Tory plans to axe benefits from under 25s if they have not worked continuously for six months are “oblivious” to the harsh conditions facing young people living in poverty, experts warn.

Article continues below

Under the proposals for a “tough love” approach, unemployed people aged 16-24, who are able to work, must enrol on a new Get to Work scheme to be able to claim financial support.

To receive the “Get to Work allowance”, which will replace Universal Credit, they will have to attend job centres on a daily basis, and take part in work experience placements, training courses or community work schemes through local councils.

After six months on Get to Work, young people still seeking to claim Universal Credit but not working will drop down to the Subsistence Allowance, worth 70% of their previous claim. Young people who are able to work will not be able to receive any welfare if they don’t take part in the scheme.

Experts and campaigners criticised the plans as being an “attention-grabbing” tick-box approach that fails to address the barriers young people face when trying to get jobs.

They warned that cutting youngsters’ benefits would mimic how austerity drove people into poverty and called for targeted employment support that treats people with “dignity”.

The Conservative’s announcement comes ahead of the party’s annual conference in Birmingham, which kicks off on Sunday. Getting young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs) has been a key topic across all the major political parties’ conferences this year, amid a record one million NEETs. A review by former Labour minister Alan Milburn on the crisis is due to publish its final report this autumn.

Jen Clark, Amnesty International UK’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Lead, said: “This attention grabbing ‘tough love’ approach is oblivious to the realities of the job market and the harsh conditions facing young people living in poverty. We already know that punitive sanctions do not help young people move into work.

Article continues below

“Young people are disproportionately sanctioned on Universal Credit, yet many continue to struggle to find secure employment, even the DWP’s research shows this.

“People need social security and employment support that protects them with dignity, not a system that punishes them for not being able to make ends meet.”

Helen Barnard, director of policy and research at Trussell, warned that threatening to remove people’s support would only make it harder for them to find jobs, saying: “Universal Credit already falls well short of what people need to afford the essentials like food, bills and toiletries – and it’s forcing people to food banks. When you’re struggling to pay for food and keep a roof over your head – the threat of losing financial support makes it harder, not easier, to find and keep a job.”

She went on: “We’ve got years of evidence of the failings of a tick-box approach. Meetings with over-stretched work coaches are already too short and often do little to actually move people into training or work. We need more meaningful, good quality support, not simply more of the same.”

Child Poverty Action Group’s director of policy Sara Ogilvie added: “If we learnt anything from the austerity era it’s that cutting social security support drives up child poverty and cuts young people off from opportunity.

“Much better training and employment support is needed but blocking access to universal credit would not remove young people from jeopardy, it would dig the most disadvantaged deeper into hardship.”

Two thirds of young disabled people with complex needs say that jobcentres do not offer the support they need to overcome the barriers they face, according to an August survey of young disabled people with complex needs aged 16 to 25 by disability charity Sense.

Some 72% say there are too few jobs that meet their needs and 71% want more specialist employment support.

Harriet Edwards, Director of Influencing at Sense, which supports disabled people with complex needs, said: “Too many young disabled people with complex needs who want to work are being denied the opportunity because of the barriers they face. We welcome policies that support more young disabled people into employment, but ‘tough love’ and threatening young people with financial hardship if they cannot find work is the wrong approach.”

Article continues below

Haroon Chowdry, Chief Executive of the Centre for Young Lives think tank said: “No young person should be written off or left to languish on welfare without support to get into work, training, or education. But this is a complex crisis without a single quick fix. This national emergency demands a wide-ranging package of policies that together provide every young person with the help they need to enter employment or take up training or education.”

Kemi Badenoch said the benefits system is “unfair to the people who get up and go to work”. “It’s unfair to the people who get up and go to work, having others earn more than them for not working,” she told The Spectator magazine. “Even families on benefits know that the system is out of control. But no one wants to be the one to get off the treadmill first. We need to force that. Government has to do that.”

Tory Plan to Axe Under-25s’ Benefits ‘Oblivious’ to the Harsh Poverty Young People Face

A Conservative proposal to restrict access to welfare benefits for young people under the age of 25 has sparked fierce debate over poverty, unemployment and the challenges facing a generation struggling to establish financial independence. Critics have warned that the plan risks pushing vulnerable young people into deeper hardship, arguing that reducing financial support will not automatically create jobs or remove the barriers preventing people from entering employment.

The proposal, promoted by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, centres on a new “Get to Work” scheme for unemployed young people who are considered capable of working. Under the plans, eligible people aged 16 to 24 would be expected to participate in job-search activities, training, work experience or community work to receive financial assistance. Those who refuse to participate could lose access to welfare support, while those who remain unemployed after six months could see their payments reduced to a subsistence allowance worth 70 per cent of their previous claim. These are proposed changes rather than a description of the existing benefits system. (AOL, October 1, 2026.)

