Betrayal of a generation
Cutting benefits for young people will increase homelessness and will cost more, says Frances Beecher
AS THE FORTHCOMING general election looms large over the UK, it is clear that ‘welfare reform’ will be part of the economic and social landscape for some time to come. Regardless of the hue of the incoming government, it seems that young people will bear the brunt of both major political parties’ plans to save money. Indeed, the Conservatives suggest that savings of £128 million a year could be made by axing housing benefit for 18-21 year olds on jobseekers allowance.
In my opinion, this cruel betrayal of a whole generation of young people is yet another attempt by the ruling party to balance our nation’s books on the backs of those least able to withstand the pressure.
Should it ever come to be implemented, it is acknowledged by all political parties that there would need to be some exemptions to this policy for those
most vulnerable in society – a welcome amelioration of this ill thought out policy direction. Yet there seems to be little acknowledgement that for 15 per cent of young claimants housing benefit is the only way they can make the ends of low wages and high rents meet.
As worrying for me is the likelihood that this policy will significantly increase homelessness for whole groups of young people already reliant on housing benefit for their home. Obviously, being homeless makes sustaining employment incredibly difficult, and thus, a perhaps unintended consequence of this policy is likely to be a rise in unemployment as well.
Profiting from benefit
Most concerning though is the implication by successive governments, and swathes of mainstream media, that young people are somehow profiting from their housing benefit claim, that the money they receive lines their pockets and pays for drugs, alcohol and huge televisions. This serves only to scapegoat young people who receive this payment simply to help them pay the rents imposed by their landlords.
It seems to me that the principles of supply and demand are at play here. The lack of appropriate, affordable housing is driving up rents, which is in turn, driving up the housing benefit bill. Building new, affordable, homes will not only increase supply and reduce demand but will contribute to wider economic growth. Cuts to housing benefit will not save money, but will increase the costs to the public purse. But these are simply economic costs. What of the societal costs of the message this policy gives to young people, that they do not deserve somewhere to live, that they are not worthy of our support when they need it most.
Homelessness does not exist in isolation. Almost universally, homelessness is accompanied by poor mental and physical health, substance misuse, offending, violence and abuse. What sort of society will we be if we do not prevent this travesty from taking place?
Poor justification
My belief that cutting housing benefit in this way will cost, rather than save money is not new; it is a view shared across the voluntary and political sector.
It is in fact, a view endorsed by a new academic study (Lifeline not Lifestyle) by Heriot Watt University, in partnership with the End Youth Homelessness Alliance, of which Llamau is a proud member.
The key findings of this study show that after all exemptions, increased costs of homelessness, unemployment and costs to society through issues like increased use of NHS, increased involvement in the criminal justice system and so on, the maximum savings that could be made by axing housing benefit in this way are just £3.3 million, a drop in the ocean of the overall welfare bill. The research concludes that only an additional 140 young people will need to become homeless before the policy would end up costing more than it saved. That is a poor justification for the betrayal of a generation of young people.
If implemented, this insidious policy, alongside those already introduced, will result in a generation of young people excluded from society, at risk of homelessness, and unable to live independently until they are well into adulthood. How can it be right to relegate a generation of young people in their 20s to life in their childhood bedroom, in cramped home life conditions, or homelessness and despair, whilst effectively raising, rather than reducing costs?
Time and again, the issue of welfare reform is seen as an economic, rather than societal one. However, the young people of today have the right to be active citizens of tomorrow. They need to be offered more than despair and disregard. They need a stake in our society, which comes by investing in them, not penalising them; by providing affordable homes in places where they want to live; by ensuring that employment pays enough to live; by encouraging their progress and not stifling it. We call on all political parties to recognise that welfare reform is not about economics, but about society. We call on all political parties to address the issue of housing supply, quality and affordability; to address the issue of low paid, low quality jobs, of zero hour contracts. And, most importantly, we call on all political parties to stop making young people the problem, when all of us who work with young people know that they are, in fact, the solution. We need to support young people to unlock their potential, and that starts with somewhere safe to stay.
Frances Beecher is chief executive of Llamau