UNDER-25s who claim Universal Credit as care-leavers are disadvantaged by the law, the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, said in the House of Lords last week.
He argued for an increase in their benefits to “equalise the standard allowance for Universal Credit”, which would give them “the support they need to flourish”, he said.
This cohort of 92,000 young adults represented 92,000 care-leavers, Dr Walker explained; they received £81.77 (21 per cent) less in Universal Credit per month than over-25s. Addressing the disparity “would see their monthly payment increase to a total of £393.45 . . . not a huge sum to live on”.
Through the charity Become, he, with the Bishop of Derby, the Rt Revd Libby Lane, had spoken to young people with experience of care. Additional support, particularly up to the age of 18, would be highly beneficial, considering the evidence that “being in care is one of the key adverse childhood experiences that can exacerbate problems in later life,” he said.
They were “significantly more likely not to be in education, employment, or training” than the general population, and “for a very large number, there is no family home to go back to”. The benefits system and local authorities could be inconsistent in recognising their circumstances.
“The under-25 rate is not sufficient to meet their needs. Many are struggling to pay bills. To put it bluntly, most young care-leavers do not have the financial cushion of the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ or any equivalent. The State has been their family; so it should accept some ongoing responsibility, which is what I am trying to achieve through this Bill.”
It was the Second Reading of this draft legislation which he had proposed.
Bishop Lane declared her position as chair of the Children’s Society, “a charity rooted in the Church of England and a key partner in the Church’s work to support care-experienced children and young people”. She referred to three themes from the conversations with care-leavers: vulnerability, inconsistency, and disempowerment. Homelessness was a real risk for many of them, she said, along with debt, and she spoke of “the traumatising experience of being in council-tax arrears”.
It was, she said, “simply unacceptable to allow some of the most vulnerable young adults in our country to continue to face undue and unnecessary financial pressures just at the time when they are striving to build healthy, positive, and productive lives”.
Baroness Bennett, a former leader of the Green Party, referred to the mental-health impact, the homelessness issue, and the lack of parity in payments across councils, as some were paying less than expected.
Lord Watson (Labour) said that he was “indebted to . . . Lady Sherlock, herself an ordained priest in the Church of England and now the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions . . . the only person I have come across who can explain Universal Credit in a manner that is understandable”.
The moral dimension was referred to several times. Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour) saw it as “a moral issue. We owe these young people the best possible start in life.” Lord Palmer (Liberal Democrat) said that by “depriving these young people of a small sum of money . . . we are not behaving in a moral manner. This small investment — in national terms — could have significant human and financial benefits, reducing the risk of poverty, mental ill-health, homelessness, and debt.”
Responding officially, Baroness Blake (Labour) thanked Dr Walker “for his eloquent advocacy and for the briefing we had”, and outlined how “the Government do not believe the Bill is the best way to deliver all the support that we believe care-leavers deserve.”
In conclusion, Dr Walker pleaded for recognition that “a moral and financial case . . . can both point in the same direction, particularly when we look long-term.”