City A.M. reports that Number 10 is looking at slowing down planned increases to the minimum wage for younger workers, as employers keep telling ministers that rising staff costs are making them think twice about hiring anyone under 21. The story lands as part of a wider government review into youth worklessness, and it is worth being precise about what is actually on the table, because the headline version and the practical version point in different directions.
The review is being led by Alan Milburn, the former Labour cabinet minister, who has told officials to make it "as easy as possible" for companies to employ young people — which is the language of removing friction from hiring, not the language of protecting a pay rise. A government spokesperson's line was that ministers remain "determined to help young people into work and deliver on our manifesto commitment", while separately asking the Low Pay Commission — the independent body that recommends each year's rates — to weigh the employment effects more heavily. Those two things sitting in the same sentence is the whole story: the manifesto commitment is being kept in name while its pace is quietly renegotiated.
What the manifesto actually promised, and why the rates look like they do
Labour's 2024 manifesto committed to scrapping the age bands in the minimum wage altogether, on the grounds that paying an 18-year-old less than a 40-year-old for the same job was, in the manifesto's own word, discriminatory. The plan was to close the gap gradually rather than in one jump, and this April's rates show that plan in motion: the rate for 21 and over rose 4.1% to £12.71 an hour, while the rate for 18 to 20-year-olds rose more than twice as fast — 8.5% — to £10.85. The 16-17 rate rose 6% to £8.00. The younger bands were deliberately outpacing the adult rate so the gap would close on a schedule.
What is now reportedly under review is that schedule, not the destination. Nobody in the coverage is proposing that under-21 pay should fall, or that the ambition to equalise it eventually should be abandoned outright. The question being asked inside government is whether closing the gap this fast, while youth unemployment is rising, is making the underlying problem worse rather than better — because an employer choosing between a 21-year-old and an 18-year-old only saves money on the younger hire for as long as the rates stay apart.
The number that is actually driving this
The reason this is being looked at now rather than at any other point in the cycle is the state of the youth labour market itself. Unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds has risen to 16.2%, up from 14.2% a year earlier, and the review separately points to close to a million 16 to 24-year-olds who are neither working nor studying. City A.M.'s coverage also cites Department for Work and Pensions figures comparing Britain unfavourably with the Netherlands, where only 4.8% of young people are outside work or training against 13.6% here, and where around 74% of 15 to 29-year-olds combine work with study rather than doing one or the other.
Those are two different measurements doing two different jobs, and it is worth keeping them apart. The 16.2% figure is the unemployment rate among young people who are actively looking for work — it excludes students not seeking a job. The 13.6% figure is the wider NEET-style measure of everyone that age not working or studying, whether or not they are looking. Both are moving the wrong way, which is why the review exists, but they are not the same statistic and a business owner reading the coverage should not average them into one number.
A rate rise that outpaces the adult rate only helps young workers if employers keep hiring them at it. A wage floor with no jobs underneath it is not a win for anybody it was designed to protect.
The historical pattern this sits inside
This is not the first time a UK minimum wage age threshold has moved in response to how the youth labour market was actually behaving rather than how the policy assumed it would. The National Living Wage, introduced in April 2016, originally applied only to workers 25 and over — a deliberate age cut-off, on the reasoning that the higher rate carried more employment risk for younger, less experienced workers. It was not until April 2021 that the threshold was lowered to 21 and over, five years after launch, precisely because ministers wanted evidence the higher rate was not costing younger workers jobs before extending it to them.
The general pattern the Low Pay Commission has reported on for a decade is that the adult minimum wage has risen substantially with little measurable effect on aggregate adult employment — the doom-laden predictions that used to accompany every uprating largely did not materialise. Youth rates get more cautious treatment for a structural reason rather than a political one: entry-level youth roles sit much closer to what the market would pay anyway, so a rate rise there has less room to be absorbed before it changes an employer's hiring decision at the margin. That is exactly the mechanism this review is reportedly worried about.
What it means for your hiring costs, worked through
Take a small retail or hospitality employer choosing between a school-leaver on the 18-20 rate and a 21-year-old on the adult rate, both working a standard 30-hour week.
At current rates, the 18-20 worker costs £10.85 x 30 x 52 = £16,926 a year in gross pay. The 21-year-old costs £12.71 x 30 x 52 = £19,828.20. That is a £2,902 annual gap before employer National Insurance and pension contributions are added on top of both.
Under the original manifesto path, that gap was scheduled to keep shrinking every April until it disappeared — this year's 8.5% rise for the younger band against 4.1% for adults was one step of that closure. If the pace is now slowed, the £2,902 gap persists for longer than employers had been told to plan for. That is the concrete effect: not a cut to anyone's pay, but a longer runway before the cost advantage of hiring young disappears. For a business weighing up a junior hire against a more experienced one, that is a reason to lean towards the younger candidate now, not away from it.
A decision framework for hiring a young worker right now
None of this needs to be resolved before you make a hiring decision, because the current rates are fixed regardless of what the review recommends. Four questions worth running through in order.
