The government's latest plan to tackle long-term youth unemployment has been labelled contradictory and self-defeating by policy experts, who argue it clashes with other legislation that restricts the very jobs young people rely on.
Guaranteed Placements vs. Benefit Sanctions
Last weekend, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden announced a new initiative on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. From 2025, 18–21-year-olds unemployed for 18 months or more will be guaranteed a six-month, taxpayer-funded placement in sectors like construction, hospitality, and care.
However, the scheme carries a strict condition: refusing a placement without good reason could lead to a loss of benefits. The government is allocating £820 million to fund the programme, which will start with 55,000 placements and promises 350,000 opportunities over several years.
The Zero-Hours Conundrum
Critics point to a glaring contradiction at the heart of the government's approach. While promoting this scheme, ministers are simultaneously advancing the Employment Rights Bill, which seeks to grant workers on zero-hour contracts a "right to guaranteed hours".
This move, though well-intentioned, is predicted to backfire for young workers. Matthew Bowles, a senior policy researcher at the Prosperity Institute, argues that many employers, particularly small businesses, will respond by offering no hours at all rather than guaranteed ones.
This is critical because zero-hour contracts are a primary entry point for young people. Recent data from the Work Foundation reveals 1.2 million people are on such contracts, with a record 508,000 aged 16-24. In 2023, over 60% of the 136,000 new zero-hour contracts went to this age group.
A Shrinking Gateway to Work
The government's stance creates a double bind. It criticises youth idleness while potentially dismantling a flexible work model that half a million young Britons currently use. For sectors like retail and hospitality, which face variable demand, this flexibility is an economic necessity, not a moral failing.
"The government’s overriding stance manages the feat of being self-defeating from both ends," writes Bowles. "It blames young people for not working, while simultaneously restricting an attractive and accessible type of work."
The true barriers to youth employment, experts suggest, are regulatory burdens and direct costs on hiring. The recent hike in employer National Insurance acts as a direct tax on jobs, making inexperienced young workers a more expensive risk.
The conclusion is stark: if the goal is more youth employment, making hiring cheaper and easier is more effective than state-subsidised placements that may merely camouflage a shrinking job market. The young, as Bowles concludes, need real chances from businesses free to hire and take risks—not performative gestures from Westminster.
