The government has launched what’s described as a ‘landmark programme’ to get young people into the workforce.
At the end of last week, it announced its ‘Youth Guarantee’ scheme that will match young people to job or training opportunities and will provide all-important foundations for the national roll-out of the programme, ensuring all 18- to 21-year-olds in England can access help to find work – breaking down barriers to opportunity as part of the Plan for Change.
It comes days after the release of NEET figures showing almost 1 million 16-24 (12.5% of the total age group) in this category. For 18–24-year-olds the figures are higher, standing at 14.8% -with 16% (almost I in 6) of all 18–24-year-old males. (Separate figures for the 18-21 age group are not available.)
But apart from announcing a new £45 million scheme so that ‘thousands of young people across England will receive targeted support’ (that would work out at about £100 per individual, though it will be concentrated in a handful of Northern cities) we still await details of exactly how this is intended to happen. For example, if young people will be ‘matched’ with employers, including it appears, Premier League football clubs; will they be offered real jobs or just ‘placements’ – maybe just virtual ones? It isn’t clear either, how a new announcement this week, that the government is going ahead with its plans to pull funding from the highest-level apprenticeships, (equivalent to a postgraduate or master’s degree) will have a direct effect on reducing the number of NEETs.
Since the apprenticeship levy for large employers was introduced in 2017, there has been a boom in higher apprenticeships at degree or postgraduate level, (level 6 or level 7). But three quarters of these starts are by people over 25 and virtually none by those under 19. While there are arguments that additional public money (the majority of level 7 apprentices are with large employers, who pay the levy but then claim it back) should be available for those completing post-grad level training in the NHS for example, do the same arguments apply to large global companies wanting to spend it on MBA equivalent courses for their management trainees?
The limits on level 7 funding certainly reflects government desire to push more of the money generated by the levy towards lower-level apprenticeships for those under the age of 21, particularly one million NEETs. Yet even if the government has committed itself to creating 30,000 more apprenticeships, this can’t be assumed.
For a start, employers have to want to recruit apprentices for relatively low-level work and even if the majority of training costs are reimbursed, they must still be prepared to pay regular wages for a fixed period – rather than draw on a pool of temporary (including migrant) adult labour. As the number of levels 2 (GCSE equivalent) apprenticeship starts have continued to decline in recent years (a 25% fall since 2019, with similar falls in the number of under 19s and particularly in sectors like construction) it seems that in the UKs largely unregulated labour market, this is not the case. With increases in higher level apprenticeships representing a significant proportion of all starts, if level 7s are excluded, the total number of starts may even fall, with unspent levy money being returned to the Treasury.
Education, Economy and Society 
The UK government policy change only applies in England.
The NEET data is UK wide (based on Labour Force Survey, not the most reliable of sources as it’s based on voluntary sampling) but not provided by country – though as England is 80+% of the Labour Force, the overall figures will be close to those in England but doesn’t provide any finer granularity.
The Scottish Government produces it’s own ‘participation’ data based on more census like surveys. As part of the new Programme for Government in the run up to the May 2026 elections, the Scottish Government is also in the process of moving apprenticeship funding from Skills Development Scotland, primarily a careers service, into the (combined) Scottish Funding Councils for FE and HE. This should allow it to be more aligned with College and University funding, rather than at the behest of private companies, and encourage covering skills gaps more holistically with College courses and apprenticeship options.
However, the main problem for all the devolved government is still the impact of Barnett: if the public spending on apprentices in England goes up, so do the grants to devolved government; but if the spending in England goes down and is returned to HM Treasury so do the grants to devolved governments. This 47 year old ‘temporary’ fiscal formula should be replaced by one based on economic and social needs for training, not arbitrary decisions about England.
Thanks for this!