The Conservatives say the policy would encourage more young people to enter employment and prevent long-term dependence on benefits. However, poverty campaigners and organisations supporting disadvantaged young people have questioned whether a system built around stricter conditions can succeed without addressing the economic and social problems that make finding work difficult.

A generation facing financial pressure

For many young people across Britain, becoming financially independent has become increasingly difficult. High housing costs, expensive transport, insecure employment and rising household bills can make the transition from education to working life particularly challenging.

Young adults leaving school or college may find themselves competing for entry-level positions that attract large numbers of applicants. Others struggle to obtain the qualifications, experience or professional connections employers expect. For those without family support, even a short period of unemployment can quickly lead to problems paying for food, transport and accommodation.

The difficulties can be even greater for young people who have experienced homelessness, family breakdown or time in care. Without relatives able to provide money, temporary accommodation or help with job applications, they may have to overcome obstacles that other applicants never encounter.

These circumstances form an important part of the debate over the Conservative proposal.

Critics argue that unemployment among young people cannot be understood simply as a question of motivation. While some people may need stronger incentives to look for work, others are actively searching for employment but cannot find suitable opportunities.

For them, losing financial assistance would not necessarily increase their chances of getting hired. It could instead make it harder to travel to interviews, maintain suitable clothing, access the internet or afford the basic necessities required to sustain a job search.

Why the Conservatives want tougher conditions

The Conservative argument begins with concerns about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, commonly known as NEETs.

An independent government review published in August 2026 highlighted the scale of the problem, describing the situation as a major national challenge. The review reported that nearly one million young people aged 16 to 24 were outside education, employment or training. It called for a stronger response to prevent young people from becoming detached from the labour market. (Department for Work and Pensions, Young People and Work: Interim Report.)

The Conservatives argue that the welfare system must do more than provide financial assistance. In their view, it should actively encourage people to develop skills, attend interviews and move towards employment.

Under the proposed Get to Work scheme, young claimants would face a more structured routine. Activities could include attending job centres, undertaking training, participating in work placements and completing community-based assignments.

The party presents this approach as a combination of financial support and personal responsibility. Rather than allowing young people to remain on conventional unemployment benefits without making sufficient progress, the scheme would require them to demonstrate ongoing participation in activities designed to improve their employment prospects.

Supporters of stricter welfare conditions argue that prolonged unemployment can become difficult to escape. Without regular contact with employers or access to training, people may lose confidence, experience gaps in their CVs and find it increasingly difficult to compete for available jobs.

From this perspective, a structured programme could provide a route back into work while ensuring that public money is connected to clear expectations.

However, the success of such a policy would depend heavily on the quality of the support offered and the availability of genuine employment opportunities.

Poverty campaigners warn of deeper hardship

Organisations working with people experiencing poverty have challenged the assumption that reducing benefits will necessarily encourage employment.

Amnesty International UK’s economic and social rights lead, Jen Clark, criticised the proposed approach as an attention-grabbing policy that overlooks the realities of the job market and the difficult conditions facing young people living in poverty.

Campaigners argue that financial insecurity can undermine the very activities that help people find work. A young person who cannot afford transport may struggle to attend an interview. Someone facing homelessness may find it difficult to maintain a regular schedule or keep important documents safe. Those who cannot afford adequate food may also struggle to concentrate during training or perform well in an interview.

Helen Barnard, director of policy and research at the Trussell food bank network, warned that Universal Credit already falls short of what many people need to cover essentials. She argued that threatening to remove financial support could make it harder for unemployed people to find and keep jobs.

The concern is that a reduction in income might create a damaging cycle: unemployment leads to financial hardship, hardship makes job searching more difficult, and prolonged unemployment then increases the risk of further poverty.

The Child Poverty Action Group has similarly warned that reducing access to social security could deepen deprivation and limit opportunities for disadvantaged young people.

These criticisms do not mean that employment support is unnecessary. Rather, campaigners argue that it should focus on practical assistance and individual circumstances instead of relying primarily on financial penalties.

Young disabled people face additional barriers

The debate is particularly important for young disabled people and those with complex needs.

Although many disabled young adults want to work, some face significant obstacles, including inaccessible workplaces, limited specialist support, health-related limitations and a shortage of suitable vacancies.

A survey of young disabled people with complex needs, cited by the charity Sense in the October 2026 reporting, found that many respondents believed existing job centres did not provide the assistance they needed. The charity has argued that improving specialist employment support is essential if more disabled young people are to access meaningful work.

For someone who requires workplace adjustments, conventional job-search requirements may not be sufficient. They may need tailored advice, accessible training, supported employment or help identifying employers willing to accommodate their needs.

A policy that imposes identical conditions on people with very different circumstances could therefore produce unequal outcomes.

The central question is how the proposed system would distinguish between someone who refuses reasonable opportunities and someone who genuinely cannot meet standard requirements because of disability or other substantial barriers.

