The progressive pressure group Compass has launched a major new campaign to end legal loan sharking.

Chuka, who is a member of the management committee of Compass, co-launched the campaign in a letter to the Guardian along with other leading politicians, academics and campaigers. The letter calls on the government to introduce interest rate caps and increase access to affordable consumer credit.

An interest rate cap would help prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people in places such as Streatham, where High Street lenders charge as much as 400% APR. Some payday lenders in the UK legally charge up to 3000% APR.

Local organisations such as the London Mutual Credit Union which serves Lambeth and Southwark and of which Chuka is a member, provide an alternative to loan sharks by lending small amounts of money while encouraging people to save.

To learn more about the End Legal Loan Sharking campaign and to sign the petition, follow this link.

Earlier this week, Chuka appeared on BBC Newsnight, debating with Michael Portillo and arguing against the Liberal Democrat-Conservative government’s ideological spending cuts.

To watch Chuka’s appearence, follow this link

This week, Chuka posed a written question in Parliament to find out from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics:

(1) what assessment he has made of the legacy for the London borough of Lambeth and its residents from the London 2012 Olympic Games;

(2) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that London boroughs other than those hosting the London 2012 Olympics will obtain a legacy from the games.

Below is the response he received from the Minister:

“The London borough of Lambeth, London as a whole, and the wider UK are benefitting from the opportunities created by the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

“There has been significant infrastructure investment in and around the Olympic Park, including transport and utilities. Other economic benefits that have accrued to London include:

“Of the 6,442 contracted work force on the Olympic Park (excluding the Village) at the end of March 2010, 3,457 were from London, of which 2,185 were resident outside the five east London host boroughs (Greenwich, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest). The Olympic Delivery Authority and its partners have a range of measures in place, including dedicated training centres, to promote sustainable employment benefits from the building of the Olympic Park.

“Of the 1,349 companies that have won over £5 billion of work directly supplying the Olympic Delivery Authority (May 2010), 689 were registered in London, of which 493 were registered outside the host boroughs and 20 in Lambeth. Many more business across London are winning work in the supply chains of the ODA contractors and LOCOG began in January its procurement for everything it needs to stage the Games, so there will be many more opportunities for business in London across many sectors to get involved.

“34,047 London companies, of which 27,418 come from outside the five east London host boroughs (June 2010), were registered on CompeteFor, the electronic brokerage system giving companies access to Olympic-related opportunities and the support to compete for them.

“The Mayor of London is responsible for maximising the impact of the Games across London and has been working with a range of pan-London partners including his family of agencies to deliver a coherent legacy programme that ensures people living in London gain from the positive effects of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.”

Chuka Umunna MP has today submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Treasury to obtain a memo outlining the true impact of last week’s Budget on unemployment.

Today, The Guardian reported a leaked Treasury memo predicting 1.3 million job losses over the next five years, specifying “100-120,000 public sector jobs and 120-140,000 private sector jobs assumed to be lost per annum for five years through cuts”.

In Prime Minister’s Questions today, David Cameron was asked about precise details of this prediction by the Leader of the Opposition, but failed to provide answers.

The leaked memo also claims that 2.5 million private sector jobs can be created over the next five years, The Guardian reports. However, according to the Office of National Statistics, just 1.5 million such jobs were created over the ten years of growth between 1997 and 2007.

Chancellor George Osborne, in his Budget statement last week said:

“I am not going to hide hard choices from the British people or bury them in the small print of the Budget documents. You’re going to hear them straight from me, here in this speech.”

“The unemployment rate is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to peak this year at 8.1 per cent and then fall for each of the next four years, to reach 6.1 per cent in 2015.”

However, reports of the leaked memo have thrown doubt over this assessment.

Last week, Mr Umunna was elected by his colleagues to serve on the Treasury Select Committee, and since his election has challenged government ministers on the abolition of the Future Jobs Fund in the House of Commons.

Commenting on his Freedom has of Information request, Mr Umunna said: “It is essential that the government comes clean about the true extent of job losses resulting from last week’s Budget.

“This memo is deeply worrying, suggesting that the true picture is very different from the one painted by the Chancellor in his Budget statement last week. The Government must explain why this information has not been made public.

