Burnham aims for ‘quite radical change’ in support for young people

A young person who is “not in work, education or training” is not currently employed, enrolled in education, or participating in training. The phrase describes their present situation, not necessarily their motivation or ability. It is often shortened to NEET, although that abbreviation is not used in the article.

The review’s first report counted young people who were not working or in training, while the wider description also includes education. A person in this group might therefore be missing all three routes into a job: employment, formal study and vocational preparation. The article links the problem to young people in their 20s.

This matters because being outside these routes can leave people without a clear path into adult life. Burnham said young people need hope and support. The proposed response combines help with finding work, training and mental health, alongside possible limits on benefits for people who refuse to engage.

The first part of Alan Milburn’s review said about one in eight young people—1 million people—were not working or in training. One in eight is about 12.5%, so the problem affects a substantial share of the youth population. The figure gives the issue national scale rather than presenting it as a small group’s problem.

The article does not provide a separate total for every young person or explain whether the one-in-eight figure covers exactly the same categories as the phrase “not in work, education or training.” It clearly identifies the reported group as young people who were not working or in training. The review was intended to establish the scale of the problem.

The size of the group helps explain why Burnham calls the issue socially important. He said leaving young people in their 20s without hope is dangerous. The next report is expected to focus on ambitious ways to connect them with jobs and training.

Burnham and Milburn are considering a broad redesign of how young people are supported. It would go beyond changing benefit rules. The approach could begin in the early years and continue through school, mental-health support, job searches and training. The aim is to give young people a clearer route into adult life.

One concrete mechanism could be conditional access to some benefits. The second report is expected to recommend limiting benefits for people who refuse to engage with support. At the same time, Burnham said spending on support for young people would need to rise first. That could include help finding work, training and mental-health assistance.

The government has not presented this as a completed policy. Milburn’s report is due this month, and Burnham described the possible change as radical. He said the overall benefits bill might fall over time, but only after investment and reprioritisation. The timing would depend on what proves sustainable.

Alan Milburn is identified in the article as a former minister. He is conducting a review for the government on reducing the number of young people not in work, education or training. His work matters because the issue affects about 1 million young people, or roughly one in eight, according to the review’s first report.

The first part, published in May, set out the scale of the problem. The second part, due this month, is expected to recommend ambitious efforts to help young people get jobs and training. It may also propose limiting access to some benefits when people refuse to engage with support.

Milburn’s review is intended to be wider than a benefits assessment. Burnham said it should be a root-and-branch review of childhood and support for young people. It is expected to consider structural causes, early development, mental health, education, employment and training. Its recommendations could shape government policy during this parliament.

The review treats the problem as structural because several conditions can shape young people’s choices and chances. Its first report blamed inequality, the modern labour market and mental health. Burnham also said support had not kept pace with the very different world in which young people are growing up.

This means a young person may face barriers before deciding whether to work or train. Unequal circumstances can affect preparation for school. Mental-health difficulties can make study or employment harder. Changes in the labour market can also reduce straightforward routes into stable work. These factors point to wider conditions, not only personal effort.

That diagnosis explains why Burnham rejects a narrow benefits-only response. He wants support to begin in the early years and continue through education, mental health, work and training. The proposed policy would therefore combine more help with possible benefit conditions, rather than treating disengagement as an isolated personal choice.

Making benefits conditional on engagement would link financial support to taking part in employment or training help. The review is expected to recommend limiting access to some benefits for people who refuse to engage. The policy’s stated purpose is to move more young people towards jobs and training, while changing the balance between support and responsibility.

The mechanism would have two parts. Young people would receive more practical help, including assistance finding work, training and possibly mental-health support. Those who refused to engage could face limits on some benefits. Burnham said spending on support would have to increase first, which might require the government to reprioritise money.

The article does not give a final policy design or promise an immediate saving. Burnham said he could not say when the overall benefits bill would start to decrease. He expected it to go down in time, and said implementation should be sustainable and happen as soon as possible.

Early childhood can affect later success because readiness for school influences how well children begin learning. Burnham said too many young people are not school-ready when they arrive at school. He cited evidence that many do not catch up, making early development part of the wider employment and training problem.

The key mechanism is a continuing learning gap. If a child is not ready to learn in reception class, Burnham said the gap can remain throughout the school system. A weaker start may make later education and preparation for work more difficult. The article presents this as a reason to support children before problems become entrenched.

For that reason, the proposed rethink would begin in the early years rather than start with benefits in someone’s 20s. Burnham described it as rethinking childhood in every aspect. The current debate therefore links school readiness, long-term opportunity, jobs, training and the support offered by government.