15th November 2026
Britain is facing a growing problem that reaches far beyond unemployment figures. Almost one million young people aged 16 to 24 are neither in education, employment nor training. Many have never had a proper job, while others have become detached from education and the labour market because of health problems, disability or difficulties entering work.
On Tuesday, 17 November, former health secretary Alan Milburn is expected to publish the findings of his review into youth employment. His recommendations could lead to significant changes in education, training, employment support and the benefits system.
The question is whether Britain is prepared to tackle the underlying causes of the problem or whether it will concentrate mainly on encouraging, or compelling, young people to take up work.
A generation losing its way
The latest available figures show that 981,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were classified as NEET (not in education, employment or training) between April and June 2026. That represented 13% of the age group.
Although the number fell by 30,000 compared with the previous quarter, it was still 30,000 higher than a year earlier.
Perhaps more concerning is the composition of the figures. Around 60% of these young people were economically inactive, meaning they were neither working nor actively looking for employment. The remaining 40% were unemployed and looking for work.
This is not simply a case of young people applying for jobs and failing to find them. A substantial proportion have become disconnected from the labour market altogether.
Milburn's interim investigation identified several contributing factors. Mental health difficulties, disability, special educational needs, school absence and exclusion all feature prominently. A lack of work experience and fewer accessible entry-level jobs also make it harder for young people to get started.
There is a further concern that some young people who leave education without qualifications or useful experience can find themselves trapped. Employers want experience, but gaining that first experience is becoming increasingly difficult.
What is Milburn proposing?
The final report is expected to recommend a substantial expansion of vocational and technical education.
Reports ahead of publication suggest proposals for tens of thousands of additional further education places for 16 to 18-year-olds, together with another 150,000 places for adults under 25.
Colleges could also receive additional funding for taking students who are at risk of becoming NEET.
The intention is to give young people more opportunities to gain practical qualifications and skills that employers actually need, rather than leaving them with limited choices after compulsory education.
The scale of the proposed expansion is significant. Early estimates suggest it could cost between £1 billion and £2 billion annually.
There is also expected to be a stronger focus on apprenticeships and employment opportunities, with employers encouraged to take on young people who might otherwise struggle to secure their first job.
Another central idea is an Opportunity Guarantee, intended to ensure that young people have access to employment, education, training or appropriate support rather than simply being left without a pathway forward.
These proposals could represent an important change in how government approaches youth unemployment. However, their success will depend on whether the opportunities actually exist and whether young people can access them.
The controversial question of benefits
One of the most difficult aspects of the review concerns the relationship between benefits and employment.
Milburn has argued that government spending on benefits for young people is far greater than spending on helping them into employment. He wants to redirect resources towards education, training and job opportunities.
There have also been reports that the review may recommend changes to benefit entitlements for some young people, particularly those claiming health-related support.
The argument behind this approach is that the benefits system should encourage participation and help people move towards employment wherever possible.
However, there is an important distinction between someone who is unwilling to work and someone who is unable to work without substantial support.
Young people with serious mental health difficulties, disabilities or other long-term conditions cannot simply be treated as people who need a stronger financial incentive.
Reducing financial support without providing suitable alternatives could make their circumstances worse rather than improve their employment prospects.
The Government will therefore need to explain how any changes would protect those who genuinely cannot work while helping others to find a route into employment.
Where will the jobs come from?
Education and training are important, but qualifications alone do not create jobs.
Employers must be willing to recruit young people who have little or no experience. This is becoming more difficult in some sectors.
There are concerns that employers are reducing entry-level recruitment because of higher employment costs, uncertainty about the economy and the increasing use of technology and artificial intelligence.
Some of the jobs that traditionally provided young people with their first experience of working life may increasingly be automated or reorganised.
There is also a question about whether employers are demanding too much from people applying for their first jobs. Requiring previous experience for an entry-level position can become a barrier that young people cannot overcome.
The Government may need to consider further incentives for businesses to recruit and train inexperienced workers, alongside a greater commitment to apprenticeships and workplace learning.
The cost of doing nothing
There is a powerful economic argument for tackling this problem.
Young people who spend extended periods outside education and employment risk losing skills, confidence and the experience needed to build a career.
The consequences can continue for decades, affecting earnings, health, housing prospects and the ability to become financially independent.
The interim review highlighted the potentially enormous economic cost of this disengagement. Estimates cited in the review suggest the annual cost to the economy could reach £125 billion when wider consequences are included.
There is also a demographic consideration. Britain has an ageing population and increasing pressure on public services and pensions. The country needs a productive workforce capable of supporting those demands.
Leaving a substantial proportion of the next generation outside the labour market makes little economic sense.
A particular challenge for rural Scotland
The proposals also need to work outside Britain's major cities.
For a young person in Wick, Thurso or elsewhere in Caithness, access to employment and training can be very different from the opportunities available in Glasgow, Edinburgh or London.
There may be fewer employers, fewer apprenticeship places and limited public transport. Travelling considerable distances for training or work can be difficult and expensive.
A guarantee of employment or training is of limited value if the opportunity is too far away or transport costs make it impractical.
Colleges such as UHI North, West and Hebrides, local employers and Highland Council will have important roles to play.
There is an opportunity to link training more closely to the needs of local industries, including energy, engineering, construction, healthcare, tourism and emerging technologies.
But this requires investment and proper coordination. Young people should not have to leave their communities simply because suitable training and employment opportunities are unavailable locally.
The real test for the Government
Milburn's report could provide an important starting point for a change in policy.
However, the Government already has employment initiatives under way, including the Youth Guarantee, additional apprenticeship funding, Youth Hubs and financial incentives for employers. It has committed an additional £2.5 billion to youth employment and skills support by 2029.
The question is whether the new recommendations will improve and expand these existing programmes or create another layer of schemes that are difficult to coordinate.
There must also be proper measurement of results. Counting training places or people attending employment programmes is not enough. What matters is how many young people move into sustained employment, gain useful qualifications and build independent lives.
There is a danger of concentrating on the headline figure of one million young people without recognising that their circumstances are very different.
Some need qualifications, some need an employer prepared to give them a first opportunity, and others need help with health, disability or family circumstances before employment becomes realistic.
Britain cannot afford to write off a generation of young people. Nor can it expect them to solve a problem that has developed partly because of weaknesses in education, employment opportunities and public support.
Alan Milburn's challenge is to show how those systems can work together.
Ultimately, success will not be measured by how many young people are moved off benefits, but by how many are given a realistic opportunity to build a productive and independent future.