“Many people will not just be shocked by the scale of the unemployment that will be caused by last week’s budget. They will also be angry and disappointed that, just weeks in, the new government is attempting to hide this from the public when the Chancellor claimed he would disclose all details only a week before.”

Last week the new Chancellor, George Osborne, made the Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition government’s first Budget announcement. He described its measures as “tough but fair”, but a closer look at the policies proposed shows that, though the spending cuts are undoubtedly tough, they are also extremely unfair.

This is a budget that will hit the poor hardest, and places like Streatham will suffer most.

The measures announced by Chancellor George Osborne included a cut in child benefit in real terms, the abolition of the Health in Pregnancy Grant for new mums and Child Tax Credits set aside for parents of new-born babies.

The 25% cuts to public spending threaten to increase unemployment and could put large numbers of Streatham residents on the dole queue. Public sector jobs make up a larger proportion of employment in Lambeth (36%) than in London as a whole (23%) and, as Colin Talbot of Manchester Business School has predicted, one in five public sector jobs could be slashed to make the cuts promised in the budget.

The VAT rise (from 17.5 to 20%) is also unfair on Streatham. As Save the Children has said: “A 20% VAT rate means that the poorest parents will see their VAT bill rise to at least £1,600 a year – affecting already overstretched budgets – and driving some into the arms of loan sharks.”

The cut in Child Benefit will affect no fewer than 25,160 children from 14,735 families in Streatham.

The abolition of the Future Jobs Fund will cut the 198 jobs, apprenticeships and training places that the fund provides for young people in Lambeth. The government’s own figures show that, by cutting so deep and so quickly, the budget will reduce economic growth and increase unemployment by 100,000 – this too is bound to be felt locally.

The budget did not specify whether or not the government will cut the Building Schools for the Future programme, increasing uncertainty amongst parents and teachers at those three Streatham schools where it is unclear whether planned building work will go ahead – Dunraven, La Retraite, Bishop Thomas Grant.

So whilst Labour’s plans to reduce the deficit would protect the vulnerable and invest in growth; the Tory-LibDem plans put the greatest burden on the poorest and risk slowing the recovery.

In fact, a study by the Fabian Society and Landman Economics has shown that whilst the richest 10% of households will be 1.6% worse off as a result of this budget, the poorest 10% will be 20.5% worse off. Streatham is in the 19th most deprived borough in the country – and it is in constituencies such as this that the pain inflicted by this budget will be felt most strongly.

During the recession in the early 1990s, unemployment in Streatham was 56% higher than when Britain emerged from recession under Labour earlier this year. It is feared that the new government’s approach, in line with that adopted by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, could lead to higher unemployment.

The independent body set up by the new government to review economic policy, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has responded to the plans in the Budget by revising down its employment predictions by 100,000 and downgrading its growth forecast for next year from 2.6% to 2.3%.

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has warned of the impact the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Budget will have on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and in his own constituency.

Making a speech in the Budget debate in the House of Commons, Mr Umunna compared last week’s Budget with those of the Thatcher administration’s early years in which large cuts to public sector spending were made.

The 1981 Budget, which made sickness and unemployment benefits taxable was followed by the Brixton Riots in the north of Mr Umunna’s Streatham constituency.

Following the public inquiry into the riots conducted by Lord Scarman, social and economic factors, particularly high unemployment, were cited alongside police racism as a root cause of the disorder.

In his report, Lord Scarman stated that unemployment “was a major factor in the complex pattern of conditions which lies at the root of the disorders in Brixton and elsewhere. In a materialistic society, the relative deprivation it entails is keenly felt, and idleness gives time for resentment and envy to grow.”

While between 1981 and 1984 the Thatcher government made cuts to government spending of 4%, in last week’s Budget the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration announced spending cuts of 25% across government departments.

In his speech, Mr Umunna accused the government of ignoring President Obama’s letter the Prime Minister and other G20 leaders imploring them not to withdraw economic stimulus or make cuts too quickly.

He also pressed the government for answers on the issue of youth unemployment. Last month, the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition announced the abolition of the Future Jobs Fund, brought in by the last government to create jobs for young people out of work for six months or more.

Having met with Jobcentre Plus officials, Mr Umunna learned that statistics on the success of the scheme are not yet available and has called for a full debate on why the fund has been axed before it can be properly evaluated.

Youth unemployment in the Streatham constituency, which is demographically one of the youngest areas in the UK, has increased by 6.5% over the past year. In contrast, youth unemployment fell by 27.3% in Prime Minister David Cameron’s constituency.

The independent body set up by the new government to review economic policy, the Office of Budget Responsibility, responded to the Budget by revising up its unemployment predictions by 100,000.

The rise in VAT announced by the Chancellor from 17.5% to 20% will disproportionately affect those on low incomes. According to the Office of National Statistics, the richest 10% pay just one in every £25 of their income in VAT while the poorest 10% pay one in every £7.

Chancellor George Osborne also announced a cut in child benefit in real terms, restrictions and cuts to housing benefit and the abolition of both the Health in Pregnancy Grant for new mothers and Child Tax Credits set aside to parents of new-born babies.

Mr Umunna said: “What were the effects of the approach adopted by Geoffrey Howe in the 1980s? I can describe what they were in my constituency, in which I am proud to say that I have lived all my life.

“In April 1981 my mother was out shopping with my sister and me in the middle of Brixton when the riots broke out. I was too young-just two and half-to be able to remember what happened, but my mother remembers it well, and it was terrifying.

“The real question that I want answered is: what comfort can he give to the people who live in places such as the Tulse Hill Estate in my constituency that they will not have to pay the price? What measures will he take to help them to get back into work?”

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has been elected by his colleagues to serve on the Treasury Select Committee.

For the first time, Select Committee members have been chosen by election rather than appointment following reforms to the system. Mr Umunna, who is the youngest Member of Parliament in London, was selected by colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party to fill one of its allocation of five places on the committee.

Before his election to Parliament last month, Mr Umunna practiced as an employment lawyer and has worked extensively in the City acting both for and against investment banks. Later in his career Mr Umunna switched to acting for employees fighting unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Last week, Mr Umunna criticised the Lib Dem Tory coalition in the House for abolishing the Future Jobs Fund before it has been properly evaluated, and asked Chancellor George Osborne what arrangements he is making to reform credit rating agencies.

Commenting, Mr Umunna said: “I am delighted to have been chosen by my colleagues to serve on the Treasury Select Committee.

“Much of the blame for the global economic downturn can be placed at the door of the financial services sector. The financial catastrophe led to the bail out and a situation where hard-working people were left to pick up the tab for a crisis that was not of their making.

“My primary aim on the Treasury Select Committee will be to ensure that this never happens again and that the government’s economic policies are subject to intense and forensic cross-examination.”

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has slammed the Liberal Democrat – Conservative government’s Budget for hitting public sector workers and local families hardest, failing to address the issue of youth unemployment and failing to guarantee the future of vital local school building projects.

The measures announced by Chancellor George Osborne included a cut in child benefit in real terms, the abolition of the Health in Pregnancy Grant for new mums and Child Tax Credits set aside for parents of new-born babies.

According to HMRC statistics, last year 25,160 childen from 14,735 families in Streatham claimed child benefit and will now lose out as a result of its payments being frozen.

During the recession in the early 1990s, unemployment in Streatham was 56% higher than when Britain emerged from recession under Labour earlier this year. It is feared that the new government’s approach, in line with that adopted by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, could lead to higher unemployment.

The independent body set up by the new government to review economic policy, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has responded to the plans in the Budget by revising down its employment predictions by 100,000 and downgrading its growth forecast for next year from 2.6% to 2.3%.

Because public sector employment is disproportionately high locally, our area will suffer more heavily than others from the public sector pay freeze announced in the Budget. In Lambeth, public sector employment accounts for 36% compared to 23% in London as a whole.

In his Budget speech, the Chancellor failed to outline any measures to tackle Youth unemployment to replace the Future Jobs Fund which the Liberal Democrat Conservative government has axed.

