8th October 2026
Britain has a problem involving almost one million young people, and the Government has decided it would rather discuss the problem after the Budget than before it.
The final report of the Alan Milburn review into young people and work has been delayed until after the Autumn Budget. It had been expected later this month but is now expected in November.
That might sound like a simple change to the timetable. It is probably much more significant than that.
The review is examining why so many young people are not in education, employment or training, known as NEETs, and what can be done to get more of them into work.
The latest government figures put the number at about 981,000 young people aged 16 to 24. The figure actually fell by around 30,000 in the latest quarter, but it remains an enormous number.
And there is a striking financial calculation behind the debate.
The Milburn review has estimated that, in 2024-25, the Government spent about £25 on benefits for young people for every £1 spent helping them into employment.
That raises an obvious question.
Would it be cheaper to spend more getting young people into work now rather than spending much more supporting them on benefits for years?
That is the central argument behind the review.
Why wait until after the Budget?
The Government's immediate problem is that the answer may require spending money before it saves money.
More employment advisers, training, subsidised jobs, mental-health support, apprenticeships and other forms of help all cost money.
The eventual benefit could be considerable if people move into employment, earn wages, pay tax and stop relying on benefits.
But the Treasury has to find the money first.
That is why publishing the Milburn report before the Budget could have created an awkward political problem.
The Chancellor, John Healey, is already facing difficult decisions over taxation, borrowing and public spending. A major report appearing immediately before the Budget could have created pressure for the Government to announce how it would pay for its recommendations.
The NHS Alliance reported that the delay is intended to prevent the report overshadowing the Budget and to allow the Government to respond more directly after publication.
In other words, the Government appears to want to know how much money it has available before deciding how much it can spend on the solution.
But this is not simply about cutting benefits
There has been considerable speculation that the review could recommend changes to benefits for under-25s.
One proposal being considered is replacing the health element of Universal Credit for younger claimants with much more intensive employment support, including subsidised work, training and mental-health assistance.
That is politically sensitive.
The Government has already faced opposition to welfare reforms, particularly where disabled people are concerned.
Milburn's work is more complicated than simply saying "cut benefits".
His interim findings distinguish between young people who are severely disabled and unlikely ever to work, and those who have health problems but could potentially work if given the right support.
The review has suggested that young people with the most severe lifelong disabilities should have swift access to benefits rather than being repeatedly required to prove that they cannot work. At the same time, those who could work should receive much more effective help to do so.
That distinction could become extremely important when the final proposals are published.
There is another problem: where are the jobs?
There is a danger in assuming that getting people ready for work automatically creates jobs.
The Institute of Directors has already raised this issue.
It supports stronger employment support but argues that the Government also needs to consider whether employers actually have enough entry-level jobs available for young people.
The IoD points out that the minimum wage for young workers has increased much faster than the rate for other workers since 2019-20. It also argues that the Employment Rights Act could add to the costs and risks of employing people.
That creates a difficult triangle.
The Government can spend more money helping a young person become employable.
But there also needs to be an employer willing to employ them.
And that employer needs to believe that taking on a young worker makes economic sense.
Otherwise the Government risks spending more money moving people from one form of inactivity to another rather than permanently moving them into employment.
There is also a group the benefits system may not even see
One of the more interesting findings from research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is that a substantial number of young people who are NEET do not claim benefits at all.
The IFS estimates that around 300,000 18- to 24-year-olds are outside education and employment but are not receiving benefits.
These young people can therefore fall outside the normal routes into employment support.
That matters because simply changing the benefits system will not solve the entire problem.
Some young people may be claiming benefits and need help.
Others may not be claiming anything and may be sitting at home, living with parents or surviving through family support.
They may be invisible to the welfare system.
The £25-to-£1 figure needs some caution
The £25-to-£1 calculation is a powerful headline, but it should not be interpreted as meaning that every pound spent on employment support will automatically save £25.
It is a comparison between the amount spent on benefits and the much smaller amount spent on employment support.
There are many reasons why a young person may remain out of work, including poor health, lack of qualifications, mental-health problems, lack of suitable jobs, family circumstances and the condition of the local labour market.
So the calculation is best viewed as an indication of the imbalance in government spending rather than a guaranteed investment return.
Nevertheless, the imbalance is difficult to ignore.
What does this mean for Scotland?
The welfare system is largely reserved to Westminster, so the major decisions will be made by the UK Government.
But the consequences will be felt in Scotland.
Young people who cannot find work affect local economies, councils, colleges, health services and families.
In places such as Caithness, the problem can look rather different from that in a major city.
There may be fewer employers, fewer entry-level jobs and fewer opportunities to move between different industries.
A young person in Wick or Thurso may be perfectly willing to work but find that the available jobs simply do not match their skills, transport options or circumstances.
That is why a national employment programme needs to understand local economies rather than assuming that the same solution will work everywhere.
The real test comes after the Budget
The delay may therefore make sense.
The Government needs to know what money it has available before deciding what it can afford to do.
But there is a danger that the Budget becomes an excuse for delay rather than the starting point for action.
Britain cannot afford to have nearly a million young people sitting outside education, training or employment indefinitely.
Nor is it sensible to assume that simply reducing benefits will solve the problem.
The more promising approach would be to ask a straightforward question:
What would it cost to give a young person a realistic route into work, and how does that compare with the cost of leaving them on benefits for the next five, ten or fifteen years?
That is really what the Milburn review is about.
The Government has chosen to wait until after the Budget to give us the answer.
The interesting question will be whether, once the Budget is out of the way, it is prepared to spend money now to save money later.
Or whether the financial pressures facing Britain prove too great even for an investment that could eventually pay for itself.