Raw deal for young people

The Prime Minister says he wants to remove housing benefit for under-25s. This cheap and desperate trick hasn't yet been turned into reality - and I hope it remains that way.

Should the proposals go ahead, thousands of young people will be made homeless - and what's more no public money will be raised or saved overall.

Although the Lib Dems are making a bit of a fuss over the plans we can't afford to be complacent that David Cameron won't turn his dream into our nightmare.

Young people have it tough as it is. Many are forced to live with their parents because they simply cannot afford a home of their own.

But what about those who, for one reason or another, cannot live with their parents?

Homelessness charity Crisis has found that one-third of those accepted as homeless by their councils were under 25.

And 10,000 had lost the roof over their heads because their parents could not or would not house them.

What will happen to those young people if housing benefit is cut?

Half the young people on housing benefit have children. Moreover, 28,000 young people receiving housing benefit are sick or disabled.

How does Cameron expect those people to cope without any housing benefit at all?

While places such as St Mungo's provide accommodation to more than 17,000 people every night and help thousands more who are sleeping rough or are at risk of homelessness, when those who rely on housing benefit lose it those figures can only be magnified.

I recently led a special debate in the Commons about the abolition of housing benefit for young people and was bombarded with briefings from organisations that work with young people detailing the consequences of such a step. The Prince's Trust, Crisis and Shelter all raised their concerns.

My Commons debate therefore looked at the detail of young people's lives and brought together statistics to indicate the devastation that would be wrought should the plans go ahead.

• Of those aged under 25 who claim housing benefit, 17 per cent are in work, but the benefit closes the gap between accommodation costs and their earnings.
• Many young people endure low pay. The minimum wage for 16 to 17-year-olds is £3.68 an hour and £4.98 an hour for those aged 18 to 20. Young people on apprenticeships earn only £2.60 an hour.
• The Low Pay Commission says that young people are disproportionately likely to be paid the minimum wage for their age - 13 per cent of 18 to 20-year-olds are on £4.98 an hour.
• Most young people who claim housing benefit are not in work, but young people all want to work. In a recent survey by the Prince's Trust, young people who had previously been unemployed were asked how many jobs they had applied for, and the most common response was that they had made more than 100 applications.

The government says it wants young people to take up its apprentice schemes, but apprenticeship wages are low - at £2.60 an hour.

If the government takes housing benefit from those young people - particularly the most vulnerable, who potentially have the most to gain from apprenticeships - it will be yet another barrier to their future in work.

The Prince's Trust also points out that young people who want to strike out on their own in business are often lone parents who claim housing benefit.

They need it to supplement their incomes until their business is profitable enough to cover accommodation costs. Why should those young people be denied opportunity because they cannot afford a roof over their head, while the very rich get huge tax breaks?

Case study: Why it doesn't have to be like this

In my constituency of North Tyneside there is a scheme called Maritime Court, which offers support and guidance.

Everyone using the scheme is encouraged to discuss their needs and they are given information to help them make informed decisions.

They get advice and support on issues such as life skills, benefits, budgeting, employment and education.

The service offers a low to medium-level of housing-related support. It has 24-hour staffing all year round.

Young people get support for up to two years, living in accommodation there until such time that they are able to move into accommodation in the community.

I want to give a couple of examples from Maritime Court to show how young people's lives need to and can be turned around, and why housing benefit is crucial. I have anonymised the cases.

CASE STYDY 1: Sue went into the project when she was 17, with numerous needs. She had been rehomed and lived in one of charity Depaul UK's lodgings within a family home environment, because she had been asked to leave her parents' house.

She had some skills but no experience of living on her own or managing a tenancy.

Sue had led a chaotic lifestyle, as a lot of young people do, which was compounded because her mother had moved around, having had a lot of debt and rent arrears.

Her parents had separated and she had an awkward relationship with her mother.

She was often left to fend for herself and her young sister from an early age.

Sue received no family support when she was at home with her mother, so she was a young person on her own.

She had also suffered domestic abuse from family members and friends, so she was highly vulnerable. She needed support with money management, developing relationships and tackling offending behaviour. She also had mental health and communication problems.

During Sue's time with the scheme, the massive support she received enabled her to overcome many of her problems, and she became a mature person who was able to deal with difficult situations.

She has moved on through Maritime Court and has been able to work with North Tyneside council and get into independent living.

Sue is starting a placement and is looking forward to training for a new career. That would not have happened had it not been for Maritime Court and for housing benefit.

CASE STYDY 2: Another referral to Maritime Court was from North Tyneside council's men's direct access unit.

Lee had mild learning difficulties and cerebral palsy. He engaged well with staff from day one, but he seemed to rely on staff for company. He would often go out and have a good drink, but he was never aggressive.

Staff realised that he was a very vulnerable person because the only way he could have friends was by allowing people into his flat in Maritime Court.

He lived on the ground floor, so the staff moved him upstairs, which helped to solve some of his problems.

Lee was on a lot of benefit because of his disabilities, but he would often come back with no money once he had got paid because people were taking advantage of him. The people at Maritime Court took over the management of his money and helped him with his benefit.

He started to turn his life around. Eventually, staff found him a place in South Shields, which is across the river, in an area near where his girlfriend lives. With all the support he had, he was able to set up in South Shields, and he is still doing extremely well there.

The Prime Minister should not play petty political games on this issue and his change should be opposed as strongly as possible.