Youth Unemployment

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

If only the Conservatives had had 14 years to do much of what the shadow Minister just outlined. It seems as though they never tire of pulling apart their own abysmal record. Today they have chosen to focus on the crisis of opportunity that they handed down to young people, and that this Government are determined to address.

The Conservatives were perfectly happy, it seems, for youth apprenticeship starts to plummet by nearly 40%. They sat and watched as the number of young people neither learning nor earning spiralled upwards by 300,000 in three years, and they were devoid of ideas to help young people overcome the barriers to work that they face. Perhaps worst of all, when confronted with undeniable proof of their failure, they blamed young people, instead of supporting them.

This Government will never take that attitude to the next generation—an attitude of ambivalence at best, and contempt at worst. Instead, we are clearing up the mess that the previous Government left in their wake. We are giving young people opportunities to succeed, and the support that they need.

We are determined to meet the size of the challenge that we inherited, and to deliver on the huge scale that is required. That is why we are refocusing apprenticeships towards young people. We are also bringing support to where young people are by expanding youth hubs to over 360 areas across Great Britain. That is just part of our youth guarantee, which we are rolling out so that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn; and it accounts for part of the more than £1.5 billion that was made available for employment and skills support at the Budget, which will create around 355,000 new training or workplace opportunities. Our jobs guarantee will make available subsidised paid employment for around 55,000 young people. These are significant interventions, while the Conservatives offer nothing. The vision they have to offer young people is as bleak as the reality of their record: they offer low-paid, insecure work, and a cold shoulder instead of a helping hand. We have seen where that leads, and we have chosen a different path.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister knows that youth unemployment was at 20% when the Conservatives came into power, and at 14% when we left. Can he commit that his Government, with their vast array of programmes, will bring youth unemployment back below the level that his Government inherited? Previous Labour Governments have failed to do that, and shoved up youth unemployment, with all the damage that goes with that. Will his Government ensure that the numbers come down, and if they do not, will the Government put their hands up and admit their failure?

[Andrew Western]

That is why we are making interventions in the form of the youth guarantee and increased investment in the growth and skills levy. I gently point out that, as the right hon. Member will be aware, the rate of youth unemployment rose by 4% in the Conservatives’ last two years in office. Today we have heard attack after attack, and excuse after excuse for youth unemployment rising, but it was rising when they left office. This is not a new problem. It is a significant challenge that we are serious about addressing, but if the Conservatives wish to continue with their policy of collective amnesia about the mess that they left behind, they will never have anything to offer young people.

I turn to Opposition Members’ contributions, beginning with that of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who showed that the Conservatives have suddenly developed empathy for young people after leaving us with a NEET number of almost 1 million. We heard Tory Members compare the youth unemployment rate with those of other G7 countries, but we have the second-highest youth employment rate in the G7. We are not complacent, and we know that there is work to do. [Interruption.] I am aware that it is a different figure, but it is relevant when looking at the overall picture.

Several Members, but first among them was the shadow Secretary of State, said that nobody on the Government Front Bench had ever worked in a business. I suggest that she checks the record. Certainly, both the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who opened the debate, and I worked for many years in the private sector. I managed a small business; I worked in a global business; and I did several other jobs in the private sector in between.

Conservative Members suggested that they cut the welfare bill and halved unemployment, using a pick ‘n’ mix of flattering figures from various moments of their time in office. However, we, like people up and down this country, will judge them on their legacy when they left office. They left a spiralling welfare bill that disincentivised people from looking for work, and they left us the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than before the pandemic. They are not prepared to face up to the mess that they left our country in, and they do that time and again. I admire their chutzpah for continuing to table Opposition day debates on subjects on which their record is absolutely appalling and by a considerable margin the most significant factor in what we face today, but that does not mean that the public will forgive or forget what they left behind.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), asked about the impact of artificial intelligence on the workforce. I assure her that the Government are cognisant and mindful of the need to keep a close eye on it. We have recently set up a new cross-Government unit that will look at AI’s impact on the labour market, and will offer free AI foundations training for all workers. She raised concerns about the defunding of level 7 apprenticeships. I will not pretend that the Government’s decision is not difficult. We have chosen to target the apprenticeship funding that this Government have to spend on young people. That is because they are less likely to have a relationship with an employer who might be able to fund their training, and less likely to be able to access some of the other opportunities that people who access higher-level apprenticeships might have, and because there are other routes, including a more traditional higher-education route, for people to access instead of a level 7 apprenticeship.

The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the roll-out of the youth guarantee. The first tranche—the first 55,000 opportunities—will be in place from April, and by September we will see the roll-out of the full 300,000. She went on to criticise the national insurance increase in the Budget and its impact, but then set out that the Liberal Democrats would cut business rates and VAT and scrap that national insurance contribution increase. I say to her gently that that is the problem with the Liberal Democrat position; they never say how they would pay for it, or what they would do. She lambasts the decisions taken in the first Labour Budget. Would the Liberal Democrats choose to withdraw the additional money that has gone into the NHS? It is not credible to set out only what they are against.

We heard a number of excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Banbury (Sean Woodcock). Those excellent contributions not only highlighted the toxic legacy of the Conservative party, but set out the range of key interventions that this Government are making, which include, but are not limited to, the youth guarantee.

I think the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) asked a question about the timing of Connect to Work, but I may have lost track.

