National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

The real minimum wage is in fact zero and, unfortunately, that is what many young people receive when we make it too expensive to hire them. While this Government seem determined to compete with the Greens for the prize of economic illiteracy, businesses are closing, hiring is weakening, training budgets are being cut and too many young people are seeing the path into work disappear before their eyes. The country cannot afford that, and young people certainly cannot afford that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his interpretation of the Government’s announcement yesterday of a major drive to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people and to radically transform apprenticeships. I suggest that it demonstrates that this Government are not reckless with the youth unemployment market and the economy.

I would like to reinforce the opening remarks of the Minister about the way that the regulations before the House this evening came about. Without labouring the point, they were the product of the painstaking examination of evidence by the Low Pay Commission, a tripartite body featuring representatives from businesses large and small, labour market economists and experts and representatives of workers. I can attest to the thoroughness of that exercise that takes place year after year because I did it myself 11 times.

The commission, as has been said, is excellently chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. As it is directly relevant to these regulations, I shall quote briefly from her letter to the Government making recommendations to apply from April this year. She wrote:

“Having comprehensively considered the available evidence base”,


the Low Pay Commission’s judgment was that the recent national living wage increases

“have not had a significant negative impact on jobs”.

On young people specifically, the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has reminded us, had asked the commission to extend the national living wage to 18 year-olds, but to do this by balancing concerns about youth unemployment. The letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said that the Low Pay Commission acknowledged

“a concerning rise in the rate of young people not in education, employment or training”.

These were not reckless recommendations.

The Low Pay Commission also acknowledged:

“Young people are also more likely to work in hospitality and retail, which have seen significant falls in vacancies and employee numbers”


at realistic assessment. It said, however, that minimum wage effects were

“difficult to separate out … from other pressures on these sectors”.

It said that there was not enough evidence to say that previous increases in the minimum rate for 18 to 20 year-olds had

“affected young people’s employment overall”.

It is not me saying this; it was the Low Pay Commission.

The commission opted for caution and recommended waiting until 2028 or 2029 to lower the national living wage threshold to 18, and then only subject to economic conditions. It was similarly cautious and careful with the apprentice rate, keeping it the same as the rate for 16 and 17 year-olds and increasing it to only £8 an hour.

The Low Pay Commission’s wisdom and caution is reflected in the regulations before your Lordships’ House this evening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to think again about his amendment and about the effects of seeking to deny the lowest paid in our society a few more pounds in their wage packets.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a sad day to be speaking on the Conservative amendment objecting to a rise in the minimum wage. I support the rise in the minimum wage and the acceleration of the rate for younger workers, who bear the full cost of living. The product of their labour is not sold for lower prices at Starbucks, Tesco or anywhere else. Some 25.3 million people live below the minimum living standard, and their voices must be heard.

Last week the Conservatives promised to reintroduce the two-child benefit cap if they ever return to office. Over 500,000 children and their families will be pushed back into poverty. That lack of empathy is on display again today, as now they are targeting low-paid workers and depriving children and their families of nourishing food, good housing and other essentials.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated that a single person needed to earn £30,500 a year to reach a minimum acceptable living standard in 2025. A couple with two children needed to earn £74,000. Even after the forthcoming minimum wage increase, millions will be well short of that target, yet the party opposite is objecting to this.

It is striking that it is silent on soaraway executive pay. A typical FTSE 100 CEO collects an average UK wage in just two days, and the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is 141 times. Recently, the chief executive of Shell got a pay rise of 60%, rising to £13.8 million. The BP CEO’s pay has doubled to £11.7 million. Her daily pay exceeds the annual median wage of a UK employee. At Melrose Industries, the CEO-to-worker ratio is over 1,110 times.

We never hear anything from the party opposite about such rip-offs and inequalities. The party opposite objects to a rise in the pay of younger workers, but it has not offered a single suggestion for lifting young adults out of poverty. It could support calls for the abolition of university tuition fees or the abolition of prescription charges, or promise free bus passes to under-21s as in Scotland, but it does not support any of these poverty-alleviating measures.

Sadly, the opposition to the rise in the minimum wage is part of a steady decline of empathy for a large section of the population. The political discourse venerates the super-rich and scapegoats children, minorities, the poor, the disabled, the sick and the unfortunate for social problems. Empathy is the glue that holds a society together, but it is increasingly undermined by toxic political discourses. I am reminded of a quote by Hannah Arendt, who said:

“The death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism”.


Condemning millions to poverty is barbaric. We must search our souls and aim for equitable distribution of wealth to ensure that every single person in this country can live with dignity and fulfil their life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I was not expecting Confucius, but of course I defer to that ancient wisdom.

