Category Archives: News

Financial Services Bill: Cashback Amendment to become Law

Chris in the House of Lords Chamber, standing to speak in Financial Services Bill debate. Wearing a covid facemask.
Lord Chris Holmes speaking in Financial Services Bill Debate in the House of Lords

Chris was heavily involved in the Financial Services Bill as it made its way through the House of Lords. The Bill received Royal Assent, becoming an Act of Parliament on 29 April 2021. At both committee and report stage Chris put forward several amendments, all broadly with the aim of improving financial inclusion and promoting innovation and fintech. He has written about all the amendments on his blog.

One final amendment, put forward by Chris and similar to a previous amendment regarding a review for cashback without purchase. The new amendment was reworded but with the same aim – of supporting access to cash by allowing businesses provide cashback without purchase.

Around eight million people still rely on cash – around 17% of the UK population – according to the Access For Cash review led by chair of Innovate Finance Natalie Ceeney CBE. 

But the country faces an access-to-cash crisis due to thousands of free ATMs and bank branches closing in recent years. This pattern has accelerated during the pandemic, prompting concern that many people could be cut off from accessing their money. 

This amendment provides that, in certain circumstances, the provision of cash does not constitute a “payment service” for the purposes of the Payment Services Regulations 2017. Persons would no longer have to be authorised by, or registered with, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in order to provide that service.

Speaking for the Government, when accepting the amendment into the Bill, Lord True said:

These amendments introduce an exemption for cashback without a purchase, such that it will no longer be a regulated payment service. Under the current legislation, which derives from the EU’s second payment services directive, if a business or its agent, such as a corner shop or supermarket, wanted to offer you cashback without requiring you to make a purchase, it would have to be authorised or registered with the FCA to give you cash from your own accounts. That is a significant burden for even the largest of retailers, let alone small, local shops along the various high streets across the UK.

This amendment removes this requirement; it will take effect two months after Royal Assent. From that point, industry will have discretion to make the service available across the United Kingdom. Where the service is offered, customers will be able to walk into a local business that wishes to participate, such as a corner shop, café or pub, and withdraw cash without having to make an accompanying purchase.

Lord True, Financial Services Bill, 19 April 2021

Cash still matters, and it matters materially to millions. It is a key part of what it means to have a cash-enabled, easily accessed economy across the UK. It adds to financial inclusion. More than that, it adds to complete social inclusion.

Chris Holmes

We all need to think innovatively about how we can do more to enable, empower and unleash true financial inclusion across the UK. It matters economically, socially and psychologically. If we can enable it, it can address so many of the issues that have dogged our nations for decades.

Chris Holmes

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on this amendment and and I thank, particularly, the Minister and Treasury officials for their support and making this important change to the Bill.


The Sun, New law to force shops to give cashback to customers without buying anything set to get go-ahead today.

This is Money, By Jeff Prestige for The Mail on Sunday, People could get cashback from local retailers without first having to buy something under new proposal.

Retail Gazette, Cashback without purchase to be allowed by shops after post-Brexit law change  

City AM, Post-Brexit law change: Cashback without purchase to be allowed across UK

ACS, ACS: Government Supports Amendment to Introduce Cashback Without Purchase  

Your Money, New legislation to allow cashback without purchase

Money Expert, New Legislation to Permit Cashback Without Purchase

Report Stage Amendments:

Digital ID, Open Finance, Digital Infrastructure and Digital Payments

Bank of England and Financial Inclusion

Japan Sports Stories Podcast

Chris was delighted to sit down with the makers of Japan Sports Stories, a fortnightly podcast that explores the untold stories of Japan and Japanese Sport in the run up to the Olympic Games.

Entitled ‘How to Make a Paralympic Games’, Chris’s episode looks at what made the London games so successful and what Tokyo needs to do to maintain that momentum.

Chris has enjoyed a long association with the Paralympic Games under many guises. He has been called Britain’s most successful Paralympic swimmer, winning a total of nine golds, five silvers and a bronze across four Games.

Following his retirement from swimming Chris’s involvement with the Games continued as part of the bid team and then as Director of Paralympic Integration at London 2012 and now as Deputy Chair of Channel 4 – as Channel 4 continue a longstanding commitment to Paralympic sport securing the broadcast rights for both Tokyo and Paris 2024.

