12th November 2026
The welfare system could be heading for one of its biggest changes in years, with young people aged 18 to 24 potentially losing access to two important sickness and disability benefits under proposals being developed by former Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn.
The proposals, which are expected to feature in his government-commissioned review due to be published on 17 November 2026, could leave some young people with considerably less financial support than they receive today.
Milburn has already acknowledged that his proposals will not be painless and that some young people could receive less financial support, particularly at the beginning of their benefit claims.
The review is intended to address the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, commonly described as NEET. There are close to one million young people in this position across the UK.
But there is a difficult question at the heart of the proposals: is the answer to the growing number of young people outside the workforce to change the benefits they receive, or should greater attention be given to the reasons they are unable to work?
What could change?
According to reports of the proposals, young people under 25 would no longer be able to claim two of the principal forms of sickness and disability support.
These are the health-related element of Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Instead, a new Youth Allowance would be introduced, paid at the standard rate of Universal Credit. A separate Additional Cost Allowance would be available to help some young people meet the extra costs associated with disability.
Those with the most severe disabilities, who cannot reasonably be expected to work, would receive a separate, higher-rate benefit.
The distinction matters because the present system can provide several different forms of support to the same person, depending on their circumstances.
Universal Credit provides help with living costs, with an additional health-related payment for people assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity.
PIP, meanwhile, is designed to help with the additional costs of living with a disability or long-term health condition. It is not an unemployment benefit and is not dependent on whether someone is working.
Removing access to these existing benefits and replacing them with different arrangements could therefore have consequences well beyond encouraging people to seek employment.
Who could be affected?
The proposals raise particular concerns for young people with conditions such as autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression and other long-term health problems.
Some may be capable of working with appropriate support, adjustments and understanding from employers. Others may find it extremely difficult to maintain employment, even when they want to work.
Consider a 22-year-old with autism who lives independently and receives Universal Credit with the health element, together with PIP to help meet additional disability-related costs.
Under the reported proposals, that person could be moved onto the standard Youth Allowance, with access to a replacement disability payment depending on the new eligibility rules.
The financial difference could be substantial.
Milburn has openly acknowledged that some young people will receive less money under the proposed arrangements. Importantly, the reported changes would affect existing as well as new claimants.
That means this is not simply about changing the rules for future generations of benefit claimants. People who currently depend on the existing system could also be affected.
The argument for reform
Milburn's argument is that the present welfare system risks trapping young people in long-term economic inactivity.
He believes too many young people are entering the benefits system without receiving the help they need to find employment, gain qualifications or develop the confidence to participate in working life.
His proposals are therefore not simply about reducing benefits.
They also envisage billions of pounds of additional investment in employment support, including personal advisers, work placements, job subsidies, apprenticeships and help with mental health problems.
Young people would receive more individual support, with advisers remaining involved until they found employment, an apprenticeship or a college place.
There would also be greater expectations that people engage with the support offered. Those who refuse to participate could face reductions in their payments.
Milburn's philosophy is that financial support and responsibility should go together. However, this assumes that suitable opportunities and appropriate support are actually available.
The Times+1
Scotland faces an additional complication
The proposals have particular implications for Scotland because responsibility for welfare benefits is divided between Westminster and Holyrood.
Universal Credit remains a reserved UK responsibility. Changes to its health-related element would therefore affect Scottish claimants too.
However, Scotland has its own disability benefit, Adult Disability Payment (ADP), which replaced PIP for eligible Scottish residents.
This creates an important complication.
A Westminster decision to remove access to PIP for under-25s would not automatically remove entitlement to ADP in Scotland. Disability benefits are devolved, and the Scottish Government would have to consider whether and how to make corresponding changes to its own arrangements.
Consequently, young disabled people in Scotland could face a different position from those elsewhere in the UK.
There is also a question about how the proposed Youth Allowance would interact with Scotland's existing arrangements for disability assistance.
Scottish Government+1
What happens to young people who cannot find work?
There is another issue which deserves attention.
Being unemployed does not necessarily mean someone is unwilling to work. Nor does being outside education or training mean someone is making a lifestyle choice.
Some young people struggle to find employment because of a shortage of suitable vacancies. Others have mental health problems, learning difficulties, disabilities or family circumstances which make finding and keeping a job much harder.
In rural areas such as Caithness, the problem can be even more complicated.
Employment opportunities are more limited, public transport can restrict access to jobs, and young people may have to travel considerable distances to reach training or further education.
An employment adviser can provide encouragement and guidance, but cannot create a job where none exists.
There is also a danger that sanctions could penalise people who are genuinely trying but cannot meet the requirements placed upon them.
The review will need to explain how these circumstances will be recognised.
Will the proposals become law?
Not immediately.
The Milburn review is expected to make recommendations to the Government, rather than introduce changes in its own right.
The Government will then have to decide which recommendations it accepts, how they will be implemented and whether legislation is required.
The reported intention is to bring forward major welfare reforms during 2027. However, the precise eligibility rules, transitional arrangements and protection for existing claimants remain important unanswered questions.
Disability organisations have already expressed concern about the possibility of young people losing financial support without adequate replacement provision.
The charity Sense, for example, has supported improving employment opportunities for disabled young people while warning that specialist support and protection must be properly funded.
A difficult balance between opportunity and protection
There is little disagreement that Britain needs to do more to help young people into employment.
Long periods outside education and work can damage confidence, reduce future earnings and make it increasingly difficult to establish an independent life.
But the welfare system also exists to protect people who cannot support themselves financially because of disability or ill health.
These two responsibilities should not be confused.
If the new arrangements provide better access to employment, education, mental health services and specialist support, some young people could benefit considerably.
But if the main practical effect is to reduce benefit payments before suitable alternatives are available, the consequences could be serious for individuals and their families.
There is also a question of timing. Employment support takes time to establish, while reductions in household income can have an immediate effect.
For parents who have spent years supporting a disabled son or daughter, the possibility of losing existing financial assistance will be particularly worrying.
The real test of the Milburn review will not simply be whether it reduces the number of young people claiming sickness and disability benefits. It will be whether it helps more young people build independent lives without withdrawing essential support from those who genuinely need it.
That is a distinction the Government will need to get right.