Welfare Reform Bill

moved AmendmentNo. 103A: 103A: Clause 29 , page 20, line 16, at end insert— ““( ) The appropriate maximum housing benefit shall only vary for those aged under 21.”” The noble Earl said: I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Best. I apologise for not having put my name to it, asI should have wished to; I have been unwell recently. I hope that I may read from a script on this occasion and I will endeavour to be brief. I declare an interest as a landlord. I strongly believe that the Bill must be amended to provide a remedy for the hardship caused to single, under-25 year-olds since the introduction over10 years ago of a restriction on the amount of housing benefit that they are eligible for. There is indisputable evidence that the single room rent restriction on housing benefit creates shortfalls between benefit received and contractual rent for many young people. This has been shown to lead to financial hardship, rent arrears, eviction and even homelessness among young people. Those affected by the single room rent are forced to spend months or even years sleeping on friends’ sofas—a lifestyle that inevitably impacts on their chances in life and later, therefore, on any of their children. One of the most positive features of the local housing allowance pilots that we have discussed has been the reduction in shortfalls for those over 25 years old. However, as a result of the single room rent, which is carried over into the local housing allowance, albeit with a slightly more generous definition, this improvement has not been as marked for single claimants aged under 25, who have seen an average reduction of just £3 per week—from £30 to £27. This group already faced the most severe shortfalls under the existing provisions. I recognise that unemployed people on benefit should not be better off than those in work. However, equally, we should not be prepared to tolerate a benefits system that denies vulnerable young people the opportunity of a home. I continue to believe that the single room rent should not be carried over into the new local housing allowance. The Minister’s department estimates the cost of abolishing the single room rent to be some £20 million a year. My amendment would anticipate that if half the current claimants were over the age of 21, the cost would be around £10 million a year, a reasonable sum, when viewed in the context of the overall housing benefit budget. The amendment, and I hope I do not sound immodest in saying so, gives the Government a golden opportunity to permit more young people to have a stable home, so that they can gain and retain stable employment, thus being in a position to establish stable relationships and eventually start a stable family—and breaking for some of them a cycle of deprivation that has continued for generations. Underpinning this Bill is the notion of rights and responsibilities. The Minister referred at Second Reading to the principle of fairness. With your Lordships’ permission I would like to apply those principles to this amendment. Have we been discharging our responsibilities towards our children and young people? There is much evidence to suggest not. Please consider all the work done by my noble friend Lord Northbourne over the years in drawing our attention to the deficit in parenting in many of our families. The leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition recently highlighted these problems in relation to crime. The UNICEF report published in the past two weeks, Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, ranks us on average at the bottom of the latter in comparison with 20 other developed countries. We are at the very bottom of each of its tables on family and peer relationships, on behaviours and risks, and on subjective well-being. In saying that, I hope I may be allowed to acknowledge Her Majesty’s Government’s long and sustained investment in families and children, in terms of policy, legislation and finance. However, the report published by the Youth Justice Board in 2005, Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness of Provision for Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community, found that nearly half of the group surveyed had significant needs as regards their relationships and would benefit from an intervention to improve their ability to relate to their family or peers. When the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was head of the Youth Justice Board, he found that the introduction of parenting orders was the most effective intervention in preventing re-offending, that it was economic and that many of the parents upon whom this was imposed responded by saying, ““Why could we not have had this help before?””. They welcomed it. More recently the Government’s Respect Action Plan has put great emphasis on improving parenting skills. What is the implication of what I have said? Sadly, very many of our young people have not had a satisfactory upbringing. Their development is to some degree delayed. They need additional support as they make the transition to adulthood. I do not wish to try the patience of the Grand Committee, so will not describe the cases of some of these young people. I would urge noble Lords to consider speaking with some of the young people at, for example, Centrepoint, YMCA or Foyer to hear of their experience of housing and of their earlier histories, if at all possible. Between now and Report I would much appreciate the opportunity to speak with the official and, perhaps, the Minister involvedin this issue to understand better the Government’s position. To repeat, we have disappointed many of our children; we have left undone that which we should have done. We have failed in our duty—our responsibility—to provide an environment in which families can thrive. By agreeing to the amendment tabled by my noble friend, we can make good our failure to some extent, by providing a stable home to more of our young people as they make their transition to adulthood—where they are more likely to be able to hold down a job and to gain stable enduring relationships, leading in turn to a stable base for their children’s lives. The Minister referred at Second Reading to fairness—parity of treatment of young people. There is strength of course in what he says. On balance, does the demerit of violating that principle outweigh the merit of making up for the impoverished childhoods of many of the young people likely to benefit from this change? A young person in a classroom may feel it unfair that another child receives the special individual attention of a classroom assistant. If in the short term such special treatment leads to that needy child being able to read and to be a full contributing member of that class, do not his peers benefit? In the long term do we not all benefit from that kind of unfairness? I beg to move.