[Damian Hinds]

It was about the Minister’s projection for the Connect to Work numbers by the end of this financial year, its first year in operation.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarity. He will be aware that Connect to Work is already live in two thirds of delivery areas. By April, that will be all areas. In his area of East Hampshire, it is already live, and we expect that it will support up to 4,800 people.

[Damian Hinds]

Is that for this financial year?

[Andrew Western]

I will confirm for him separately the figure for this financial year. That figure is the aspiration in the round, using the £18.7 million funding that has been made available.

The right hon. Gentleman then launched a staunch defence of zero-hours contracts. He will know that we have a fundamentally different view of that. It is my view that insecure work is a blight. It is hugely problematic for those on challenging budgets not knowing what hours they have to work each week. This is the fundamentally different perspective that we have on this side of the House.

[Damian Hinds]

Would the Minister apply that principle to bank staff working in the national health service who have what is in fact a zero-hours contract—a bank staff contract—to top up in other roles in the NHS when that support is needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The challenge in the NHS is markedly different—I would freely acknowledge that—but the right hon. Gentleman is talking about other roles in the NHS. It is not unusual for people to hold more than one job if they are operating as bank staff, so they do not have the uncertainty about receiving no funding at all.

The right hon. Gentleman also made the criticism that the jobs guarantee only kicked in after 18 months. That is the final stage of a range of new interventions that this Government are putting in place, including an additional supported conversation at 13 weeks, followed by four weeks of intensive work coach support with specialist teams. It is not just a question of a jobs guarantee after 18 months; a broad range of interventions are being put in place.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I do not think is in her place, said that apprenticeships were an opportunity for young people to find work, and I quite agree with her, but the reforms of the Conservative party had the effect of delivering a situation where, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, the average age of those entering into apprenticeships was significantly increased. We are seeking to reverse that trend, and it is important that we do so. This is a key mechanism for giving young people the skills that they will need in the future. I believe she also called this a youth unemployment crisis of this Government’s making. I fail to see how that can possibly be the case when there was such a stark increase in the youth unemployment figures in the final two years of the Conservative Government.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said that the best welfare support of all was a job, so he will be delighted to see the additional 513,000 people who have entered into employment over the past 12 months. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), who is also not here, said that she was tired of hearing about this Government’s ambition, but the Conservatives had a paucity of just that. They left almost a million NEETs, a welfare system that disincentivised work—something we have begun to address—and an employment rate lower than before the pandemic. They can accuse us of being too ambitious if they like, but they had given up on delivering opportunity for our young people—something that this Government will never do.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked how we would encourage an employer to take a chance on a young person. We are doing that by not charging national insurance contributions for under-21s or for apprentices under 25, by fully funding apprentices at SMEs and by placing young people in six months of guaranteed work if they have been out of the workforce for 18 months so that they have the chance to prove themselves. That is a range of interventions that we are putting in place because we recognise that there is a challenge with youth unemployment. It is long standing and it is not new, but we take it very seriously.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness made, the natural extrapolation to what I believe the Conservatives are suggesting is that the way to incentivise that employer would be to allow them to pay less than the minimum wage or indeed cut the minimum wage rate for young people. I would oppose that. Would the Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I certainly would. I also note that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), having complained about the increase in the minimum wage in her closing contribution, failed to say what level the Conservative party think it is acceptable to reset that at. I personally could not look young people in the eye and justify such a cut to their wages, but the Conservatives seem happy to do so.

The shadow Minister also pointed to the lack of a plan of action, but that was set out comprehensively by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, underpinned by the £1.5 billion for the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy funding increase, but not limited to those interventions alone. The attacks on the national minimum wage increase are frankly a smokescreen for a party whose policies targeted young people for 14 years and would very clearly continue to do so now.

I cannot resist remarking that I thought it more likely for the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) to be in the young person category than in the 40-plus category. I note that he has had a change of employment status, because he was on the Front Bench on Monday but has returned to his previous position in the Parliamentary Private Secretary pigeonhole—there is a thriving labour market on the Conservative Benches, if nowhere else. He pointed to youth unemployment rising, homeownership falling and NEETs being on the up. That is a brave take given that every single one of those facts was true in July 2024. He then asked—again, this is daring, but I know that he is daring if nothing else—what that had done to the voting intentions of young people in relation to the Labour party. If I were a Conservative Member of this place—I have no intention of being one, and I do not know how much longer he intends to be one—I would not point to any other party’s polling among 18 to 24-year olds, because theirs is truly dire given the appalling legacy that they left behind.

[Andrew Lewin]

Speaking of daring, the Leader of the Opposition said today that the Conservatives do not want any more centrist ideas. What does the Minister make of that and their future with young people?

[Andrew Western]

If that is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Conservative Members may need to find a new home other than Reform—[Interruption.] I am not sure where that comment came from, but I think it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who knows a little about political journeys and will allow me to leave it there.

I, too, am concerned about the spiralling welfare bill and the rise in youth unemployment, about which we have heard a lot today, but the shadow Minister refused to set out what the Conservatives would do. If that is the best that they can offer on one of the few days a year on which they have control of the Order Paper—no idea, no clue and no plan beyond highlighting multiple problems in our society, which we inherited directly from them, as the facts show—I think they will have rather more Opposition days before they come back to the Government side of the House.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.