UNDER-25s who claim Universal Credit as care-leavers are disadvantaged by the law, the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, said within the House of Lords last week.
He argued for a rise of their advantages to “equalise the usual allowance for Universal Credit”, which might give them “the support they should 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 30 days than over-25s. Addressing the disparity “would see their monthly payment increase to a complete of £393.45 . . . not an enormous sum to survive”.
Through the charity Become, he, with the Bishop of Derby, the Rt Revd Libby Lane, had spoken to young individuals with experience of care. Additional support, particularly as much as the age of 18, can be highly useful, considering the evidence that “being in care is considered one of the important thing antagonistic childhood experiences that may exacerbate problems in later life,” he said.
They were “significantly more likely to not be in education, employment, or training” than the final population, and “for a really large number, there isn’t any family home to return to”. The advantages system and native authorities could possibly be inconsistent in recognising their circumstances.
“The under-25 rate isn’t sufficient to fulfill their needs. Many are struggling to pay bills. To put it bluntly, most young care-leavers don’t 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’m trying to realize through this Bill.”
It was the Second Reading of this draft laws which he had proposed.
Bishop Lane declared her position as chair of the Children’s Society, “a charity rooted within the Church of England and a key partner within the Church’s work to support care-experienced children and young people”. She referred to a few themes from the conversations with care-leavers: vulnerability, inconsistency, and disempowerment. Homelessness was an actual risk for a lot of them, she said, together with debt, and she or he spoke of “the traumatising experience of being in council-tax arrears”.
It was, she said, “simply unacceptable to permit a number of the most vulnerable young adults in our country to proceed to face undue and unnecessary financial pressures just on the time once they are striving to construct 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 shortage of parity in payments across councils, as some were paying lower than expected.
Lord Watson (Labour) said that he was “indebted to . . . Lady Sherlock, herself an ordained priest within the Church of England and now the Minister of State on the Department for Work and Pensions . . . the one person I even have come across who can explain Universal Credit in a way that’s comprehensible”.
The moral dimension was referred to several times. Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour) saw it as “an ethical issue. We owe these young people the perfect possible start in life.” Lord Palmer (Liberal Democrat) said that by “depriving these young people of a small sum of cash . . . we will not be behaving in an ethical manner. This small investment — in national terms — could have significant human and financial advantages, reducing the danger 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 don’t imagine the Bill is the perfect method to deliver all of the support that we imagine care-leavers deserve.”
In conclusion, Dr Walker pleaded for recognition that “an ethical and financial case . . . can each point in the identical direction, particularly after we look long-term.”
