Select committee: Work and Pensions Committee
Conclusion 12
3rd Report - Youth employment, education and training
Published 22 Jul 2026
Addressed to Department for Work and Pensions
Work and Pensions Committee Youth employment, education and training All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
The Jobs Guarantee is a good offer, but its eligibility is too tight and will limit its impact. We are concerned about the long-term impact on a young person of being unemployed for 18 months and that waiting a year and a half before offering a work placement risks undermining the benefits of the scheme. DWP should undertake and publish a cost-benefit analysis for the Jobs Guarantee. This analysis should test different options for how long someone is unemployed before the scheme kicks in and show how DWP arrived at an 18-month period. We are also concerned that the scheme excludes the 44% of NEETs who are not claiming benefits. DWP should develop options for NEETs outside the benefits system to take part in the Jobs Guarantee. (Recommendation, Paragraph 63)
From: Work and Pensions Committee, 3rd Report - Youth employment, education and training (HC 180), 22 July 2026
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 15 October 2026 (deadline 22 September 2026).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government accepts two of the Committee's recommendations on the Youth Guarantee and apprenticeship awareness, partially accepts others, does not accept the National Insurance proposal, and defers several matters until the final Milburn report is published.
- On extending the National Insurance Upper Secondary Threshold to all under-25s, the government says "Do not accept", citing the need to restore the public finances and existing employer National Insurance reliefs for young people.
- On a youth employment strategy, the response says "Revisit when Milburn is published" and commits to publish "a full response to Alan Milburn's review in due course".
- On a 10-year minimum funding level, it says "Revisit once Milburn is published", stating that committing to long-term spending for a specific issue outside the Spending Review cycle "would reduce the credibility of any spending plans".
- On a Jobs Guarantee cost benefit analysis, it partially accepts: one will be included in the wider evaluation, but it is "not committing at this stage" to analysis of different periods of unemployment before referral.