PM unveils £88m for youth services in bid to tackle online challenges
Groups like the Scouts and Guides will receive £7.5 million to help offer more places in local communities while £30.5 million will go to improving youth club infrastructure in areas with the highest levels of child poverty.
Some £22.5 million over three years will be used to fund access in 400 schools across the country to extra-curricular activities such as sport, art and music, outdoor activities, debating or volunteering.
The expansion is part of wider efforts to 'reconnect young people with the world around them' amid concerns children are increasing amounts of time online or in their bedrooms, Number 10 said.
Announcing the package, the Prime Minister said: 'Growing up today is hard for young people. As they navigate their way through the online world, too often they find themselves isolated at home and disconnected from their communities.
'As a Government, we have a duty to act on this worrying trend. Today's investment is about offering a better alternative: transformative, real-world opportunities that will have an impact in communities across the country, so young people can discover something new, find their spark and develop the confidence and life skills that no algorithm can teach.'
Downing Street said 'young people today are spending more and more of their time detached from the real world, either stuck in their bedrooms or behind a screen, throwing up huge challenges for them and their loved ones to overcome'.
Sir Keir said the plans were part of wider efforts aimed at opening up opportunities to ensure 'no child falls through the cracks' ahead of the publication of the Government's national youth strategy this autumn.
Young people have been encouraged to contribute to development of the strategy in recent months through focus groups and surveys.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said local youth services were the 'bedrock of thriving communities' and that 'today's announcement is just the beginning' ahead of its launch in the autumn.
She said the Government was 'putting young people at the heart of our mission-led government ensuring they have the support and opportunities they deserve so that no one is left behind.'
The Duke of Edinburgh's Award charity welcomed the funding package but urged ministers to go further in guaranteeing 'enrichment opportunities' for every young person.
Chief operating officer at the charity, John Egan, said: 'This multimillion-pound investment is about so much more than creating new opportunities for art, music and outdoor activities – it's an investment in the resilience, confidence and future of young people.
'As a leading youth charity, we now urge the Government to go further and commit to a youth guarantee, to ensure that every young person has access to the enrichment opportunities that they need to thrive which can't always be found in the classroom.'
Shadow culture secretary Nigel Huddleston said: 'After scrapping the National Citizen Service which gave over a million young people valuable opportunities, any investment in youth services is welcome.
'However, young people need more than just skills – they need a growing economy that can offer jobs and opportunities in the future.
'Because of Labour's economic mismanagement and tax rises businesses are closing, there are no jobs, and the economy is shrinking while inflation has doubled.
'Under Labour, the future of the next generation looks bleak.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole
SIR – Whether by raising income tax rates, a wealth tax or through less overt measures, the Government will try to extract more money from the people that it serves ('Reeves facing £50bn black hole as tax pressure mounts ', report, August 6). However, such measures risk being self-defeating. Those who are unable or unwilling to leave the country will bear the brunt of the tax rises. That includes standard and higher-rate taxpayers. Every pound the Government extracts from their bank accounts is a pound that cannot be spent on businesses that provide goods and services. Thus, businesses will take another hit which, in turn, will reduce their tax payments. Since the failure of the Truss administration, there has been no long-term plan to get the country out of its financial hole. Eventually, there will have to be one and it will likely involve curbing the insatiable appetite of government to control and spend. When such a plan sees the light of day we may be surprised at the boost it gives to confidence and investment. David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Labour dug itself a financial hole when it pledged not to increase National Insurance (NI), VAT or income tax rates. Instead of imposing VAT on private schools and possibly even on private health, a simple 1 or 2 per cent rise on NI and/or the basic rate of income tax would have solved the Chancellor's problems. Now she is having to cast her net wider – and creating more problems as a result. John Tilsiter Radlett, Hertfordshire SIR – Taxing jobs and taxing capital is not going to result in economic growth. Is it too much to expect a former Bank of England economist to grasp this? Patrick Loxdale Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SIR – There is a limit to which any economy can be taxed. The UK is at that limit. The British public understands this. It is plain that public sector expenditure must be cut to balance the books. Given the Government throws billions around like confetti – on the Chagos Islands, the immigration fiasco, welfare, public sector pay rises, excessive numbers of civil servants – there is much low-hanging fruit. The economy is being badly managed as never before. Enough is enough. Please can we have some economic sanity. Stuart Moore Bramham, West Yorkshire SIR – Having continually criticised the Conservatives for the last 12 months for creating a £22bn black hole in the public finances, I trust Labour will now be constantly criticising itself for doubling the deficit. Paul Webster Dyserth, Denbighshire
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Millions of households will be hit with council tax hikes to pay for Angela Rayner's Government funding reforms
Households in wealthy areas could be hit with huge council tax rises under Angela Rayner 's plans to divert more funding to deprived regions, experts warned last night. Reforms being brought in by the Deputy Prime Minister will mean many councils in the South – including London and the Home Counties – face swingeing cuts to their core budgets. Those in the Midlands and North can expect to see large increases. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests the funding changes will see around a quarter of councils in England lose money in real terms – creating big 'winners and losers' as ministers try to address perceived unfairness in levels of funding across the country. However, the strength of cuts in wealthy areas that have historically kept council tax bills low means they will have less money to spend on vital services such as bin collections and elderly care – even if they increase bills by the maximum amount currently allowed. The report suggests that local authorities with low council tax that will lose funding should be able to make it up by hiking their rates on households even further. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the think-tank and the report's author, said: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses.' Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS predicted. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in ten will see a fall in overall funding, while one in ten will see an increase of 10 per cent or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change, as the reforms are phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. London will gain the least under the changes with an increase in funding of 8 per cent in the next three years. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22 per cent) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19 per cent) will see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East the smallest at 13 per cent. A spokesman for Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it was 'taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services'.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Haircuts are a human right!