I listened very carefully to what was said, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill. I think she said—she will correct me if I am wrong—that the Low Pay Commission found it difficult to separate the various cost pressures affecting the hospitality industry particularly, including the effects of higher or rising pay. I would argue, therefore, that that is not particularly evidence-based. It would seem slightly reckless to make that recommendation if you cannot determine the causes of the headwinds—but I will park that for the time being.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

Perhaps I could recommend to the noble Lord that he takes time to read the Low Pay Commission’s report, which sets out its reasoning in full, and the evidence base it is drawing on. I may have made that point clumsily. I certainly did not mean to disparage the Low Pay Commission. I was trying to convey its sense that it could not find evidence to attribute any negative effects on the labour market for young people specifically to the national living wage as applied in the rates for those young people. It was trying to make an assessment of the extent to which the minimum wage rates were the cause of any detrimental effects on the labour market and could not find that it was the low pay rates which had that negative effect. The reasoning is set out in great detail in that report.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. I will definitely make a point of reading that and perhaps return to it, depending on what I see.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, who made some very good points, that the camel’s back is already broken when it comes to youth unemployment. It is at 16.1%—a point I made in my earlier remarks. That is higher than the EU average, which is a pretty woeful state of affairs. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, unemployment is at 5.2% now, but, as we also heard and as I reminded the House, the OBR has forecast that it will rise to 7%.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her remarks. I would also point her in the direction of the Resolution Foundation, which has a direct line into the Treasury; it was not just the Tony Blair Institute. For the time being, I rest my case on Green economics.

It is always a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I think his argument was, “If you agree with me politically, you have empathy; if you don’t, you haven’t”. In which case, I would argue that it is empathetic to try to keep people in jobs rather than price them out. That is empathy. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Certainly, I believe that everybody at work—whatever background they come from and whatever their class, sex, gender or sexuality—should have the right to be treated fairly. I believe that our legal system, our Equality Act, precisely provides that protection for people, but that we can build on it through equality action plans and so on. But I have to say that maybe some noble Lords opposite also need to consider people’s real experience.

I was elected as the first ever woman general secretary of the TUC. Clearly, we were not a movement that rushed things, because it took an awful long time to get to that point. I have enough self-awareness to know that it was not because there were not talented women, black or white, who could have been elected and who had the talent, skills and ability. There was something else going on, and I hope that there would be enough honesty in this House to recognise that black people and women face real barriers that will not be overcome unless we take positive action.

The other point I would just like to reflect on is that, whenever I spoke about seeing more women playing active roles in not just the trade union movement but in public life, including, by the way, lending my support to women who were arguing that we needed more women in the boardroom—I supported that principle—I was always fascinated that, whenever I raised those issues, people, largely men I have to say, would start talking about merit. Well, I have to say, when I look at the upper echelons, I do not always see in those male-dominated and white-dominated ranks people who got there on the basis of merit. I have never seen an advert for a position on a board. I have never known any board member to go through an open recruitment process to get that position. It has very often been a case of a tap on the shoulder.

If we look at how many judges and newspaper editors we have, and specifically at race, sex and gender, yes, the picture has progressed, but we still have a very long way to go. Therefore, I think this amendment is a little disingenuous in trying to suggest that people who have been held back for years because of their class background, race or gender, if given a helping hand and a bit of encouragement to go for it, will somehow cause a meltdown of society.

Achieving what my noble friend said is, quite rightly, part of my history and our history. I hope that it is part of our progress as a country that we value equality. We know that ultimately it is good for all of us, and long may we keep struggling to achieve that goal.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have commented on this amendment in far better terms than I could, but I will make a supplementary point. I was very surprised to see this amendment, because one of the perennial themes that we have heard throughout all stages of the Bill in this House has been a complaint about the alleged level of extra bureaucracy that it is supposed to impose on employers. Yet here we see a veritable feast of form-filling and requirements to report on those forms at regular intervals. I suggest that this amendment is not needed; it is surplus to requirements because it places unnecessary burdens on employers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. It is very important that we do not suggest that giving a helping hand to those who have been politically deprived of equality equals equality. It can also equal tokenism. Working-class people, women and people from ethnic minorities have been promoted to positions in authority, and people basically point them out and say, “Look at them: they succeeded”. That is the opposite of equal treatment, and condescension is not a good look.

Knife Crime: Stop and Search

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. The Government committed in their manifesto to the creation of a young futures programme to provide safe space and support to people who are vulnerable to knife crime, and that includes a range of measures. When people are at accident and emergency, at youth clubs or in school and are seen to be vulnerable, they can be referred to the youth futures programme and youth futures hubs, which will support those individuals to turn away from knife crime and have the life skills to improve their condition.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

Online retailers and re-sellers are getting around the law to supply these weapons to young people. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to prevent the supply of weapons, which has to happen if we are to stop knife crime at source?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House of Commons but will be reaching this House very shortly, there are strong measures to restrict the sale of knives online and to provide particularly strong penalties for the illegal sale of knives, including a new online police co-ordination hub to take action against illegal knife and weapon content. My noble friend will know that on 27 March, the Government announced a ban on ninja swords. I will be bringing before this House, in short order, a Commons statutory instrument to ensure that we have a surrender scheme, and then, if approved by this House, a complete ban on ninja swords from 1 August 2025.