The report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Is Britain Fairer?, published late last year, drew further attention to the growing problem of youth poverty. While the proportion of older people living in poverty has fallen sharply, this figure has gone in the opposite direction for 16-24-year-olds. 30.5 per cent of them are living in poverty, more than any other age group. Yet, despite this problem, George Osborne has chosen exclude the almost four million workers aged 24 and under from the new ‘national living wage.’
So what is the rationale or justification behind excluding these workers from this move? Why have the Tories followed Greece’s example and become one of only two Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries to discriminate in this way up to the age of 25?
There has been very little said publicly about why younger workers were excluded and certainly no evidence to support why this new seemingly arbitrary line should be drawn in the sand.
Maybe the reason is that stated by Matthew Hancock the paymaster general who told a party conference fringe meeting that:
Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average. Now there are some who are very productive under the age of 25 but you have to set policy for the average. It was an active choice not to cover the under-25s.
Having employed hundreds of people under 25 (many in their first job) at London 2012, the Labour party and at a number of universities I can report that have found them to almost universally been brilliant.
There is a serious dialogue to counter this rhetoric and action needs to taken as young people continue to suffer at the hands of this government. There is even a growing disquiet about such policies within the Conservative party that Labour must seek to capitalise upon. Former universities minister David Willetts has even argued that such policies are ‘justified by arguing that somehow the younger generation are feckless or incompetent.’
Yet despite all of this the current policy views of Labour’s leadership in this area are also unhelpful for young workers. Having been elected as leader with substantial support from young people, Jeremy Corbyn now has to deliver on their expectations. Nick Clegg knows only too well the consequences if you do not. But to be credible, electable and ultimately implementable, many of his policies for young people need be a given a heady dose of realism.
Both Corbyn and McDonnell have called for a £10 minimum wage for all workers. The A Better Future For Young People publication explicitly called for an end to ‘the exploitation of young people and replace the current £2.73 per hour apprenticeship rate with an equalisation of a higher, £10 living wage across the board.’ At the same time it says, ‘Labour must do more to increase and improve apprenticeships schemes.’
If we as a party are serious about ending youth poverty and doing right by young people, then we need a serious policy. There is a careful balance to strike between ensuring that young people are fairly paid while also protecting them from the risks of unemployment. A proposal for a £10 minimum wage for apprentices is neither credible to business, or to the electorate. How do you increase and improve apprenticeships if an employer has to pay them the same wage as a fully trained worker?
With just 10 per cent of Level 2 and Level 3 apprentices currently earn £10 an hour, any move to make this mandatory for the other 90 per cent would lead to a dramatic decrease in apprenticeships and consequentially the skills and employment prospects of young people would ultimately suffer.
Now more than every the young people of Britain need more than hope. They need a credible Labour government that can end the Tory nightmare, not an opposition offering impossible dreams.
———————————-
Gareth Smith was the head of general election 2015 youth strategy and engagement for the Labour party. He now works in the higher education sector and tweets @garethsmith2012
———————————-