If the coalition wants to reduce NEETs, it should bring back EMA

Since the Education Maintenance Allowance was abolished, full-time attendance for 16-18-year-olds has fallen by 3.8 per cent.

"It should not be forgotten", wrote William Hazlitt in his classic essay On the Ignorance of the Learned, "that the least respectable character among modern politicians was the cleverest boy at Eton." This will never seem truer than from the discussion over the government’s plans to take benefits away from young people, only a week after an old Etonian proclaimed permanent austerity, and days after another says the super rich are a "put-on minority".

It seems perverse that when the number of NEETs in our country is larger than a city the size of Birmingham, the way to solve this problem is to further undermine them, while at the same time further enriching those whp benefit most from government policy.

What this represents is another crude right-wing attack on social security, portraying benefits not as part of a safety net to protect people, regardless of age, from market forces beyond their control, but as social stigma, handed down from on high to those deemed victims of their own fecklessness.

This unbalance in priorities is building up future costs. According to the government, the estimated cost across the lifetime of each 16-18 year old NEET equates to a £56,000 loss to the taxpayer, and a further £104,000 loss to the economy; and when combined and added up, the aggregate cost of all those classed as NEET is over £100bn.

Instead of talking tough on young people, the damage being done to them should be reconsidered. Evidence is slowly rising that austerity policies, such as the abolition Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), were a grave mistake by this government. From the Department for Education’s own data, for the second year since the EMA was abolished at the end of 2010, full-time attendance for 16-18-year-olds has fallen by 3.8 per cent. This equates to over 52,100 fewer students lost from the education system, with a potential cost of £8.3bn added to the taxpayer and the economy if they go on to be NEET.

This is the equivalent of filling the House of Commons Chamber more than 80 times over. It is bigger than the student body of both Oxford and Cambridge combined. And if it was assembled in one straight line, it would reach from Nick Clegg’s house in Putney to the door of No. 10 Downing Street, and almost back again.

Of course, it is too soon to prove with certainty that this is due to the scrapping of EMA alone. But it does suggest that the government has dangerously undermined an entire age group through policies such as this. And it provides fertile ground for the proposals by IPPR to fix "the broken school-to-work transition" with a 'youth allowance' and 'youth guarantee'.

But the way in which the reforms are presented risks chastising young people for problems they did not create and letting the super rich off the hook. For example, one chilling suggestion in the IPPR report is the withdrawal of Employment and Support Allowance from disabled young people, forcing them to take a near 40% cut in their incomes by instead claiming the 'youth allowance'. This is done chiefly to save money. It could prove penny wise, but pound foolish, if it makes recipients hostile to the scheme. 

As for Cameron and Osborne, in the week we found NEETs remain a city-sized problem, they must show young people in the Autumn Statement that they are respectable characters - and not just clever boys from Eton.

James Mills is a Labour researcher and led the Save EMA campaign

Protesting students carry a cardboard skip opposite Downing Street on March 16, 2011 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May confirms Brexit Britain out of the single market – 8 other things we learnt

The Prime Minister dropped the Brexit bombshell that we're out of the single market, and more. 

Theresa May confirmed suspicions that the UK will leave the single market after Brexit in a major speech on her objectives.

The Prime Minister said the Brexit vote was a clear message about controlling immigration, and “that is what we will deliver” – but this meant the UK could not continue following the rules of the single market

She said: I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the  single market. European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the “four freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people.

"And being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are."

May also repeated that maintaining the open land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would be a priority, and that she wanted trade deals with the rest of the world.

But leaving the single market wasn’t the only Brexit bombshell May dropped. Here is what we learnt:

1. The single market may be replaced by a European free trade deal

The Prime Minister has ruled out a single market, but is hoping for a deal to replace it. She said: “As a priority we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with our neighbours in Europe."

2. No more European Court of Justice

May said Brexit will end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain, and that “laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country”.

3. Parliament will get a vote on the Brexit deal

Most MPs already expected to get a vote – as their peers in the European Parliament would get one. May confirmed this, saying: "I can confirm today that the government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.."

4. EU citizens still face uncertainty

May has always been clear she wants to confirm EU citizens’ right to remain in the UK, but only if British citizens receive the same guarantee in other EU countries.

She made no further guarantees, saying: "I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now. Many of them favour such an agreement - one or two others do not"

5. She will try to stay in the customs union

May explicitly said the UK will have to leave the EU single market, but she was far more nuanced on the customs union, which negotiates trade deals on behalf of the EU member states.

She does not want Britain to share the EU’s common commercial policy, or be bound by common external tariffs, but does want to “have a customs agreement with the EU”. This could mean the UK becoming “an associate member of the customs union”. 

6. Some payments may continue

May said that Britain voted to stop large contributions to the EU, but she stopped short of ruling them out altogether. There may be payments that are “appropriate”, she said, if there are programmes the UK wants to be part of.  

7. Brexit could be in phases

The PM said several times she wanted to reassure businesses – who are increasingly unhappy about the uncertainty ahead. She wants the negotiators avoid a “cliff edge”, but also avoid “permanent political purgatory” (something Brexiteers fear). 

May suggested a deal could be done by the time the two-year process of Article 50 ends, and this could be followed by a “phased process of implementation”.

It’s worth bearing in mind at this point that two years in EU deal-making time is extremely speedy.

8. The UK’s nuclear option: Corporate tax haven

The Chancellor Philip Hammond has already floated the idea that a disgruntled Britain could slash corporate tax in order to attract unscrupulous multinationals to its shores.

May said that the UK would be prepared to crash out without an agreement, saying “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”. 

In such a situation, Britain "would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain". In other words, become an offshore tax haven. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.