During the immigration deluge in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems one Afghan and one Indian national who threw themselves on the mercy of much-besieged Ireland got lost in the shuffle. Fobbed off with €25 vouchers, they were obliged to sometimes sleep rough for two months, without access to food and hygiene and exposed to hardship and fear. They've sued the Irish state. Knowing Irish NGOs, I bet they got help. The government has argued that the pressures on Ireland's hospitality at the time were severe enough to qualify as a force majeure. Their reception centres were full to bursting and there was no room at the inn (and haven't we heard that before). The Irish High Court sought a ruling from the European Court of Justice. Last Friday, the ECJ determined that being overwhelmed and full up did not reprieve the state from its obligations under the EU Reception Conditions Directive to provide all asylum seekers with, among other things, housing, food, clothing and education for minors. Therefore, having been cheated of such provisions, the petitioners are likely due compensation. Why, those 71 days of Down and Out in Dublin could really pay off. So no matter how limitless an inundation of indigent foreigners and how finite their own resources, European states literally owe nationals from all over the world a living. Because housing is a 'human right'. (Certainly it's a human right according to the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, who hopes to extend the city's hitherto ruinously universal 'right to shelter'.) Food is a 'human right'. Healthcare is a 'human right' (often extending to sex-change operations). The umbrella of 'human rights' does nothing but expand and now protects not merely citizens but anyone from anywhere who rocks up on your patch. Imagine, then, that you were born in a rural area of an African country whose political rhetoric isn't so loftily supranational. If you don't scratch a few mouthfuls from your parched smallholding, you don't eat. Your 'accommodation' wouldn't naturally command such a grand label: a grass-roofed hut with a mud floor. Inside you cook on an open fire, the smoke from which is ravaging your lungs. Second-rate healthcare may be available only after a long, expensive journey. Education for your children requires school fees you may not be able to afford. Anyone in such circumstances who hears tell of a place where all these basic needs are 'human rights' even for foreigners and doesn't hightail it to such a Valhalla would have to be stupid, lazy or crazy. Brits shouldn't feel smug about no longer being required to follow the likes of the EU Reception Conditions Directive (yet; give our friend Sir Keir a bit more time), because in the UK asylum seekers are due not just free room and board, but often luxury hotel digs – with four-poster beds, video games and all-you-can-eat buffets – as well as group outings to the circus and safari parks. For British asylum seekers, even Netflix and Disney+ are 'human rights'. Funnily enough, Whitehall doesn't consider such subscriptions human rights for its own citizenry, some of whom, astonishingly, have to pay for them. This human rights business is a bigger issue than its influence on immigration. Is it really the case that the world, or at least your government, owes you a living from the off? At this point, too, maybe we should be asking what's not a human right. In fact, many folks seriously argue that access to the smartphones and the internet is now a human right. Well, we all grow hair. So shouldn't haircuts be a human right? Electricity, clean running water and indoor plumbing? If so, why should anyone pay utility bills? In both British and American cities, the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting – which progressives justify as the poor's response to 'inequality' – means just about any off-the-shelf good is a human right. Razor blades. Turtlenecks. Mayonnaise. A human right is anything you happen to need. Bloated welfare rolls suggest that opting for benefits in Britain has become a lifestyle choice. Taking advantage of a host of programmes, Americans, too, can amass more in state support than the average wage. But isn't that nice? Haven't we created a better world, in which everything is free and work is elective? That way you only take a job if it's fun. Alas, gifting sweeping human rights to some people takes other people's human rights away. Requiring the state to provide all-comers with housing, food, clothing, healthcare and, yeah, maybe even haircuts implicitly demands that the state requisition these resources from the few suckers who still work for a living. The suckers are punished twice: they provide their own basic needs – even their own safari park tickets! – and then they provide the basic needs of everyone else. Eventually the smarter dray horses will stop hauling the cart and jump in the hay wagon, too. The western welfare state disables the survival instinct – or at least reroutes it from foraging in the forest to foraging on governmental websites. State dependents apply all the cunning, ingenuity and resourcefulness they might otherwise have employed to keep body and soul together in a more Darwinian social landscape to filling out forms, researching on TikTok what phrases to use in Zoom interviews with bureaucrats and maximising motability schemes. This is where I'm supposed to add: 'Of course, advanced societies shouldn't let people starve!' But maybe this ostensibly unquestionable precept has sown the seeds of our destruction. A handful of genuinely hungry people could be usefully cautionary. Western refusal to house, feed and clothe every newcomer might encourage more would-be immigrants to make a go of things where they are. And without handouts, you can bet most of those anxious and depressed young people currently swelling the disability rolls would figure out how to obtain a sandwich before they fainted from malnutrition.
