Unemployed young northerners

In last night’s leaders’ debate all three parties emphasised the importance of increasing the number of apprenticeships and vocational training to help build our industrial base and get young people back into work. This is to be welcomed.

ippr north is currently researching some of the most deprived communities in northern England. For many of the young people we have spoken to, one of the major barriers they face in getting into work is having to have previous experience. They agree that having more apprenticeships and in-work training opportunities would most help them get into work. It’s also their experience that education and qualifications do not help, but ‘who you know’ does – which is also difficult for them to achieve.

These young people are critical of training courses that do not lead to work. Too often the major objective is simply for young people to be ‘seen’ to be meaningfully occupied; if the process has no job prospect at the end, there is a danger of vulnerable young people becoming even more disillusioned about the benefits of education and the opportunities available to them. This risks lowering aspiration, and reinforcing a belief that education does not lead to employment.

But perhaps most fundamentally for the North, the majority of the election debate has been focused on the issues of ‘labour supply’ – particularly training and skills – perhaps because this is the area where the leaders feel they have most levers.

For a sustainable recovery to happen in the North, the parties must do more to tackle the thorny issue of creating new, high-quality, low-skilled jobs. Only when jobs offer the opportunity for progression and decent pay, can they truly offer a way for people to improve their lives. The risk otherwise is that we further entrench inequality.

Evelyn Tehrani

The first step to tackling ‘the neet problem’… ditch the term ‘neet’

A new word has entered common usage as a result of this recession. With young people being the worst affected by the downturn (nearly double the percentage of 16-24 year olds are unemployed compared to the rest of the adult population), we’re hearing a lot about those who are not in employment, education or training. Or ‘neets’ as they’ve become known.

This is undoubtedly one of the most important problems thrown up by the recession. There is a mounting body of evidence that being unemployed early in life can ‘scar’ people later on. If you are out of work when young you are more likely to have spells of unemployment later in life. You’re likely to earn less in the future, too. And we know that being in work is massively important for general well-being, sense of identity and social mobility. So the Conservative candidate for Hammersmith, Shaun Bailey, was right to be hitting the streets this weekend to highlight the problem of youth unemployment. Despite a slew of programmes introduced by the Labour government – from guaranteeing jobs to increasing education places – it looks likely that they’ll miss their target of 7.6% of 16-18 year olds being ‘neet’ this year.

The trouble with ‘the neet problem’ is that it isn’t one problem. It’s lots of very different problems that have been unhelpfully bundled together in a single term. How can politicians come up with policies to help ‘neets’ when it includes everything from top graduates unable to find jobs and those leaving school with no qualifications? And what about those who are ‘neet’ in cities dependent on manufacturing compared to those in rural communities? And don’t forget the difference between men and women – women are four times more likely to have an identified barrier to entering the labour market than men.

The things that are stopping these groups entering the labour market, and the policies that would therefore help them find work, are quite different. So perhaps the first step to tackling the ‘neet problem’ would be to ditch the term ‘neet’. Then we can have a proper discussion about the range of policies that are needed to support these very different groups.

Jonathan Clifton

Apprentice pay

Apprentice pay might not be top of everyone’s agenda as we head towards a general election, but making sure apprentices get a decent wage is an important way of guaranteeing a bit more fairness for young people. So it’s great that government has agreed that all employed apprentices will be entitled to a minimum wage of £2.50 an hour from October. This single rate will replace a series of complex arrangements where some apprentices in England were paid a minimum £95 a week, but there was no minimum pay level for apprentices in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

ippr carried out some research with apprentices last summer and we met many apprentices doing hard and menial work four or five days a week for £95 a week, or less – in Belfast, we found hairdressing apprentices earning just £60 for a five-day week. Our research found that low apprentice pay was often linked to poor quality training and was a particular problem for young women in sectors like hairdressing and social care.

The apprentices we spoke to didn’t expect to be paid the same as friends working in call centres or offices, or more experienced colleagues. But they did expect a fair deal in return for their passion, commitment and growing skills.

The rate of £2.50 an hour can be criticised as being too low – apprentices will have to work at least 38 hours a week to earn the equivalent of the £95 weekly rate currently in place in England. Given the problems with youth unemployment at the moment and the difficulty in convincing some employers to take on apprentices, the £2.50 rate was probably the most that the Commission thought it could recommend.

But the move creates a framework for apprentices of all ages to receive an hourly, legal minimum wage, which is reviewed annually by the independent Low Pay Commission - and a rate that can be built on in future.

Kayte Lawton, research fellow, ippr