Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am delighted to introduce this debate on an incredibly important topic. Young people not in education, employment or training are often referred to as NEETs. As Members will know, the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who are NEET has been rising since 2021, and is now nearing its highest level since 2014. Too often, the narrative we hear—be it in the media or from some Members of this House—is that these young people are lazy, unmotivated or overly sensitive, but that view is short-sighted and reductive, and ignores the complex reality behind that growing number.

On Friday, I had the privilege of speaking with two people who understand this issue not from spreadsheets or reports, but from years spent on the ground with young people and the unemployed. The first was Colin at Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centres, and the second was Christopher Nieper, chair of the education trust for the David Nieper Academy, and owner of the David Nieper clothing manufacturing company. They both work in my constituency town of Alfreton. When we talked about NEETs, both raised the same point above all others: the Government must work with industry to facilitate the demand for jobs and educational pathways.

That is also borne out in conversations I have had with constituents. I recently met Shaun Holland at my advice surgery. Shaun is a 22-year-old motivated man who desperately wants to work. He suffers from arthritis and severe foot problems, which makes standing for long periods difficult. The only work he has found is through agencies, which is unpredictable and insecure, and employers are often reluctant to make simple adjustments such as providing a chair to do packaging work.

As Colin told me, agency work has shifted from an emergency measure to a business model that often fails workers, offering no clear career path. He likened it to the old “butty man” system, where men were recruited in pubs for a day’s work when the coal mines were first opened, and sent down the pit. That was not a sustainable or fair practice then, and, as Shaun’s case makes clear, it certainly is not now. For young people to succeed, academic, vocational and technical pathways must not only exist, but feel accessible and achievable.

Another example is Lily Hill, who wrote to me after losing her electrical apprenticeship through no fault of her own. Lily went to a jobcentre, where she was met with

“indifference and a lack of empathy from the staff”.

She described how she was left

“feeling humiliated and let down by a system that is supposed to be a safety net for people like me—people who have contributed and now need help getting back on their feet.”

She was told to update her CV, which got only two responses, but ironically her old CV landed her a job at Nottingham Forest football club, where she now works as a level 3 qualified electrical technician. They said that her CV was the best they had seen. While I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating Lily on her success, the sad truth is that it came not because of jobcentre advice, but in spite of it.

Since being elected, I have spoken to local businesses, teachers, charities and many others like Shaun and Lily. Their experiences have made it clear that the barriers facing many young people are not simply about personal choice or effort, but are structural. The National Centre for Social Research has found that the most significant risk factors for becoming NEET include not having an academic qualification above level 1, having a limiting disability, becoming a parent before the age of 25, living with a mental health condition and being identified as having special educational needs. The charity Impetus has highlighted how those disadvantages compound. A young person with low qualifications from a disadvantaged background is 130% more likely to be NEET. There are also the new challenges brought about by technological change. Artificial intelligence is transforming the labour market, and entry-level jobs in some sectors are disappearing.

Despite all that, much of the conversation on this issue labels young people the problem, as if all the fault lies squarely with them. In fact, the Reform party leader of Derbyshire county council has said that he thinks there is a massive overdiagnosis of what he calls “general behavioural disabilities”, echoing the comments from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that we are creating a “class of victims” in Britain. That overlooks another possibility: that the systems are not designed for those who do not fit the narrow definition of “mainstream”. Our employment structures, training pathways and workplace cultures often fail to accommodate young people with special educational needs and disabilities, mental health challenges or caring responsibilities.

I want to talk about opportunity and aspiration, two principles that must underpin our approach if we are to empower young people to fulfil their potential. Today, the Chancellor said: “Let there be no doubt that this Government are on the side of our kids and will back their potential.” I am proud to have stood on a manifesto that promised every child the best start in life.

The Government have already made progress. The Chancellor has just announced further important measures, including merging jobcentres with the National Careers Service to create a single platform offering personalised coaching, digital tools and real links to employers. The youth guarantee reforms apprenticeship eligibility and funding for foundational apprenticeships. These changes will ensure that people like Lily are not let down in the same way again, and will enable Shaun to speak with a work coach and receive personal advice about stable, non-agency work going forward.

I also welcome the designation of Derby college group as a construction technical excellence college. It is working with the East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward and industry experts to make sure that its excellent programmes and apprenticeships equip students with the ever-evolving skillset needed in construction. Fairer funding will ensure that council budgets reflect need and deprivation. I will be fighting hard to ensure that Derbyshire county council is awarded its fair portion of that, so that it can invest in SEND provision and in our schools.

Those are important steps, but more needs to be done to build a system that is based on the principles of equal opportunity and aspiration. First, we need a joined-up, cross-departmental approach to tackling the root causes of disadvantage, one that is informed by the recently announced independent investigation into youth inactivity. Given that the investigation will not look into the SEND system, it is all the more important that the upcoming schools White Paper upholds legal protections and ensures that SEND children are given the support they need to excel. Secondly, we need to meet demand by ensuring that flexible, inclusive opportunities that dismantle barriers to work and education are readily available. Thirdly, we need to show young people where these pathways can lead and how to access them, including by encouraging stronger links between schools and employers.