Last week, Mr Umunna asked Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander MP why the Future Jobs Fund had been abolished before its effectiveness had been evaluated and called for a fuller debate on the project once the information is available.

Youth unemployment in the Streatham constituency, which is demographically one of the youngest areas in the UK, has increased by 6.5% over the past year. In contrast, youth unemployment fell by 27.3% in Prime Minister David Cameron’s Witney constituency.

The Chancellor did not disclose whether local school building projects would still be going ahead, but announced that the Department for education would see its budget cut by 25%.

School building projects at three local schools, La Retraite, Dunraven, and Bishop Thomas Grant, which were planned under the former government have been thrown into doubt by the Liberal Democrat Conservative coalition which is yet to clarify its intentions.

The Budget was also silent on whether funds to improve local housing will be forthcoming.

The rise in VAT announced by the Chancellor from 17.5% to 20% will disproportionately affect those on low incomes.

Only weeks ago during the general election, Liberal Democrats campaigned against what they described as a ‘Tory VAT bombshell’ and in favour of “fairer taxes”.

However, VAT is a regressive form of taxation: according to the Office of National Statistics the richest 10% pay one in every 25 pounds of their income in VAT, whilst the poorest 10% pay one in every seven, so the VAT rise will hit the poorest much harder than the wealthy.

As Lambeth is the nineteenth most deprived local authority in England, the VAT increase will be felt disproportionately in areas like ours.

Chuka Umunna MP said: “This Budget places the bulk of the government’s deficit reduction programme on the shoulders of the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Cutting Housing and Child Benefit will disproportionately affect areas like ours.

“I am also deeply concerned about the impact of today’s Budget on local jobs. The government has adopted the same approach as the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s which led to such terrible unemployment and deprivation here.

“I find it shocking that the Liberal Democrats, whose leader visited my own constituency recently claiming to stand for fairness, have sold out on their beliefs in supporting this Budget and sanctioning the devastating affect that it will have on our area.”

“There is real danger of a double-dip recession and ¬by cutting too fast the coalition will hit growth. President Obama’s letter to the G20 last week urged governments to keep in place spending measures to help economies recover from the recession, but the Lib Dem Tory coalition has ignored this advice.”

On the Building Schools for the Future Programme, Mr Umunna said:

“The fact the Chancellor did not explain what the government’s plans are for vital Building Schools for the Future projects at the same time as imposing a 25% cut in the education budget will only serve to increase uncertainly among local parents, students and teachers.”

“I will continue to put pressure on the Liberal Democrat – Conservative government, demanding answers and making the case for these crucial projects going ahead as the previous Labour government planned.”

The charity Save the Children said:

“A 20% VAT rate means that the poorest parents will see their VAT bill rise to at least £1,600 a year – affecting already overstretched budgets – and driving some into the arms of loan sharks”.

London has seen the biggest decrease in unemployment in the country – our unemployment rate has fallen by 5.71 per cent in the three months to February – by 22,000 – the Office of National Statistics announced this week.

Although this is good news for London, the picture was mixed across the UK with rises in unemployment in other regions. Overall, the statistics show the importance of not taking any risks with the fragile economy to secure the recovery.

The Labour government recently secured an agreement with credit and store card companies which is could save consumers as much as £300 million per year.

The agreement was reached following feedback from thousands of customers responding to a consultation on credit and store cards.

It has five main elements that will protect those consumers who are vulnerable or at risk of suffering from financial difficulties:

• Right to repay: Repayments made by consumers will go to paying off debt with the highest interest rate first.

• Right to control: Consumers will have the right to refuse an increase to their credit limit or reduce their credit limit.

• Right to reject: The amount of time consumers have to reject increases to their credit limit or interest rate will be extended.

• Right to information: Consumers at risk of financial difficulty will be required to be provided with clear information about the consequences of late repayments and increases to their credit limit or interest rates – including the right to reject.

• Right to compare: An annual statement that allows for easy cost comparison must be provided by the companies.

This agreement comes after other measures designed to help and protect consumers have been introduced by Labour, including giving consumers access to their credit ratings for free or for a charge of £2 from June 2010, stronger protection under the lending code and for those suffering the most serious financial hardship.