The chancellor has announced a new scheme to get the under-25-year-olds that are currently not in work, training or education, the so-called NEETS, offering a guaranteed job for those of them that have been out of work for 18 months or more, and a reduction in benefits for those who ‘unreasonably’ refuse a job offer.
First, I do not believe that this will offset the damage already done to young people’s employment prospects by the Chancellor’s imposition of a job’s tax on businesses through increased employers’ National Insurance contributions.
Second, the eighteen month threshold is far too late. By that time, the propensity to live on benefits will have become a habit. People will have got used to it and will have found ways of adapting in order to get by.
Third, What constitutes ‘unreasonably’ refusing a job offer?
The current cohort of under-twenty fives appear much less work-ready than their predecessors. This partly stems from the pandemic and the substantial school absenteeism that has followed it. Though my prejudice is that much of it also flows from the degenerative effects of social media and video games. In addition, many fewer young people now have had the experience of part-time jobs during school and university holidays than in previous generations. All this means that the system will need to be rigorous. The availability of benefits is part of the problem: Life on benefit must absolutely be less eligible than full-time employment, otherwise, for many, it will be a favoured choice.
Fourth, the announcement does nothing to address the alarming growth amongst young people opting for Personal Independence payments (PIP) because they have mental health ‘issues’- be it stress, anxiety, or whatever. Apparently, coaching now can be had from online ‘influencers’ for successful completion of the PIP application process (which, extraordinarily, is increasingly conducted over the telephone, rather than face to face).
Fifth, though in this column on 4th September I expressed my scepticism about the impact of Artificial Intelligence on the jobs market ( Artificial Intelligence ), nevertheless, if it is going to have an increasing impact on the work opportunities for young people, then the Chancellor’s scheme will need to rise to that challenge.
For all these reasons I believe that what has been proposed does not address the generational problem that we now face. We simply cannot afford to allow a generation to become addicted to a life on benefits.
We Must be bold and radical. The great non-event of last year’s election was the proposal for the re-introduction of National Service. I thought that it would dominate the campaign, but it became a damp squib buried by gambling allegations, the PM’s early departure from D Day celebrations, and the rest. But its time is now: we need National Service to give young people the opportunity of earned income, discipline & routine, skills, self-esteem and the confidence that so many of them are now lacking.