I encourage the Minister to visit David Nieper academy, which works with local industry leaders and teaches employability skills. As a result, the academy has achieved zero NEETs aged 18 for the last two academic years. On a recent Friday, I visited Heanor Gate Spencer academy and saw a notice board showing what each of the students went on to do last year. It included their courses, universities and apprenticeships. Like me, many of this year’s students will be the first in their family to go to university. Some will be the first to take up an apprenticeship. Seeing a noticeboard like that shows them what is possible and raises their aspirations.

Whether their talent lies in skilled trades that will rebuild our country, after years of decline, in the green energy projects of the future, such as STEP Fusion in Nottingham, or in academic routes such as university, every young person in Amber Valley deserves their chance to fulfil their aspirations. If we invest in giving young people the tools to succeed, we do more than create jobs; we build stronger communities, restore faith that politics can change lives and deliver hope where it is most needed. That is why, although I welcome the independent investigation into youth inactivity, we cannot just wait until the final report is published in summer 2026. Action is needed now. Will the Minister tell us what steps will be taken before then to prevent this crisis from worsening? Given that the investigation will not look at the SEND system, what assurances can the Minister give to young people with SEND that they will not be left behind? Finally, how will areas such as Amber Valley be empowered to deliver specific, tailored solutions for our children?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I will not remind Members to bob, because you are already bobbing—thank you for that. However, given that so many people wish to speak, I will regrettably be imposing a formal two-minute limit.

16:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for setting the scene so well. Education and career prospects are so important. They affect confidence, mental health, opportunity and long-term economic wellbeing. It is imperative to get this right and provide the necessary support, if possible, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions posed.

To give an example from Northern Ireland, in 2023, 15,000 were not in education, employment or training; today the figure is 22,000 and rising. In particular, I refer to the underachievement of young Protestant boys. The potential impact on their future education, training or employment must be noted.

Why has this happened? It has happened because of economic hardship, poor mental health, unstable home life, deprivation in isolated areas and a lack access to transport. There are long-term risks for young people, including future unemployment, higher welfare rates and poor health. Those are the outcomes of the society we live in. The former Member for Harlow, for example, always used to refer to males between 16 and 21; I remember when I was young—not yesterday, by the way—we left school on a Friday and got a job on the Monday. That is the way it was, but it is not that way anymore. It is not the end of everything if young people reach the age of 17 or 18 and are still unsure, but further education, apprenticeships, placements and working opportunities will give them the tools they need to find out what route they might like to go down.

The opportunities available to young people in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland—and especially in my constituency of Strangford and also that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley—must be realistic and accessible in terms of finance and transport. I believe in greater careers guidance both inside school and outside, where people can avail themselves of advice and support. I again commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward—and my two minutes are up.

16:42

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.

Every generation says, “I’m glad I am not a child today.” That is often a cliché, but I am glad I am not a 16-year-old today trying to decide where my future lies, not least because we are forcing children to start choosing their future from the age of 11. That is because the route to university is so clear, that it is effectively a queue—a queue whose direction and length can be seen from the Moon. But for those who are not academic, there is no queue. We treat those not going to university like free-range chickens—“Just go and find something and please don’t bother us.” Those children often end up in low-paid and insecure work.

Around 65% of school leavers do not go to university, so why are we not focusing on vocational training and qualifications? We all know that we have a shortage of builders, plumbers and care workers—jobs that the country relies on. My team and I have focused our resources on looking at vocational training, education and employment. Many young people on the Isle of Wight do not feel that university is a place for them. Many do not feel the urge to leave the island for work, but feel that they have no choice.

How do we support NEETs? The answer is that we stop them becoming NEETs in the first place. We provide clear, vocational routes for those who do not want to go to university, but want to learn a skilled trade. We create a ladder to good, well-paying jobs—and, crucially, a future on the Isle of Wight for those who want it. In just over 18 months, the Isle of Wight Youth Trust has prevented 65 young people from becoming homeless, returned 98 young people to full-time learning or apprenticeships, and moved 273 young people into paid employment. That is great work.

Since I stood in this place five months ago, speaking on similar issues, we have come a long way. My team and I have convened a group of major employers on the island to ensure that we work alongside employers to provide work experience, training and good apprenticeships, which have become the Isle of Wight’s hallmark. Although I may be the first MP to offer T-levels, I sincerely hope I am not the last. NEETs are not inevitable; they are the product of missed chances and broken links between education and employment.

