Labour under Andy Burnham has softened some of its harsher rhetoric about young people on benefits – as recently as last December, Pat McFadden told the BBC that young people on benefits would need a “good reason” to decline one of the government’s proposed work placements.
But any genuine worry about a continued “lost generation” – or what Alan Milburn called a “bedroom generation” in his interim report – is still tempered by Labour’s attachment to current neo‑liberal economics and its focus on meeting fiscal rules. This also explains the very limited resources allocated to its Youth Guarantee aimed at helping under‑25s struggling to enter the workplace.
Yet benefits for under‑25s make up only a tiny fraction of the £340 billion welfare bill – less than 2% and they account for just 15% of Universal Credit spending. Not all of these young claimants are NEETs either. Around 40–45% of under‑25s on UC (roughly 450,000–520,000) are in work. Like many older adults, they qualify because of low wages or high housing costs, especially in certain areas.
The number of NEETs unable to work due to long‑term physical or mental health conditions continues to attract attention from right‑wing newspapers. But the headline figure – around 300,000 – is smaller than the rapidly growing number of 25–34‑year‑olds in similar circumstances (around 650,000).
Despite this, the government is considering major welfare changes for under‑25s, including replacing disability payments with a new, arguably cheaper, “Back to Work” scheme. McFadden has also announced that some NEETs with conditions such as autism and ADHD will be fast‑tracked into work placements, blurring the line between being ‘available’ and ‘not available’ for employment.
This (300,000) figure – undeniably concerning – is still lower than the estimated 400,000 young people who are NEET but not claiming any benefits at all. This group includes recent graduates living with parents while job‑hunting, but also thousands who have given up looking for work entirely. Living “off‑grid” and getting by through other means, most have no contact with job‑finding agencies or support networks and would not qualify for Labour’s job‑guarantee schemes.
Like many countries, the UK is an ageing society. Over 40% of the welfare bill is spent on pensions (with social‑care, because it is delivered by local authorities, counted separately). For government, this represents a far greater fiscal challenge – and a politically sensitive one, given that pensioners are more likely to vote than young people. Facing renewed, if self-imposed austerity, has government attention now turned to the triple lock rather than the relatively small costs associated with under‑25s?
