Urgent Question on Housing Benefit Cuts Questions and Statements

Urgent question. John Healey. Thank you Mr Speaker. To ask the Minister

if she will make the impact on homelessness of the government's

plans to remove automatic entitlement to housing benefit for

18-21 -year-olds. Minister Caroline Nokes. From the 1st of April

automatic entitlement for housing cost will be removed for some 18-21

-year-olds. This was a Conservative manifesto commitment and was

formally announced in the summer budget 2015. This removes the

perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass on

the cost of the taxpayer. This is about stopping young people slipping

straight into a life on benefits and brings parity with young people in

work but who may not be able to leave the family home while an

unemployed person can. This policy will have a comprehensive set of

exemptions to make sure the most vulnerable continue to have the

support they need, so the policy will only affect those who have no

barriers to work and are unable to return safely to their parental

home. There is a time limited exemption for those who have

recently been in work. The policy will only apply to those in

universal credit full service areas to make new claims or whose earnings

drop the lady in work threshold. The policy will be implemented at the

same time as the new youth obligation. With new support

available under the youth obligation, more young adults will

move into work, significantly improving their current living

standards and future prospects. Mr Speaker my urgent question, and the

concerned to members on all sides, was what assessment has been done of

the impact of these cuts on homelessness? With respect to the

minister, she's made her statement when she could have told the House

is the answer in one word which is none. There was no impact assessment

published with these regulations on Friday, why not? And how many young

people will now be denied all help with housing benefit? I say to the

Minister, there are 1741 18-21 -year-olds in Hampshire claiming

housing benefit. How many of these will still get help next month? And

how many will get nothing? The Minister may have done no assessment

but the charities who work day in, day out in our constituencies to

help the homeless have said 9000 young people will be put at risk of

homelessness. Shelter have said there is no way this is not going to

lead to an increase in rough sleeping. And Crisis has said this

runs entirely counter to the aims of that Bill, and it could spell

disaster for many vulnerable young people rightly entitled to help.

Surely the Minister does not think these charities are wrong? And if

she knows they are right, surely the government isn't going to go ahead

with these cruel and counter-productive cuts? Members on

all sides have really deeply held concerns about the rapidly rising

level of homelessness in our country. Other Minister accept none

of the arguments she's made today really stack up? This is about

levelling the play on the field they say but these young people, who are

old enough to marry, work, pay taxes, fight for our country, will

now be denied the same right to basic help with housing costs as any

British adult. Ministers have said the exemptions will protect the

vulnerable but the National landlords Association declared, all

18-21-year-olds are no longer entitled to housing benefit, they

just won't consider them as a tenant. Once the knock-on costs to

other services are taken into account the saving will fall to only

?3.3 million. As far as the manifesto, this was a commitment to

remove automatic entitlement, claimants already have to pass

multiple checks so there is nothing automatic about young people getting

housing benefit. Will the Minister recognised the government has the

opportunity tomorrow in the budget to reverse this counter-productive

policy. Wilshere leave the House this afternoon and told the

Chancellor, if he does so, he will have the full support from the side

and I suspect from all sides of this House. The honourable gentleman

raised the issue of those across the country although he specifically

mentioned Hampshire who are already in receipt of housing benefit. They

will have transitional protections and will not be affected. When he

asks how many will have their benefit withdrawn, the answer is

none, the same as it is for every county across the country. He also

raised the case of those serving in the Armed Forces, taxpayers, those

who have children. If you looked at the list of exemptions published on

Friday, all of those are included. Sir Oliver Letwin. Does my

honourable friend agree that in light of all the exemptions there

are, what we're talking about are the responsibilities of the parents.

We not seeing a reassertion of the responsibilities of parents for

unemployed young people under the age of 21? I thank my right

honourable friend for that question, he makes an important point. This is

about encouraging family responsibility, about enabling and

helping those young people who have the choice to remain at home to stay

there. Those who cannot stay at home, there is a significant

exemption written in for those whom it is inappropriate to stay in the

family home will be exempted from this policy. Yesterday SNP MPs

joined others to know this ludicrous legislation. This government seems

to be working on the incorrupt assumption that young people can

stay at home when parents have no obligation to house their adult

children -- incorrect assumption. The SNP have consistently opposed

the legislation but under the powers of the Scottish Parliament the

Scottish Government cannot provide an exemption for Scotland. Does the

Minister agree it is simply ridiculous that young people should

suffer purely because this government is obsessed with imposing

austerity? Can she tell us how many young people who will be affected

who don't qualify for exemption, and doesn't she think a young person is

more likely to find work if they have a stable address? Will they

exempt the Scottish from the impact of these regulations and allow the

Scottish Government to provide housing support on their behalf? The

Scottish Government already has a wide range of powers which would

enable them to alleviate the changes proposed and our government is

committed to working with the Scottish Government on a whole range

of issues in the portfolio to make sure they have the power and the

strength to implement those powers. What is the government doing to

ensure this policy supports young people who are in work? My

honourable friend is right to mention young people in work.

Anybody who is working 16 hours a week or more will be exempt. I think

we should call this for what it is, it's a nasty vindictive policy that

will make injustice worse, from a government who said they would

tackle injustice. We'll be honourable lady answer the question

that my right honourable friend asked, which is no impact assessment

has been published for this measure, inexplicably in my view. Will she

now tell the House what advice she has received from her officials

about the impact on homelessness of this proposal? The department has of

course met all of its requirement under the public sector equality

duty. A quality assessment has been shared with the advisory committee

who chose not to consult on this. Young people in their first jobs

can't afford their own accommodation, so they share with

other young people or they stay at home. Why should it be different for

each people who are out of work? He makes exactly the point that

underpins this policy. We want young people in work and young people out

of work to be making the same choices about where they are going

to live. I think anyone listening to this urgent question will be

appalled by the response we've had so far from the Minister. She hasn't

answered any of the questions. Can she tell us why the equality impact

assessment hasn't been published and will she bring it forward so we can

see what the rationale is behind this ridiculous policy? I think I

have answered that. The department has engaged extensively at

ministerial and official level with stakeholders. There is no duty on us

to share the impact assessment with the House, but we did share it with

the Social Security advisory. Will the Minister confirm that care

leavers will not be affected by these changes? My honourable friend

makes a really important point and absolutely they are exempt from this

policy. One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit

can still be paid is if in the opinion of the Secretary of State it

is inappropriate for them to live with each of their parents. Does the

Secretary of State it assume this will be automatically applied

whether parents refuse to have their child living with them? Absolutely

and that is a point. There is an important exemption included, so

where it is inappropriate that a parent cannot accommodate their

child they will be exempt from this policy. The key point about nipping

the dependency culture in the bud at the earliest opportunity is

important. Once it takes hold it can be very damaging. Young people can

be forgiven, they may think this is fair, but when we do this and we

protect every single penny going to pensioners including a Winter fuel

allowance for millionaires, they will be forgiven for thinking we

aren't playing fairly to everybody. What we are trying to do is place

early for those young people who are in work and having to make the

decision that they cannot afford to leave the family home and stay

living with their parents. Can the minister explained the rationale for

denying young adults access to housing and support while providing

it for older adults? On the face of it and from the minister 's

comments, it appears nothing other than demonisation of young people.

This is not about demonisation of young people, this is about

encouraging young people to make sensible and rational choices about

where they are going to live, whether they are in work or not. As

a parent of two children between 18 and 201I would be appalled if I felt

they were going to leave home to live a life on housing benefits

while they still got a bed in my house. Will the Minister confirm

that there will be support made available for those with complex

needs or who are vulnerable? Absolutely, yes. For those who

cannot live with their parents, for those in receipt of disability

benefits, they will be exempt from this policy. Further to the question

from right honourable friend, can the Minister confirm what I believe

she said which is the only thing that is necessary for a young person

to demonstrate before being entitled to the housing element of universal

credit is for their parent to say they cannot live at home?

If it is inappropriate for a young person to live at home with their

parents then, yes, they will ks exempt from this policy.

YMCA tell me from April they may not be able to house those young people

with complex needs of addictions and mental health. For those that may

not be able to earn or learn, they can't or won't stay at home, or

indeed access temporary accommodation. Can the Minister

confirm that in relation to supporting housing for vulnerable

people which is at stake, that she can clarify the scope of ex-emeggs

and otherwise defer the application of this impact on those at most risk

of homelessness until the outcome of the supported housing review. I

thank my honourable friend for that question. The YMCA has been part of

the consultation process and I have, as I believe I said last night at an

event downstairs, they are always a trusted advisor who provide

excellent advice and information but absolutely yes, those with complex

needs, with mental health conditions will be exempt from this policy.

