The plan to cut disability support for young people under 25 has sparked alarm among families and charities. Reports that the government may remove the universal credit health element for disabled people under 25 have raised serious concerns about how these young people will be supported and able to participate in everyday life.
What the Proposed Cuts Mean for Disabled Young People
For many families, the prospect of losing the health element of universal credit is frightening. At Contact, a charity supporting families with disabled children, we hear from parents worried about the impact on their disabled family members. Some young people receiving the health element are studying, working part-time, or volunteering. Others have disabilities so significant that paid employment is impossible.
Removing this financial support could push disabled young people into poverty and isolation, undermining their ability to live fulfilling lives.
Why Financial Security Matters for Young Disabled People
Financial security is a foundation for independence and well-being. The health element of universal credit helps cover extra costs associated with disability, such as care, transport, and equipment. Without it, many young people would struggle to afford basic necessities, let alone pursue education or work.
We recently joined more than 40 charities urging ministers not to take financial support away from disabled young people. We share the government's ambition for young people to work and thrive, but we do not believe removing financial security will create those opportunities.
The Government's Position and Concerns
Ministers have said that those with the most severe disabilities will be protected. However, worried families still don't know what criteria would apply or how hard it would be to prove eligibility. This uncertainty adds to the anxiety.
Crucially, receiving the health element of universal credit does not mean a young person is not in education, employment, or training (Neet). Many are actively contributing to society in various ways. Before making such a fundamental change, ministers must publish the evidence. How many young people receiving the health element are actually Neet? Without this data, the rationale for cuts is unclear.
Comparison of Support Before and After Proposed Cuts
| Aspect | Current Support | Proposed Cuts |
|---|---|---|
| Health element for under-25s | Available based on health assessment | Potentially removed |
| Financial security | Provides basic income for disabled young people | Reduced or eliminated |
| Impact on education/work | Supports participation in education, part-time work, volunteering | May force young people out of these activities |
| Certainty for families | Clear eligibility criteria | Unknown criteria and proof requirements |
Key Takeaways
- Removing the universal credit health element for under-25s could harm disabled young people and their families.
- Many recipients are studying, working part-time, or volunteering, not just Neet.
- Charities and families are calling for evidence before any changes are made.
- Financial security is essential for independence and participation in society.
- The government must clarify eligibility criteria and protect the most vulnerable.
FAQ
What is the universal credit health element?
The universal credit health element is an additional amount paid to claimants who have a health condition or disability that limits their ability to work. It provides extra financial support to help with the costs associated with disability.
Why are charities concerned about cuts to disability support for young people?
Charities argue that removing financial support will harm disabled young people's ability to live independently, study, work, or volunteer. It could increase poverty and isolation, and they believe the government should publish evidence before making changes.
What evidence is needed before cutting disability support?
Ministers should publish data on how many young people receiving the health element are not in education, employment, or training (Neet), and clarify the criteria for protecting those with severe disabilities. This would ensure any changes are based on facts, not assumptions.