Youth Unemployment

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Sharpe of Epsom

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth unemployment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, too many young people are at risk of being left behind without the right skills, opportunities and support to thrive. This Government are committed to changing that, which is why the Chancellor has announced a job guarantee scheme for young people on universal credit who have been unemployed for over 18 months. This is a key part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be set out in the upcoming Budget.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, and I hope it all works. However, earlier this week, the ONS published the latest jobs data, which the Daily Telegraph reported by stating:

“Young workers are taking a particular beating in the jobs market, with a slump in graduate vacancies, and drops in hiring particularly in the retail and hospitality industries which often offer workers their first roles”.


Given this appalling backdrop, can the Minister explain why the Government, who say they are committed to this, have rejected my amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which is universally supported by employers, and which would mitigate the effect of day-one unfair dismissal rights? That policy, if enacted, will obviously reduce employers’ willingness to take risks in hiring young people.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am always pleased to hear the views of the Daily Telegraph on issues around young people’s employment. I hope that the Telegraph, as well as the noble Lords opposite, will get behind this Government’s efforts on the youth guarantee and on cutting the unacceptably large number of young people who are currently neither earning nor learning. On the Employment Rights Bill, the Government aim to protect employees from arbitrary dismissal, including those early in their careers. A statutory probation period will be introduced with light-touch standards for fair dismissal based on performance and stability, and that approach appropriately balances worker protections with the need for employers to assess new hires confidently.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Sharpe of Epsom

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that was a most interesting exchange, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lord Jackson for it. As I have said many times, I am not a lawyer, but as a broader observation, there seems to be a slight philosophical discussion developing this evening between intervention and initiation when it comes to various state interventions in certain areas of law.

I have no doubt at all that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to strengthen the enforcement of equal pay laws. As she rightly says, we all support that objective, but we feel that this particular proposal is somewhat flawed, not least because we just do not think it will work. At its core, the amendment risks conflating pay disparity with unlawful discrimination. It assumes that if a pay gap exists, there must therefore be wrongdoing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, acknowledged, it is not that simple, because pay disparities can and often do arise for entirely legitimate reasons, such as differences in experience or qualifications, performance geography or even negotiated terms, to my noble friend Lord Jackson’s point. To suggest that a mere statistical difference is indicative of discrimination is to abandon the nuanced legal framework carefully set out in the Equality Act 2010. While paying a great deal of respect to the arguments—and there is considerable merit in this—we cannot support this amendment.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I am also an occasional visitor to this Committee, but I am very pleased to be here this evening to address her Amendment 275. I thank her for recognising the engagement there has been with the Government and others on this up to this point.

Certainly, the Government want to make very clear that we share the broad aims behind this amendment. Over 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and 15 years after the Equality Act 2010, it is clear that equal pay has not yet been achieved. That is why the Government have committed to strengthen the equal pay regime and end pay discrimination. I share the concerns of my noble friend in identifying the challenge of enforcement in this case. There is more we can do to ensure that the onus does not fall only on women to find out whether they are receiving the same pay as their male colleagues for equal work and to take enforcement action against employers in the case of a breach.

It is possible to envisage, in relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, a system in which you have both the contractual arrangement and the ability to take individual action as is the case now and an enforcement body that supports people doing that in general terms and identifies thematic or consistent ways in which equal pay is being breached. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions. As part of this, we will carefully consider how we can improve the enforcement of the equal pay scheme.

On 7 April we launched a call for evidence on this issue and wider equality law to ensure that any steps we take will lead to a meaningful strengthening of protections against pay discrimination—an objective that I am sure my noble friend will share. It is important that the Government are able to develop these changes in partnership with business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the law works for everybody. For that reason, I hope my noble friend will recognise that this will be a more appropriate process through which to address these issues. As she suggests, we will give these areas very close consideration in advance of the equality, race and disability Bill.

In relation to some of the specific points my noble friend raises about the way this might operate, we certainly recognise the benefits that can arise from government departments, including HMRC, working together. HMRC already has a number of joint working and data-sharing arrangements with departments and agencies. The Government are therefore not closed in principle to establishing new data-sharing arrangements with regulatory authorities where this can support their regulatory functions.

My noble friend made a very interesting point about the use of AI. It would not be sufficient simply to compare the pay of different people working within a workplace unless you could also have some analysis of how that applied to the nature of the work and whether that was work of equal value. It may well be that advances in technology, including AI, would be a way in which we could support that monitoring.

Policy is at a very formative stage. My officials will explore a wide range of options to improve the enforcement of equal pay rights. While taking great care to ensure that safeguards are put in place in relation to personal data, particularly where that relates to discrimination and protected characteristics, I suspect the sort of description that she gave of the contribution of AI is very much part of what, across government, we are wanting to see in terms of its use in future.

We are sympathetic to the ultimate objectives of my noble friend’s amendment. I hope she recognises that and the progress that we intend to make on that pledge to deliver stronger enforcement mechanisms and, in particular, an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit. With that assurance, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.