Can the Secretary of State tell me if she's made any assessment of the

impact of these changes to the excellent small charities that help

young people who find themselves unable to continue to live at home?

I have received a great deal of information and had round tables

with a number of providers, charities, some smaller ones

included. We have been clear, for those for whom it is inappropriate

to live at home they will be exempt from this policy. The principle

reason why young people become homeless is because of relationship

breakdown with their family. Can my honourable friend assure the House

that it will be decisions taken by the Secretary of State, not by local

decision-makers, who may discriminate against young people

when they can in the live with family? I thank my honourable friend

for that question and commend him for the compel lent work he has done

on the home lszness reduction bill. This will and question of young

people informing someone, whether it's a trusted medical professional,

of their inability to live at home because their relationship with

their parents has broken down and in those cases they will receive the

exemption. Given that the Minister has conceded that there is an impact

assessment and said she hasn't published it because she doesn't

need to, would she care to just think again in view of the concern

there is and publish that impact assessment? We did look careful le

hly under the duty at the impacts this policy would have and shared

that information with the social security advisory committee. I am

under no obligation to publish it. Can the Minister confirm how the

policy will apply to young people on apprenticeships who may be earning

below the national living wage? The honourable gentleman makes a really

important point and apprentices will be exempt from this policy. As part

of the work I am doing, I went round the streets and city centre of

Manchester and was shocked to see the risks young people face from

substances and violence. Does the honourable lady not understand this

is going to make significantly more young people forced to rough sleep

in our country and is going to make those young people increasingly

vulnerable, is this not the return, the personification of the return of

the nasty party? The honourable gentleman makes the

assumption that this will increase homelessness. What we expect to

happen is behavioural change and young people, where they can, to

stay living with their parents. Where they can not stay living with

their parents, then they will be exempt from this policy.

At a time when the public is increasingly fed up with politicians

who don't do what they say they'll do at election time, can I

congratulate my honourable friend on the audacity of sticking to a

Conservative manifesto commitment and can she confirm that actually

youth unemployment continues to fall and week by week more and more young

people have the security and dignity of taking a wage back home. My

honourable friend is right to point out that there are 197,000 more

young people in work than there were in 2010. He is right, this was a

manifesto commitment. This was in the summer budget of 2015. We are

delivering a commitment. Thank you. The vast majority of my young

constituents who need to access housing benefit are doing so in the

private rented sector, already facing crippling costs and great

insecurity. Why can the Minister not see that this policy across the

board for young people simply makes precarious situations more

precarious, it stigmatises young people and is nothing short of a

kick in the teeth. Why is the Government ignoring overwhelming

evidence from those who work with young people that this policy will

make homelessness worse and why will she not drop it? As the honourable

lady will have heard, we have put in place a long list of exemptions to

protect those who are most vulnerable and able those who need

the support to still receive it. She makes a really important point. We

are there to support the most vulnerable and we are also there to

make sure that there is an even playing field when those in work and

those who are not. One of the most straightforward ways in which to be

exempt from this policy is to be working for 16 hours a week or more.

Like the Minister I am a great supporter of the YMCA, but can the

Minister confirm what impact the measures will have on these young

people who benefit in many amazing ways from organisations like the

YMCA? Well, organisations like the YMCA,

are one of the best and training leading providers in the country.

They're also a significant housing provider. We are determined to work

with stakeholders like them to make sure those young people who are

exempt from the policy receive that exemption and are still supported to

make sure they're in the training to move into work that they need. My

constituency has full service before most other constituencies, a

temporary homeless accommodation framework is ?175 a week and before

universal credit my constituent had ?7 extra to find. Now it's 60 #3dz.

Much more than he gets, even before he pays for food, light, heat,

anything else. How is that fir? I think what the honourable

gentleman didn't indicate was how old his constituency was. What is

really important is that we are focussing support on those who need

it most and when it comes to young people we are obliging them to make

the same sort of choices that his constituents who are in work for 16

hours a week or more are also making.