16:49

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing the debate.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for skills, careers and employment, I have chaired several evidence sessions over the last year of a skills commission inquiry into the root causes of our worryingly high NEET rates. We engaged with more than 200 participants across a six-month period, and are due to publish our findings and recommendations shortly, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk about them briefly today. We have explored a lot of the reasons why we are in this position, but it is notable that other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have not seen similar rises in their NEET rates.

I will mention a few of the drivers. Under the last Government, schools were incentivised to abandon vocational, technical and creative courses in favour of more academic options. That has had an impact by limiting choice and options. The system has also failed to properly target young people, with entry-level apprenticeships falling by 26% since the apprenticeship levy was introduced. The careers guidance landscape has become fragmented, with many young people not being told about apprenticeship or traineeship opportunities, and a cliff edge for careers support post-16.

One of our major conclusions is that targeted and preventive support works and is good for the public purse in the long term. We need better data sharing to identify young people at risk; early support to tackle mental health challenges, wellbeing and job readiness; local discretion to tailor support to local needs; and, most importantly, in-work mentoring for around six months into employment—not just job placement.

We must also think about how we can support small and medium-sized enterprises to recruit apprentices and invest in the skills of their workforce. That is particularly important in my constituency, so I welcome the Chancellor’s transformational announcement today about making training for apprenticeships for under-25s free for SMEs.

16:46

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate and the powerful points that she made, especially about how young people are often lazily demonised as being an idle generation. That view fails to take into account how much has changed since many of us here were young—which was more recently in some cases than in others, but let us move on from that quickly.

In my Oxfordshire constituency, despite having perhaps the highest levels of house building in the country, housing costs remain completely out of reach for people on low incomes, and particularly young people. There is a real shortage of affordable housing, particularly for one and two-person households, with many houses having four, five or even six bedrooms. Transport costs are also very high.

The world of skills is changing. I have a lot of high-tech, scientific industries in my constituency—space, biotech, fusion and so on—and we need to help young people to acquire these skills. As has been mentioned, NHS waiting lists can be a barrier to people entering the workplace, and I have many people in my constituency who are young carers. I am pleased that Be Free Young Carers supports them.

I am not alone in my concern about this issue: Didcot B power station in my constituency cites housing costs as the biggest barrier to retaining talented people. As a result, therefore, many young people continue to live at home with their parents. In some cases, I am sure they love that, but in others, it could be a barrier to expressing their freedom and creativity as a young person.

I am really pleased that Oxfordshire county council has an education, employment and training service supporting any young person in year 12 or 13 who is NEET or at risk of being NEET. I know the Government have a lot of ideas and good intentions on this, and I would be very keen to hear what the Minister will do to help young people not in employment, education or training in my constituency.

16:49

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. This debate matters deeply to my constituency. Hartlepool has one of the highest levels of young people not in education, employment or training in the country, and behind every single number is a young person with untapped potential.

Hartlepool is also paying the price for that unrealised talent. It is a town that used to build things—shipyards, factories and docks. Our people were makers: they built the ships that sailed the world, the machinery that powered the country and the homes and streets that held our communities together. For too long, however, our view of education has not meant education in all its forms; it has meant academic education. That is wrong. Right now, Britain needs welders, bricklayers, engineers and electricians—workers who can build the houses, roads, factories and energy systems that we need to get our country moving again.

I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to scrap the target for half of young people to go to university. That was the right decision, and it starts to change the legacy of the previous Government. The Hartlepool college of further education, for example, had its budget cut by 10% in real terms at the same time as the previous Government put those essential skills on the points-based immigration system—importing talent from abroad instead of training it here at home. That is a salient lesson in how not to deal with skills in our country.

I say to the Minister: let us give vocational routes the respect they deserve by funding them properly, champion technical education, and rebuild further education as the backbone of towns such as Hartlepool. We should remove those key roles from our immigration shortage lists, recognising that the real shortage comes from years of neglect, and instead invest in our young people to give them the skills that they need to rebuild this country.

16:50

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this important debate on NEETs. This is an issue that affects the future of our young people, and it is a persistent challenge that we must tackle head on. In Winsford in my constituency, the challenge is particularly acute: the proportion of young people who are NEET is 5 percentage points higher than the borough average.

In the interests of time, I will make a couple of points that I hope the Minister will consider when he takes the floor. First, sustained funding to tackle this issue needs to be a priority. In the past, this was a specific focus of the European social fund, and schemes such as the education maintenance allowance provided a direct financial incentive to stay in further education. The Government have identified funding through the youth guarantee to ensure that all young people have access to the support they need to earn or learn. That funding needs to be sustained in the long term, to operate across Departments, and to measurably target reducing NEETs not in a decade’s time, but in this Parliament.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to look specifically at the damage done to further education in my constituency by the 2016 review into post-16 education in Cheshire. There is a direct relationship between the distance a young person has to travel for FE and the likelihood of their sustaining that place and gaining a qualification. Mid Cheshire has literally been caught in a perfect storm, with Cheshire FE colleges responding to their quality and financial problems through consolidation and divestment out of my constituency. That remains as unacceptable today as it was then. I urge the Minister to look into the issue and to commission a new review with a focus on undoing the damage caused by the 2016 review.

