Select committee: Work and Pensions Committee
Conclusion 17
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)
Many people would be surprised to learn that last year more than 50% of apprenticeship starts were by over 25s. The government is right to look to rebalance apprenticeships towards young people. However, its approach of defunding a handful of apprenticeships pursued by a high proportion of over 25s has been too blunt. Defunding these apprenticeships will have an immediate impact on many workers looking to retrain, reduce opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds and risk inadvertently harming the prospects of young people looking to enter the labour market. It is deeply regrettable that DWP only sought evidence from Skills England and employers after making its defunding decisions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 105)
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.