Can the Minister confirm that this Government is doing everything

possible to prepare young people for the world of work so that fewer

young people are at risk of falling into a life on benefits?

I thank my honourable friend for that question. Of course what the

Government is bringing forward in April is also the youth obligation

which is about making sure that young people who are not in work are

in the appropriate training or apprenticeships to put them in the

best position to move into work. Could I return to the definition of

inappropriate to return, would it include the situation I have with a

young man who was kicked out business his step-father for being

gay but could return home if he denied his sexuality?

Yes, and I think bef been very clear on that. Where a young person would

find it impossible, inappropriate to return home and I think the

situation she outlines is absolutely one we have considered. Yes, they

would receive the exemption. How is it in the case of my honourable

friend just now, who is going to make those decisions, because

similar exemptions exist for victims of domestic violence and legal aid

where they need a letter from a doctor, a specialist agency and 37%

of women still report not being able to access legal aid so how does the

Minister propose this is going to work, how much is it going to cost,

and then what will it save? The anticipation is that over the

period of this parliament the policy will save in the region of ?105

million. We are absolutely committed to making sure that those who are

victims of domestic violence are exempt from this policy and

recognise the impact on young women who have been victims of domestic

violence and the importance they're supported. The Young people she

describes bear no resemblance to the young people I used to work with at

the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, many of whom had

experienced horrendous physical mental and emotional abuse which

meant they understandably no longer had a relationship with their

families. How does she expect those young people to prove that they can

not return home, they can't simply pick up the phone to their parents,

they shouldn't be forced to recount to a stranger again and again those

stories about what has happened to them. What is she going to do to

make sure young people are not subjected to reliving that

horrendous abuse they've already suffered?

Those who have reported abuse to a stakeholder, a trusted professional

will be exempt from this policy. It is our intention to make sure that

we establish a long list of stakeholders who can take that

reporting. It should of course be the case they should only have to

report it once. Yet again due to idea logical reasons the Tories have

identified a problem that doesn't really exist. Less than 1% of

18-21-year-olds claim jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit at the

same time. We have already heard this will save ?105 million if it

works as planned. Can the Government Minister tell me, one stakeholder

that agrees this will help young people into long-term stable work?

We put this in our manifesto for the 2015 election and included it in the

summer budget 2015. We have been clear this is about providing

fairness for those in work as well as those out of work and making sure

that young people have the same decisions to make about the

affordability of their housing. This is the most shameful policy that

they've brought forward on the most vulnerable, not to produce an impact

statement is an absolute disgrace. When the Minister talks about

getting people back into work, let's talk about what the Government have

done for wages for young people. ?3. 50 an hour as an apprentice wage,

how can that person get to work when they're denied assistance they'll

need for housing if they can not work near their place of home?

As I said earlier in response to my honourable friend, apprentices will

be exempt. I have come across many reasons why

18-21-year-olds have left home but never I have to say have I seen

claiming housing benefit as an incentive. Given the long list of

exemptions isn't it easier if the Minister scraps this policy

altogether? The Government included this as a manifesto commitment and

it is determined to deliver it. The Minister talks about an even

playing field. If she's so confident this is fair, why won't she publish

that impact assessment, what has she got to hide?

There wills absolutely nothing to hide, I have considered carefully

the public sector equality duty and the assessment was shared with the

social security advisory committee who chose not to consult on this.

She's almost there, she said this policy - could she confirm it's in

the region of 10,000, is it less or more?

The policy is expected to affect 5,000 young people in the first year

and 10,000 a year in steady state. Given that the number of people

rough sleeping in this country has more than doubled since 2010, does

the Minister think this policy which singles out young adults is going to

make that shameful statistic better or worse?

As I have said repeatedly we have put in place a long list of

exemptions to prevent homelessness, those unable to return to the family

home will be exempt from this policy and we do not expect to see an

increase in homelessness. The impact assessment is scandalous, can the

Minister tell us what impact was measured on the vulnerable young

person who has had to leave home due to difficulties or abuse who's been

asked to prove that abuse just so they can get house support they need

to live away from their family? A vulnerable young person who has

had to leave home because of abuse will of course be exempt.

Order. MrSpeaker, I beg to move that legal

be given to