I hope that the Minister can set out how we can ensure that every young person, regardless of where they live, has the chance to learn, grow and succeed. I hope he will also set out what targeted support the Government can provide for towns with persistently high NEET levels, including funding for local engagement initiatives, so we can unlock the full potential of every young person in an area such as Winsford.

16:52

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing the debate.

Of the almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, almost 600,000 are economically inactive and disengaged from mainstream employment support, and around 400,000 are hidden NEETs—unemployed, but not claiming universal credit. I will focus my remarks on those young people.

I welcome the measures brought forward by the Government, but this is a crisis of opportunity that cannot be tackled through a strong employment and skills offer alone. That is why we must be more effective in identifying, reaching and engaging young people to bridge them into support.

Youth workers and trusted adults are the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock the potential of NEET young people. They can build young people’s confidence and resilience; address barriers across education, mental health or employment; act as a gateway to proven interventions; and reduce the risk of disengagement through advocacy and guidance. That claim is supported by a growing evidence base: a paper from the Youth Futures Foundation, published earlier this year, identified the unique role that trusted adults can play in identifying and engaging harder-to-reach young people, and explored their role in delivering the change required to address that challenge.

We know, for example, that mental ill health has an impact on economic inactivity among young people, and that this is driven in part by a reduction in child and youth services. We need to take a holistic approach across Government. As we move ahead with some really strong flagship offers for young people—the national youth strategy, the youth guarantee and Young Futures hubs—we have an opportunity to deliver a shared long-term vision for young people across Government that puts relationships with trusted adults and the need for good employment at its heart.

The integration of youth provision, employment and skills support is being explored in some youth guarantee trailblazer areas. In his response, could the Minister reflect on its impact in those areas and whether that offers a model for elsewhere in the country?

16:55

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.

I believe that where someone is born should not determine where they end up, and I welcome the measures announced by the Chancellor today to lift children out of poverty. That is fundamental to my morals and values, and those of the party I represent, because young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely as their better-off peers not to be in education, employment or training. On council estates such as those where I grew up in Nottinghamshire, people’s chances were and are still limited.

I was extremely disappointed when Dukeries sixth form in Ollerton announced it was closing its doors, as access to further education is lifechanging for young people in rural areas. The nearest further education option is now over 7 miles away, which is not accessible for many young people and their families. Opportunities for young people in rural and deprived areas are few and far between.

I believe we can do more to break the cycle. We have a responsibility to stand up for young people in this country, but we must also empower businesses to invest in them. That is already happening in small pockets, including at Murphy, an infrastructure and energy transition company in Ollerton, and Rolls-Royce, which has fantastic opportunities for local people, but those companies cannot do it alone. They need Government support to make sure it is financially possible to offer such incredible services.

The crisis in SEND is also affecting families in Sherwood Forest, and young people with SEND are over 80% more likely to be NEET. I want the life chances of children and young people growing up in Sherwood Forest to be as great as those living in more affluent areas. We must all strive to find better opportunities and better ways to educate and support our young people so that we can all categorically say that where someone is born will not determine their future.

16:56

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate.

Due to the pressure of time, I will focus on one group of young people. At the Work and Pensions Committee this morning we took evidence from two panels about what is driving the increase in NEETs. We heard that post-16 education, employment and training is often predicated on a young person being in a parental home, and that outcomes are severely hampered for care-experienced young people and those in temporary or supported accommodation.

In the year ending March 2024, 14.3% of those placed in temporary accommodation in my constituency were aged 18 to 24, which is higher than the national average. Young people in supported housing do not have security, and they are penalised by the housing benefit taper rate. For those who are unaware, the universal credit of a young person living in supported housing is tapered at 55p for every £1 earned when they start working, meaning that they are restricted in how much they can earn before their universal credit is completely taken away.

After that, separate and steeper taper rates for housing benefit are what really do the damage. The cost of supported housing, including service charges, becomes completely unaffordable for those young people, which means that increasing their work hours can leave young people financially worse off and simply unable to cover their housing costs—that is without the stress of going into education. The essence of the current system, although unintentional, forces thousands of young people to make an impossible choice.

Removing the housing benefit taper rate barrier would create an opportunity for a more sustainable and supportive system for those young people. I would like to hear how the Minister will look at this problem, listen to those organisations and young people on the frontline, and recognise that solving the taper rates for those young people will massively improve the rate at which they are in employment, education or training to secure their future.

16:58

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a governor of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and chair of the APPG on sixth-form education.

I pay tribute to the leadership of the colleges in Stoke-on-Trent—Lesley Morrey at Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Hassan at Stoke-on-Trent college. They are doing amazing work to reduce what has traditionally been a stubbornly high rate of NEETs in Stoke-on-Trent. In fact, at one point I think we ranked No. 1 in the country for the number of NEETs, but that is coming down because the colleges are working to make sure that every young person in Stoke-on-Trent knows that there is a route for them somewhere, whether it be academic, vocational or technical, into a job in the city.

However, we also recognise that part of that work must start further downstream, with young people in our secondary schools who have an idea of what they want to do and an aspiration to achieve it, but are not necessarily sure how to go about doing it. Under the leadership of Heather McLachlan and Simon French, the CEO Futures Forum is bringing together multi-academy trusts to consider how the curriculum review announced a couple of weeks ago can be used locally to create those academic, vocational and technical gateways into the right subject areas, where we know the jobs will be in the city, so that young people have something to look towards, strive and aspire to. Those are the good things that I wanted to mention today.

We also know that for young people in north Staffordshire who want to go to university, widening participation is incredibly important. The Higher Horizons programme, run by Keele University in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), demonstrates how young people from across north Staffordshire can go to university if they are given the right opportunities and understandings.

Briefly, the key point that I want to make to the Minister today is about V-levels. With the introduction of V-levels, there is a real possibility that a small group of young people will lose out in the next two years by not having access to BTECs, which are being defunded before V-levels come online. That could lead to a large spike in the number of NEETs in the next couple of years. What will his Department do to ensure that those young people are not lost in the transition to what could be an exciting new qualification?

17:01

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Dowd, for calling me to speak—and for saving the best until last. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this important debate. Ensuring that young people in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are not in education, employment or training receive the right support is vital, not only to the lives of those young people themselves but to their families and our whole community.

When faced with the fact that over one in 10 young people are missing out on education and employment opportunities, we must stop blaming individuals or young people as a group and start considering why they are being set up to fail. I say that because I do not believe that 12.7% of all young people in our United Kingdom do not want to work or contribute, or to live without the ambition of having a career that fulfils them. The vast majority of young people, certainly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, want all those things.

I welcome the Milburn inquiry, which should give us the insights that we need to help get our young people into education, training and work. I pay tribute to Keele University and Newcastle College for all the work they do to support our young people. To return the compliment, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), my constituency neighbour, for all his work on this issue. I pay tribute to YMCA North Staffordshire, based in his constituency; its jobcentre and work coaches, co-located on campus, support young people in both my constituency and Stoke-on-Trent Central. I also acknowledge the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), who worked at YMCA North Staffordshire for many years.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. He is absolutely right to speak about the importance of skills. I point to the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, because our constituencies share a college. Does he agree with me that colleges such as NSCG, which are already delivering the courses that our labour market needs, must sit at the heart of the Government’s plan to reduce youth inactivity?

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention. She is absolutely correct to talk about the importance of not just our local college but of colleges generally in ensuring that we get this matter right for our young people up and down the country.

For young people affected by the issues we are discussing this afternoon, this debate is about hope, dignity and fulfilling their potential. For too long, far too many young people have been left behind. Now, this Labour Government have begun to respond with bold and targeted initiatives. But we must go further, especially in former industrial heartlands such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and the rest of Staffordshire, to ensure that no young person is written off.

I think my hon. Friend the Minister has promised to come and visit us in Staffordshire and I look forward to him doing so before too long. Today, however, I urge him to build on the progress already made by listening to communities such as mine, investing in tailored local support and using the Milburn review as a catalyst for real and meaningful change. By doing so, we will help to transform the lives of millions of young people up and down our United Kingdom, and build a better, more prosperous and inclusive country.

17:03

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate on such an auspicious day: it gives the Minister a chance to truly unpack what the Chancellor has been able to share with us—and consequently amaze us. We are here aghast, waiting for that a little later on. I look forward to it because this debate is a real opportunity.

I am still a councillor on Torbay unitary authority and as a local authority we have the highest level of deprivation in the south-west, so I hear about the issues that we are discussing when I go out and visit some of the local schools. Not that long ago, for example, I visited a school in Torquay and engaged with eight and nine-year-olds. Their real concerns were about the cost of living crisis and their parents being unable to make ends meet. At a school in Paignton, elsewhere in Torbay, the headteacher told me that a number of her children regularly came into school cold, tired, hungry and unable to learn. Given the challenges facing youngsters in an arena where they should be learning, it is not surprising that they leave school facing real issues.

Covid has had a massive impact on the mental health of youngsters, and that cannot be overestimated. A couple of colleagues from around the Chamber have already talked about care-experienced youngsters. It is shocking that a care-experienced youngster is three to 10 times more likely to be a NEET. Youngsters who have had an adverse childhood experience could be left scarred with challenges for significant parts of their lives, unless there is significant wraparound support for them.

This is not just about the individual; the other side of the penny we need to reflect on is the change to our economy. Colleagues have alluded to how the world of work has changed significantly. Brexit has had a significant impact, with a 6% shrinkage of our projected GDP and a massive reduction in opportunities. In the Work and Pensions Committee this morning, we heard that opportunities in retail over the last 10 years have shrunk by 70%. We have also seen significant shrinkage in our hospitality industry. Whether or not one wishes to blame it on the national insurance hike, this summer saw an 85,000 reduction in the number of places in hospitality—often an area where youngsters begin their working lives. There is also the issue of automatisation, as supermarket self-checkouts and being able to order without a waiter are ways in which the job market is shrinking for youngsters. We really need to be alive to that.

I would welcome comment from the Minister on findings from the Resolution Foundation, which suggested that the significant increase in the minimum wage for younger workers, although welcome in principle, could result in fewer jobs. There are other areas I would welcome the Minister being alive to, in addition to the interesting announcements from the Chancellor this afternoon, which I hope he is able to unpack a bit more. In recent weeks, Ministers have had a particular focus on universal credit and health conditions, and the impact on youngsters. Could the Minister talk about how that will be explored? There is concern that some youngsters could be demonised. Furthermore, how can we give long-term sustainable support to youngsters, rather than here today, gone tomorrow schemes?

Finally, I want to talk about something close to home —the shared prosperity fund that we benefited from in Torbay. There is an outstanding organisation called Sound Communities that helps youngsters on the edge of our communities, who may have had adverse childhood experiences such as a parent dying, to access support in getting into work. They have helped dozens of youngsters across Torbay, but their funding is due to fall off a cliff in March. We do not have an elected mayor in our Devon community, while the shared prosperity funding is due to end in March. What hope can the Minister offer to Sound Communities for future funding?

17:09

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.

Conservatives are the party of aspiration. We believe that work is not just a payslip; it is a pathway to opportunity, dignity and hope, but for too many young people across the country, those words may ring hollow. The number of people who are NEET has soared to nearly 1 million, meaning that one in eight people aged 16 to 24 is currently deprived of the sense of purpose that comes from holding down a stable job or training for a future career. In 2024, over half of the NEETs had a health condition, and around one in five had a mental health condition. These are young people with talent and potential; they could, one day, set up a social enterprise or make the next scientific breakthrough, or they could join the workforce as postmen, plumbers and paramedics, as well as countless other roles that form the backbone of our economy and our country. However, they are currently languishing at home with no purpose and no hope for the future.

Being out of work at a young age can cost over £1 million in lost earnings over a lifetime, according to the “Keep Britain Working” review. Every single day of worklessness is a day of wasted opportunity, damaged ambition and diminished income. So far, this Government have not demonstrated an incredible plan to turn the tide; the benefits bill is ballooning, with 1 million more people on welfare than when Labour first entered office, and they are kicking the can down the road with the independent investigation into youth inactivity led by Alan Milburn—we will not hear its findings until summer 2026. Meanwhile, the number of NEETs will continue to grow, with each one costing the economy nearly £200,000.

By contrast, previous Conservative Governments have demonstrated a strong track record of supporting young people into work. [Laughter.] I am glad that some Members find that amusing. We cut youth unemployment by 43.8% between 2010 and 2023, despite the rocky economic terrain that we inherited after the 2008 financial crisis. We oversaw the creation of 1 million more apprenticeships. Our new plan to get Britain working again will give young people a first job bonus, redirecting the first £5,000 of national insurance that they would have paid into a savings account instead, which they can then use to save towards their first home, for example.

However, this Government’s policies are effectively locking young people out of work, denying them the chance to build their own future. The Government have announced a youth guarantee, a new jobs and careers service, and foundation apprenticeships, which are available only to young people. To me, those sound like empty assurances. Labour should not be promising more apprentices on the one hand while slashing accessible jobs in hospitality and retail on the other.

If we are serious about reducing the number of NEETs, we must increase the number of jobs available overall, yet jobs in hospitality and retail have plummeted after Labour’s damaging hikes in employers’ national insurance contributions, with 150,000 jobs having been lost since the last Budget. Between October 2024 and August 2025, a staggering 89,000 jobs were lost in restaurants, bars and hotels, according to UKHospitality.

Additionally, the Employment Rights Bill has rightly been labelled the “Barriers to Work Bill”. Banning probation periods will discourage employers from giving young people a chance. We should be rewarding employers for taking a risk and hiring an inexperienced recruit, not narrowing the talent pool by taking this option off the table. To truly tackle worklessness, we must trust our small and medium-sized businesses to make their own staffing decisions. Increased employment rights mean nothing if there are no jobs in the first place. Shortly after I was elected, I set up the Wyre Forest jobs fair to connect private and public sector employers with local jobseekers, including young people. I recognise that looking for work can, in itself, be hard work, and that was one way to broaden people’s horizons.

Supporting this nation’s NEETs comes with great rewards. If we could get just 5% of unemployed under-25s back into work, the Government would save £903 million over the course of this Parliament, according to research commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, it found that spending £1 in return-to-work schemes could save the taxpayer £6 through consequential cuts to benefits and increased tax intake from the subsequent jobs. Most importantly, we would also be offering young people the confidence boost that comes from discovering a job where they can thrive.

To conclude, we must ensure that there is targeted support for all young people, no matter what barriers they face, so that they can start and succeed in work. We urge the Government to reverse their damaging economic policies that are crippling the very sectors that offer many young people their first stint in employment. We must back our small and medium-sized enterprises to the hilt, rather than strangle them with ever more costly regulations. Having stronger businesses means more and better jobs for everyone. We cannot afford to waste a generation.

17:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this incredibly important debate.

Given the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), it is important to remind Members that we inherited a situation in which nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That can have lifelong consequences for people. As he said, the “Keep Britain Working” review found that someone who leaves the workforce due to ill health in their early 20s can lose more than £1 million in lifetime earnings, and that the impact on their wellbeing is immense. It is bad for employers, too. They need the energy, talent and potential of our young people at a time of more than 700,000 job vacancies. And, of course, it is bad for the country. Failing to help people early in their lives stores up all kinds of problems and costs further down the line. Young people are the future of our country, so helping them to achieve their potential is central to our mission of national renewal.

I want to comment on some of the specific points that colleagues made, but I hope they will forgive me: with the two-minute limit, things came fast and furious. If I miss out anyone or any particular point, they should feel free to grab me afterwards or contact me, and I will provide a response where I can.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for drawing out the examples of Shaun and Lily, which were indicative of stories I hear up and down the country. I offer my congratulations to Lily on securing the role at Nottingham Forest. My hon. Friend has clearly had a dialogue with Lily, so I wonder whether Lily might be willing to have a conversation with me about her experience in the jobcentre. I am always keen to hear about experiences on the frontline.

We are determined, through the standing up of the national jobs and careers service, to look at how we can make improvements to the support provided by our work coaches. In general, they do an important job well, but we are looking to modernise their approach through increased use of technology in support of young people and people who are looking for work across all age ranges. We want to upskill them to support people who might be from less-than-usual circumstances or are further away from the labour market. As we go through that, as well as our journey to increase the extent to which those closest to the labour market can self-serve, allowing work coaches to spend more time with people who really need the help, I am very keen to hear feedback, so if my hon. Friend would ask Lily whether she might consider it, I would be happy to have a conversation with her.

My hon. Friend was entirely right to mention the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market. Some sectors in particular will be potentially negatively impacted, although overall, forecasters suggest that there will be a net increase in jobs as a result of AI. We need to look at particular sectoral impacts and what the Government can do over time to help. She and a number of other colleagues talked about access to mental health support, and I am sure that she will welcome the acceleration of the roll-out of mental health support teams to schools and further education colleges to ensure that we have full national coverage by 2029.

My hon. Friend took the opportunity, as did many colleagues, to make reference to the Milburn review into the drivers of youth inactivity and the number of young people not in education, employment or training. I hope that all colleagues welcome that review. Clearly, I cannot speak specifically to the SEND review that is happening alongside and separately to it, but given that education, health and care plans cover young people until the age of 25, while it is not directly part of that work, I hope that it is common sense to consider the implications of special educational needs and disability support as part of it.

My hon. Friend asked for an outline of the steps the Government are taking. I am sure she will have been pleased to hear today about the £820 million to implement the youth jobs guarantee and the £700 million-plus for the growth and skills levy, in addition to wider work already under way. That includes the eight youth inactivity trailblazers, which have been referenced, the auto-enrolment mechanism that is being put in place to ensure that anyone under the age of 18 who is not in education, employment or training is enrolled with a local education provider, and the shift in apprenticeship funding from all-age apprenticeships to those under the age of 22, where we have the most acute problem with people not in education, employment or training.

I want to assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who called for greater careers advice and guidance, that the jobs and careers service that we are bringing forward will help to address that, certainly for over-18s. It is incredibly important that we recognise that jobs and careers advice extends not just to people not in education, employment or training, but to those in work who may be in sectors where there is not a huge opportunity for advancement or the pay is not particularly good. We are focusing on that as a key strand of our work to develop the service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) talked about the lack of focus on vocational training. I am sure that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a shift away from the 50% university target towards a two-thirds target for vocational training and university education routes more broadly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned. That is overdue. If I have one criticism of the policy choices of the last Labour Government, perversely, it is that one, because it meant that apprenticeships in particular, and vocational training in general, lost their value in the eyes of many people up and down the country, to the detriment of young people, industry and, ultimately, our economy.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will also welcome the diversion away from level 7 apprenticeships to apprenticeships to support those aged under 22. That will ensure that while masters routes through university remain for those on level 7 apprenticeships, we are able to target support at those at the youngest end of the spectrum who perhaps have fewer qualifications.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly linked the NEET crisis to the housing crisis. As somebody who could talk about housing for hours, I completely agree with him. Housing is the most fundamental building block in anybody’s development, so I was particularly pleased to note that our new foundation apprenticeships look to address skills shortages that will prove to be a blocker to the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, by focusing on construction and engineering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly seeks to champion technical education. I fully agree, and I hope that he will recognise the positive step of scrapping and amending the target, and the significant £785 million of funding for the growth and skills levy. That shows how serious we are about taking this forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) said that the youth guarantee funding needed to be sustained and not short term. I totally agree with him both that the intervention given to a young person must be not a one-off, but lasting—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned that—and about the Government’s commitment to that. I think that as we see the results from that, the Government will continue to develop it.

On the consolidation of FE colleges across Cheshire, much as I know Middlewich, Winsford and Northwich, and the area surrounding my hon. Friend’s patch, relatively well, I cannot claim to know all the FE colleges in his locality, but that is something that I have experienced in my area with the expansion of the Trafford college group, its merger with Stockport college and so on. That is something that we need to look at, and I will feed that back directly to the Minister for Skills on his behalf.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) is a passionate advocate for young people, and he had an inspirational journey to his place himself. He is absolutely correct about this Government’s investment in youth hubs, our youth strategy and the investment that we are making in children and young people’s mental health. From next year, 900,000 more children and young people will be able to access mental health support in their education setting. The holistic approach that he suggested is critical to tackling the level of NEETs. I will write to him on his specific question about findings from the trailblazers, which is a fair challenge and an important question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) rightly mentioned the link between special educational needs and disabilities and NEETs. This is why those holistic interventions are so important. It is often forgotten that an education, health and care plan covers a young person until the age of 25, so we cannot look at this as purely a skills problem. Although the Department for Education and the Minister for School Standards are leading on that, with the joint ministerial role that my noble Friend Baroness Smith fulfils, working between the Department for Work and Pensions and the DFE, we can hopefully ensure that that is fully played in.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted care leavers and pointed out the particular problem for young people in supported accommodation, who are caught in a taper trap that disincentivises work. She will be pleased that there were measures in the Budget—hot off the press—that will start to address that. We will introduce a series of new disregards, which we think will lead to 5,000 more people who are currently in supported accommodation being able to enter work, and 8,000 receiving more housing benefit. I encourage her to look at the specifics, but this is something that I and the Minister for Social Security and Disability have been alive to for a long time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome those changes as more information becomes available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely correct to highlight the particular challenges faced by young people in his constituency—as he said, certainly at one point, it had the highest number of NEETs in the country—and to highlight the further education and training landscape across north Staffordshire. I join him in commending the Higher Horizons scheme at Keele University, but we need to see more of that. I will come back to him in writing on his question about how the introduction of V-levels potentially impacts other training schemes, and BTECs in particular.

I do not recall promising to come to one of the colleges in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but if I did not do so, I promise now that either I or the Minister for School Standards will do that. It may be that I had other things on my mind or a pint in my hand when I agreed to that; none the less, I will make sure that we look to take it forward. I share my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of the Milburn review and the need to look at this issue in an all-encompassing manner to make sure that, as we look at the levers to prevent NEETs and the drivers causing them, we leave absolutely nothing behind. Whether I had agreed previously or not, it will now be recorded in Hansard that I am off to his constituency.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), mentioned the challenges facing sectors including hospitality—I know that he has a particular interest in that sector, given the constituency he represents—and their inability to hire young people. I appreciate the challenges that he set out, but I hope that he will be pleased to hear that the new foundation apprenticeships will have a particular focus on sectors including hospitality and will be fully funded. I agree on the need to avoid suggestions of demonisation as we look at the drivers of NEETs, and particularly when considering those who suffer with certain mental health conditions. We know that there is a problem that we need to investigate, but the language that we use in this space matters. I fully accept the need to recognise that young people need support, not abuse and demonisation. On the hon. Member’s point about the need for long-term support and not one-off schemes, he will be pleased to know that the youth jobs guarantee will guarantee six months of paid work for 18 to 21-year-olds. That will not be a single intervention; it will be ongoing.

Finally, I was in danger of being in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at the start of his contribution, but when he moved into an attack on the Government I had to disagree somewhat. This is not a new problem—indeed, the number of NEETs is down 0.3% against this point last year. This is a problem inherited from the previous Government; what is different is the action being taken to deal with it: our youth jobs guarantee, our roll-out of further youth hubs, our new foundation apprenticeships and the shift in funding there, and the development of the jobs and careers service. This Government are taking this matter seriously. We will deliver the urgency needed to address it, and I hope that all colleagues will be able to support our interventions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.