary question on 13 September 2010 to find out the exact numbers of people living in the Streatham constituency, in Lambeth and in London who be affected.  An answer is due from HM Treasury on 16 September 2010.

This week, Chuka asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change about funding for groups working locally to increase sustainability such as Transition Town Brixton.

Chuka asked what funding the Department for Energy and Climate Change has provided to Transition Towns and other voluntary groups designed to increase sustainability through local activities in the last 12 months.

Minister of State for Climate Change Gregory Baker responded:

“DECC has provided funding to Transition Towns and other community organisations over the last 12 months through the Low Carbon Communities Challenge (LCCC) and the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP).

“In the financial year 2009-10, DECC provided £20.58 million in funding through LCBP to projects such as housing associations, schools, churches, and other not-for-profit organisations, and the forecast expenditure for the financial year 2010-11 is £53.41 million.” Chuka is a supporter of Transition Town Brixton, a community-led initiative to increase environmental sustainability locally and raise awareness of climate change: effecting Brixton’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Among other projects, it has developed the Brixton Pound. Chuka will continue to press ministers to continue support for such initiatives.