Any workable scheme would need clear safeguards to ensure that vulnerable people are not left without the resources necessary to live.

The reality of Britain’s job market

Another concern is whether sufficient suitable jobs exist for everyone expected to find employment.

Requiring young people to attend appointments and training sessions may increase their engagement with employment services, but it cannot guarantee that employers will offer them positions.

Some areas have more entry-level vacancies than others. Transport difficulties can prevent applicants from reaching workplaces, while low wages and unpredictable working hours may make certain positions unsuitable for people with caring responsibilities or health conditions.

There is also a difference between finding any job and securing sustainable employment.

A young person who moves into a short-term position but loses it a few weeks later may return to the benefits system without having gained lasting financial security. A programme that measures success mainly through attendance or temporary placements could therefore fail to address the underlying problem.

Effective employment support needs to connect people with employers, identify skills shortages, provide relevant qualifications and help participants progress towards stable work.

Without those elements, critics fear that the scheme could become an administrative exercise in monitoring claimants rather than a meaningful route out of poverty.

The wider question of benefit adequacy

The controversy also raises questions about the level of financial support available to young adults.

Under the existing Universal Credit system, single claimants under 25 generally receive a lower standard allowance than single claimants aged 25 and over. The difference can be difficult to justify for young adults who live independently and face many of the same essential expenses as older people.

Rent, electricity, food and transport do not necessarily become cheaper simply because someone is younger.

A 22-year-old living independently may face many of the same bills as a 30-year-old, particularly if they do not have parents who can provide financial assistance.

A UK Parliament Youth Select Committee report published in March 2024 highlighted concerns that benefit payments did not adequately cover essential living costs. It also noted that young people receiving lower payments could be particularly vulnerable to food insecurity and difficulties paying for accommodation.

Those concerns remain relevant to the current debate.

Conservatives may argue that stronger work requirements are necessary to ensure fairness to taxpayers and people in employment. Campaigners respond that a benefits system must also provide a sufficient safety net for people who are temporarily unable to support themselves.

The challenge is to design a system that encourages employment without making basic survival dependent on circumstances beyond an individual’s control.

What could a different approach look like?

Critics of the Conservative proposal have called for employment policies that combine clear expectations with practical support.

Such an approach could include expanded apprenticeships, subsidised training, partnerships with local employers and specialist assistance for disabled people. It could also provide targeted help with transport, qualifications and other expenses that prevent people from accepting available jobs.

Mental health support and early intervention may also be important for young people who have been unemployed for extended periods.

Local authorities, colleges, charities and employers could work together to identify people at risk of becoming disconnected from education or employment before their circumstances deteriorate.

The government review of young people and work has emphasised the scale and complexity of the problem. The challenge involves more than benefit rules alone; it includes education, health, skills, employment opportunities and the support available to young adults as they move into independent life.

A successful programme would therefore need to measure whether participants secure and retain suitable jobs, not simply whether they attend appointments.

A political battle over responsibility and opportunity

The dispute reflects a wider disagreement over the purpose of the welfare state.

The Conservatives argue that financial support should be accompanied by stronger obligations for people who are capable of working. Their position emphasises personal responsibility, public spending and the need to reduce long-term economic inactivity.

Opponents argue that these objectives cannot be achieved through sanctions alone. They contend that poverty can prevent people from finding work and that cutting support may increase pressure on charities, local authorities and other public services.

Both the scale of youth inactivity and the difficulties facing disadvantaged young people demand serious attention. The disagreement concerns which policies are most likely to produce lasting improvements.

For policymakers, the important distinction is between measures that encourage genuine progress and those that merely reduce benefit expenditure.

If young people receive effective training, access to suitable vacancies and assistance tailored to their circumstances, stronger employment expectations may form part of a broader route into work. If support is withdrawn without addressing practical barriers, the consequences could include deeper poverty and greater exclusion from the labour market.

Conclusion

The Conservative plan to restrict benefits for under-25s has reopened a difficult debate about unemployment, public spending and the responsibilities of the welfare state.

Kemi Badenoch’s proposed Get to Work scheme aims to increase participation in job searching, training and work experience, while making continued financial assistance more conditional on meeting requirements.

However, poverty campaigners warn that young people facing homelessness, disability, insecure housing or a shortage of suitable jobs may be harmed by a system that places greater emphasis on sanctions than support.

Britain’s youth employment challenge is too complex to be resolved by a single measure. It requires a combination of accessible education, effective training, suitable employment opportunities and financial protection for people who cannot immediately support themselves.

Ultimately, the test of any reform should be whether it helps more young people secure stable employment and build independent lives. Reducing the number of people receiving benefits is not, by itself, proof that unemployment or poverty has been solved.

The debate now centres on whether tougher conditions will create meaningful opportunities or leave some of Britain’s most vulnerable young adults facing even greater financial insecurity.