What does the role actually need on day one? If it genuinely requires no prior experience, the wage gap between an 18-20 hire and a 21-year-old is money for training time you would be paying anyway on either hire. If it needs experience you cannot train quickly, the wage gap is not the deciding factor and you should not let it push you towards the wrong candidate.
What is your total cost, not just the headline hourly rate? Employer National Insurance and any pension contribution sit on top of gross pay for every age band, and the reliefs available differ by age — under-21s already carry no employer NI up to the upper secondary threshold, which is a bigger saving on paper than anything in this review. Check your payroll is applying it correctly before assuming the minimum wage rate is the only number that matters.
Are you hiring against a fixed cost you can already forecast, or a policy outcome that has not happened yet? The rates for April 2027 have not been set. Build your hiring decision on the rate in front of you and revisit the arithmetic when the Low Pay Commission actually reports, rather than pricing in a change that is still speculative.
Would a trial shift or short fixed-term contract answer the real question faster than a policy debate will? Most of the hesitation employers report to bodies like the BCC and the British Retail Consortium is about capability and reliability, not the headline rate. A two-week paid trial answers that directly; waiting for a government review does not.
What to watch next
The Low Pay Commission normally reports its recommendation for the following April's rates in the autumn, so any shift in approach would most plausibly surface either in that recommendation or in the wider worklessness review, which is expected within weeks rather than months. The Budget on 28 October is a separate event but sits in the same window, and any announcement affecting employer costs for younger staff is more likely to land there than in a standalone statement. Nothing here requires action before then — but it is worth checking GOV.UK's rate tables again once the Low Pay Commission reports, rather than working off this April's numbers indefinitely.
Common questions
Has the youth minimum wage actually been cut?
No. Nothing has changed yet, and no rate has been reduced. What is being reported is that the government is weighing whether to slow the pace of future increases to under-21 rates, as part of a wider review into youth worklessness led by Alan Milburn. The rates that took effect on 1 April 2026 stand regardless of what that review recommends: £12.71 an hour for workers 21 and over, £10.85 for 18 to 20-year-olds, and £8.00 for 16 and 17-year-olds and apprentices. Those figures only change once the Low Pay Commission makes its annual recommendation and the government accepts it, which happens on the usual cycle each autumn for the following April. Any slowdown from this review would show up there, not before.
What was the original plan this rethink would change?
Labour's 2024 manifesto committed to scrapping the minimum wage's age bands altogether, so that 18 to 20-year-olds, and eventually 16 and 17-year-olds, would move onto the same rate as everyone aged 21 and over. The plan was to close the gap gradually rather than in a single jump, and this April's rates show that plan already in motion: the 18-20 rate rose 8.5% to £10.85, more than double the 4.1% rise to £12.71 for the adult rate, because the younger band was deliberately being run ahead of schedule to catch up. The 16-17 rate rose 6% to £8.00 over the same period. What is reportedly under review now is the pace of that closure, not the destination — nobody in the coverage is proposing that under-21 pay should fall or that the ambition should be dropped.
Does slowing this down mean hiring a young worker gets cheaper?
Relative to the plan employers had been told to expect, yes. If the age bands close more slowly than the 2024 manifesto promised, an 18 to 20-year-old on £10.85 an hour stays cheaper than a 21-year-old on £12.71 for longer than originally scheduled — a gap of £2,902 a year on a standard 30-hour week that persists rather than shrinking each April. That is a lower forecast cost than employers had been budgeting for, not a higher one, which is the opposite of what a headline about a 'wage rethink' usually implies. Nothing about current pay changes either way; what changes, if anything comes of the review, is how quickly next year's and the year after's rates converge. Employers costing out a hiring decision today should use this year's confirmed gap, not a shrinking one.
Should I hire a young worker now, or wait to see what happens?
Hire on this year's numbers — waiting for policy certainty here has no upside. The rates in force from 1 April 2026 are fixed until the Low Pay Commission's next recommendation takes effect in April 2027, regardless of what this review concludes, and any change to the rate-setting path would only ever apply to a future uprating, never retrospectively. There is no version of this review that changes what you pay a young worker you hire this month. If cost is the hesitation, run the actual arithmetic — the wage gap, the employer National Insurance relief available on under-21 earnings up to the upper secondary threshold, and the training time the role realistically needs — rather than pricing in a policy outcome that has not been decided and will not be, at the earliest, until the autumn.
Where do I check the current rates myself?
GOV.UK publishes the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage rate tables directly, broken down by age band and by apprentice status, and updates them the moment a new rate takes effect each April. That page is the only version worth trusting — third-party summaries and payroll software defaults can lag by weeks after a change, and getting an age band wrong is a compliance risk HMRC does actively check for, with penalties of up to 200% of the arrears owed, capped at £20,000 per worker, if someone was underpaid. If you employ apprentices, check their rate separately: the apprentice rate applies to apprentices under 19, or 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, and reverts to the normal age-band rate after that regardless of whether the apprenticeship itself has finished. Bookmark the GOV.UK page rather than a payroll dashboard.
Buzz Accounting, a fixed-fee UK accountancy practice, has more on payroll for small employers.
