Tough love isn't enough to get Britain's NEETs working, says RUTH SUNDERLAND

Kemi Badenoch stole a phrase from Labour grandee Alan Milburn when she said ‘tough love’ is needed to tackle the crisis of nearly a million youngsters not in education, employment or training (NEETs)

The Tory leader echoed the words used a few weeks ago by Milburn, who will shortly publish the findings of his investigation into the problem.

His belief is young people who are able to work, including those on health benefits, should have their payments cut as a last resort if they refuse to engage with work or training programmes. This may go down better with Kemi than his Labour colleagues.

Former health secretary Alan Milburn will soon publish the findings of his NEETs investigation

The ‘tough love’ line is a tricky one. In isolation, it risks stigmatising young people who cannot simply conjure up jobs for themselves when employers are reluctant to recruit because of increases in the minimum wage and National Insurance, coupled with new workers’ rights.

Tough love is necessary, but not sufficient, to get Britain’s young people working.

To have a hope of that, the government must first fully acknowledge the scale of the issue along with its potential to cause long term damage to the economy and further inflate our bloated national debt.

Responsibility does not sit in any one department but is spread between education, health, work and pensions and Treasury. A Minister for NEETs might reduce the scope for buck-passing.

It would also focus minds in government if the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) were to look at the long-term risks posed by persistently high levels of NEETs to the public finances.

Unemployment at a young age has deep and lasting scarring effects.

It presents a high risk of lower attainment and earnings for the individual, lower tax receipts for the Exchequer and higher spending on welfare for the taxpayer.

A number of stabs at totting up the bill have already been made but none carries the weight the OBR would if it looked at NEETs in its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report, where it maps the trajectory of the national debt over the long term.

The various numbers flying around do, however, point to the seriousness.

Milburn estimates the total economic and social hit at £125bn a year.

Sir Charlie Mayfield, in his Keep Britain Working report into the costs of being out of the labour market due to ill health, found a 22-year-old could be more than £1m worse off over a lifetime than if they had been employed.

He pointed to a similar figure for the state in lost revenue and higher social security and health costs.

Other estimates from economists put the cost of a lifetime out of work from 25 to state pension age at nearly £750,000 for a single person with two kids.

The hope is that being NEET is a short-term condition, swiftly overcome.

Evidence suggests otherwise: Milburn found seven in ten youngsters who claim health and disability benefits are still receiving them a decade later.

Detachment from the labour market sets in rapidly. Only a quarter of those who have been out of work for more than a year manage to move back in.

An analysis by the OBR would translate what is often still seen as a social problem affecting kids from deprived areas into Treasury language, which might press home the case for spending money on prevention. It would force the Treasury to respond formally.

The OBR has already examined the effects of other forms of labour market inactivity. The NEETs scourge deserves scrutiny in its own right.

DIY INVESTING PLATFORMS

AJ Bell

AJ Bell

Easy investing and ready-made portfolios

Hargreaves Lansdown

Hargreaves Lansdown

Free fund dealing and investment ideas

interactive investor

interactive investor

Flat-fee investing from £4.99 per month

Freetrade

Freetrade

Investing Isa now free on basic plan

Trading 212

Trading 212

Free share dealing and no account fee

Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence.