Lib Dems reveal impact of 18-21 year olds losing housing benefit


726664_21aab1cb.jpg70 young people in Greenwich and Woolwich to be stripped of housing benefit

Over 120 young people in constituencies covered by Greenwich Borough will be affected by the Conservative government’s decision to strip 18-21 year olds of housing benefit, research by the House of Commons library commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has shown.

In total 18,000 young people across the country expected to be affected. The Liberal Democrats have committed to reverse the cuts, which came into force at the beginning of this month.

London is already suffering from high levels of homelessness and charities have warned that stripping 18-21 year-olds of housing benefits could push more young people onto the streets while research has shown it is likely to cost taxpayers more than it saves.

Liberal Democrat PPC Chris Adams commented:

"As someone who has worked with vulnerable young adults in the past, I have seen first hand the effect these kinds of cuts can have.

"The heartless decision to strip under-21s of housing benefit risks pushing more young people in Greenwich onto the streets.

“Younger generations have the most to lose from the increasingly divisive policies and hard Brexit agenda being pursued by this Conservative government.

“This election is a chance to change the direction of our country. The Liberal Democrats will restore housing benefit for 18-21 year olds and prevent a destructive hard Brexit robbing young people of their futures."

ENDS

Notes to Editors

Figures from the House of Commons library showing the number of 18-21 year olds in receipt of Housing Benefit who will be affected can be found here (link)

The latest figures on rough sleeper by local authority can be found here (link)

Charities have warned the policy will risk pushing thousands more young people onto the streets. Research by Heriot Watt University has claimed the policy will save just £3 million. This means if just 140 more young people were made homeless, the policy would actually cost taxpayers more money overall than it saves. (link)


Share this post on social media: