Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) on securing the debate. I thank all Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who referred to the thoughts of even the most zealous right-wingers. I am not sure where I sit on his zealot-o-meter, but perhaps we will see by the end of my speech—I am sure I will wear it with pride. It is great to be shadowing the Minister; it is always wonderful to debate a fellow Boltonian.

The issues raised by the interim report are made all the more topical by the delay in publishing the final report and by last week’s Budget, which was notable for the absence of any action on the number of young people not in education, employment or training. Alongside the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a figure that should give every Member pause. Over this Parliament, the Government will spend £911 billion on working-age welfare. That is more than £48,000 for every one of Britain’s more than 18 million working households.

There are few subjects this House debates that matter more to the future of our country. Behind every figure in Alan Milburn’s interim report is a young person whose working life is either not starting well or not starting at all.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I highlighted the issue for young people with mental health issues. That the percentage of those affected went up from 21% to 35% is an indication of a special issue for young people today. The hon. Gentleman will know that through his own constituency, as I do through mine. Does he agree that young people’s mental health must be a priority and that we must focus on them to ensure that they get the employment and the purpose in life that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Snowden]

Speaking of badges of honour, it is always a badge of honour to be intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I totally agree with his point.

The figures that I just referred to are stark. Youth unemployment reached 15.6% in the first quarter of this year—that is 715,000 young people and 139,000 more than when this Labour Government came to office. Almost a million young people—981,000—are not in education, employment or training. Our youth unemployment rate is now higher than that of Hungary, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Perhaps the most telling finding of all is that six in 10 young people without a job have never worked. For them, this is not about getting back into work; it is about getting a start in the first place.

The Opposition welcome the review and recognise much of its diagnosis. Work is not just a wage; it brings structure, confidence and purpose. Prolonged unemployment early in life leaves a scar on earnings, health and life chances that can last for decades. In Government, the Conservatives understood that. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the kickstart scheme during the pandemic, helping more than 150,000 young people into paid work. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the apprenticeship levy and supported millions of apprenticeship starts. We acted because we knew that the first job matters most. It teaches the value of punctuality and the necessity of taking instructions and it builds social skills in a personal setting.

Since the election, this Government have had more than two years to get to grips with post-covid youth unemployment and the rising cost of welfare. Instead, we have seen a culture of dither, delay and U-turn.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that making it easier for young people to get functional skills qualifications, rather than being stuck in an endless cycle of resits, would allow them to get those qualifications and then on to an apprenticeship and into work, exactly as those at the Aspire youth hub in Witney do so well?

[Mr Snowden]

Tailored support is something that I will come on to shortly.

Worse still, the Government’s own choices have made the problem harder. The rise in employer national insurance and the new burdens of the Employment Rights Act 2025 have made it more expensive and risky to take a chance on a young person. The Government cannot tax the first rung of the ladder and then express surprise that fewer young people are climbing it.

At the same time, spending on personal independence payments for 16 to 24-year-olds has risen from £1.3 billion to £3.2 billion in five years. Some 45% of young people who are NEET now report a disability, and of those who fall out of work or study through ill health, eight in 10 are still NEET two years later. New analysis from the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows just how deep that runs. In April this year, more than two thirds of universal credit claimants in their twenties—some 870,000 young people—were not in work. In just two years PIP claims rose by almost a quarter among 20 to 29-year-olds and by nearly as much among 16 to 19-year-olds. These are not numbers to be managed; they are young lives being put on hold.

The Minister for Social Security and Disability at the DWP has told us that PIP is “not fit for purpose” yet he also said that the current level of spending is not “of great concern.” The House is entitled to know which of those statements accurately reflects the Government’s position. Nor is it reassuring that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is reported to have written to Peter Mandelson:

“Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’”.

All of this raises some simple but urgent questions for this Government that I would like to put to the Minister. First, will she confirm exactly when Milburn’s final report will be published and when the Government will respond to it in full? Will the Minister also explain why neither the Milburn review nor the Timms review was allowed to report before the Budget? Secondly, will she set out precisely how those two reviews will be brought together? Will there be a single package of welfare reform and when will it come before the House? Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the rise in employer national insurance has reduced entry-level hiring?

[Alex McIntyre]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman might remind the House how much employer national insurance contributions are for an under 21-year-old earning less than £50,000 a year.

[Mr Snowden]

That is precisely why the Conservative party has pledged to reduce them by 50% to take them down even further.

[Alex McIntyre]

Fifty per cent of nothing is still nothing.

[Mr Snowden]

We are talking about 21 to 24-year-olds.

Fourthly, on the youth guarantee and youth jobs grant, how many young people have actually started a job so far? What is the cost per place and how many remain in unsubsidised work once the subsidy ends? Fifthly, how many apprenticeship starts have there been for those aged 25 since the growth skills levy replaced the apprenticeship levy and how does that compare with the year before?

Finally, will the Government at last accept the offer made by the Leader of the Opposition, repeated at Prime Minister’s questions in June, to work with us on serious welfare reform? That offer stands because we have a plan. Our get to work scheme rests on a simple principle: no young person who can work should leave education and drift straight on to benefits. Every young person would have a dedicated get to work manager and work requirements from day one. It would cost a net £303 million, paid for by streamlining existing employment schemes and as part of the broader £36 billion of welfare savings set out by the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately).

We all share the objective of giving every young person the dignity and opportunity of work, but good intentions are not good enough and another review is not a plan. A working age welfare bill of £911 billion in a single Parliament is not the mark of a system that works; it is the mark of one that is failing both the young people trapped in it and the working families who pay for it. I press the Government for straight answers today: when will they act, how will they pay for it and how will they measure success?