Key facts
- Over 40 UK charities have urged ministers not to cut disability benefits for young people.
- The charities are concerned about potential stricter eligibility rules or removal of benefits for disabled individuals under 22.
- A previous proposal to remove the health element of universal credit for under-22s, saving £300m annually, may be reconsidered.
- The government is reviewing youth employment and considering reforms to encourage work.
- Charities argue that benefit cuts would increase poverty and hinder employment prospects for disabled young people.
Dozens of the UK's leading charities have jointly urged ministers not to impose tougher benefit sanctions or cuts on disabled young people, expressing concerns that a government review could lead to stricter eligibility rules for disability benefits.
The charities fear that Alan Milburn's review into youth employment could recommend removing or tightening access to disability benefits, potentially impacting the nearly one million 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK who are not in employment, education, or training (NEET).
In a letter to Milburn and Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, the charities warned that such measures risk pushing vulnerable youngsters deeper into poverty and further away from employment. They specifically raised concerns about the potential resurrection of a previous Labour government proposal to remove the health element of universal credit for under-22s with disabilities, which was estimated to save around £300 million annually.
Milburn, a former minister, has indicated a need to overhaul England's welfare, education, and skills infrastructure. His interim report suggested that state support is too focused on benefits rather than practical job programs, inadvertently "trapping" young people. The report highlighted that for every £1 spent on youth job support, £25 was spent on benefits, creating financial incentives for inactivity.
An analysis by the charity Scope suggests that approximately half of households with an under-22 receiving the universal credit health element are already in poverty, a figure that could rise to over 90% if support is removed. The charities emphasized that the 184,000 young people receiving this element have complex physical and mental health needs, not mild conditions.
The signatories, including Action for Children, Save the Children, Barnardo’s, Scope, Sense, Mind, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, stated that change should be built on support and opportunity, not punitive approaches. They cited evidence that cutting benefits worsens health and deepens poverty, and that strict conditionality is counterproductive for disabled people.
Charities challenged claims of out-of-control social security budgets, pointing out that spending on working-age benefits is expected to remain flat as a percentage of GDP. Lucy Schonegevel of Action for Children stated that cutting benefits or increasing sanctions would drive up poverty and push young people further from work, advocating for earlier intervention, tailored support, and meaningful job opportunities instead.
Whitehall sources indicated that no decision has been made on the proposal to remove the universal health element for those under 22, and it is being considered as part of the review. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesperson affirmed the government's commitment to youth employment reforms and a £2.5 billion support package, including an apprenticeship bursary for families on universal credit. They also confirmed Milburn's role in investigating barriers to youth employment.
Attempts to restrict disability benefits could face resistance from Labour MPs, who previously opposed significant cuts. Separately, Andy Burnham announced free 24-hour bus passes for disabled people. Labour MP Rachael Maskell stressed the importance of providing disabled young people with the necessary support to access work and called for co-produced solutions.