Burnham calls youth unemployment an “economic catastrophe” as jobs plan looms

Andy Burnham has described the number of young people not in education, employment or training as an “economic catastrophe and a moral failure”, ahead of a government plan on youth employment expected to be set out this week. The BBC reported that the prime minister put the figure at nearly one million 16 to 24-year-olds.

Speaking about the forthcoming proposals, Burnham argued that state support for young people should begin with training and job opportunities rather than with benefits. That framing signals the direction of the plan: an emphasis on getting young people into work or training quickly, with the benefit system expected to support that goal rather than substitute for it.

The scale of the problem is not in dispute. The number of young people classed as NEET — not in education, employment or training — has been rising, and now stands at close to one million across the UK. Behind the statistic are young people who left school during or after the pandemic years, who face a labour market with fewer entry-level openings, and who in many cases are dealing with poor mental health.

A million young people on the sidelines

The NEET figure covers a wide range of circumstances. Some are young people actively looking for work; others are caring for relatives, managing illness, or have simply given up on a system they feel has nothing to offer them. Economists warn that long spells out of work or education in the early twenties leave scars that last decades — lower earnings, worse health and a higher risk of future unemployment.

The government’s argument is that the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of intervention. Every young person who spends years outside work or training represents lost tax revenue, higher benefit spending and, more importantly, a life not lived to its potential. Burnham’s language — “catastrophe” and “moral failure” — is deliberate, intended to frame the plan as a national priority rather than a routine policy announcement.

The Conservatives have criticised the government’s approach, and the detail of the plan will determine whether that criticism gains traction. Previous youth employment schemes, under governments of both parties, have had mixed records. The most successful have combined wage subsidies with genuine training and a guaranteed interview or placement; the least successful have been little more than relabelled benefit conditions.

Training first, not benefits first

Burnham’s insistence that support should start with training and jobs rather than benefits will be read in two ways. Supporters will see a commitment to meaningful opportunity — apprenticeships, work placements and skills courses that lead somewhere. Critics will listen for what it implies about benefit entitlement for young people who cannot immediately take up a place, and for those whose health or caring responsibilities make work impossible.

The plan’s credibility will rest on the places actually being available. Youth unemployment is concentrated in particular towns and regions, and a national scheme that does not reach the places where young people are most disconnected will miss the point. Employers, colleges and local authorities will all need to play a part, and all will ask who is paying.

There is also a Scottish dimension. Employment support is partly devolved, and the Scottish Government runs its own programmes alongside UK-wide schemes. How the new plan interacts with existing Scottish provision — and whether funding follows — will matter to the tens of thousands of young Scots in the NEET group.

The week ahead

The full plan is expected within days. The measures to watch are the size of any wage subsidy, the number of guaranteed places, the role of the benefit system in enforcing take-up, and the funding for mental health support, which many young people in the NEET group say is the real barrier to work.

Nearly one million young people on the sidelines of the economy is, as the prime minister said, a failure with a long tail. The test of this week’s announcement is whether it treats that as a slogan or as a programme with money, places and deadlines attached.