Tokyo 2020 comes on the back of a Paralympic Games that was almost cancelled due to a lack of funding and poor management. Just years earlier, London has been hailed as a huge success with over double the crowds of the games before it and an enormous rise in public and media backing. 

As a key architect of the success of the London 2012 Paralympic Games Chris talks about his role as Director of Integration, the overall approach to the games, why inclusion matters and, of course, his love of deep fried tempura!

New report finds lack of progress on govt diversity commitments.

Two years after Lord Holmes Review into opening up public appointments to disabled people a progress report finds recommendations and Diversity Action Plan still to be implemented.

Today, 3rd December 2020, at an online event attended by Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden MP, Chris launched a new report that highlighted the need for action to implement government diversity commitments.

This ‘progress report’ comes exactly two years after the Holmes Review into opening up public appointments to disabled people was published on 3rd December 2018. The original 2018 review analysed the barriers, blockers, and bias which resulted – at that time – in just 180 out of around 6,000 public appointments being held by disabled people.

The 2018 review set out 29 clear, practical and achievable recommendations, all of which were accepted in principle by the Government at the time. Two years on, this report examines how many of those recommendations have been fully incorporated into the operation of the public appointments process and what impact this has had on the number of disabled people applying for and becoming public appointees.

Public appointments are significant positions that have an impact on all our lives but are not, perhaps, well known or understood. Collectively public appointees are responsible for well over £200 billion of public funds administered through over 500 bodies across, for example, healthcare, education, sport and the arts, energy, security and defence.

This two years on ‘progress report’ considered the original recommendations, traced those recommendations so far as they were reflected in the Government’s Diversity Action Plan 2019 and tried, as far as is possible, to assess whether those commitments have been achieved and where further effort is still needed.

Disappointingly, the figures for new appointments and reappointments declaring a disability have fallen each year and there has been a significant lack of progress in terms of steps taken to deliver on commitments laid out in the Diversity Action Plan.  It is important to note, though targets, quite rightly have been set for the numbers of female and BAME public appointees, still today, no such target has yet been set for disabled people. 

Lord Holmes Review, 

Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan,

Why do we still have a disability employment gap 25 years after the Disability Discrimination Act?, Chris’s Blog

Disabled jobseekers ‘still face barriers to public sector roles’, Personnel Today

Annual Report, Commissioner for Public Appointments

Cabinet Office Outlines new Public Appointments Diversity Plan, Civil Service World

Bus open data: a data revolution but an accessibility fail

Ministers are completing the legal groundwork for the Bus Open Data Service (BODS), paving the way for new powers by the end of the year to ensure operators disclose data on fares, timetables and locations. Lord Holmes objects to the fact that accessibility data will not also be included.

The regulations would provide new legislation to require bus operators of local bus services across England, but outside London, to openly publish data electronically about their services through legally mandated data standards.

The move is designed to boost passenger numbers and support travel app development and follows Transport for London’s successful open data strategy and Transport for the West Midlands’s investment in providing a single data source for apps and journey planners across the region.

In London it is estimated that Citymapper and the Bus Times app had together delivered economic benefits of between £90m and £130m a year from travel time savings.

It has been over a year since the Bus Services Act was in the Lords at which time Lord Holmes raised the fact that there was no requirement for operators to provide accessibility data for vehicles or bus stops with ministers.

Despite these concerns, the Department for Transport failed to make such provision in the regulations and has even refused to provide a timeline for the when operators might be obliged to provide this data. Lord Holmes said:

‘It’s an extraordinary position that we find ourselves in. Over a year after we were told it’s not the right time to do this, again we see accessibility treated as a nice-to-have option or even an irritant rather than an essential element and an economic driver.

‘Everyone benefits from this having this. It is not an inordinate cost and burden. It’s not seen as an imperative for all concerned.

‘This information has significant economic and psychological benefits, it will help with rebuilding the economy and rebuilding communities by helping social ills such as isolation. There is nothing that is not positive and inclusive in this.’

The DfT has always maintained that requiring the disability data was too much of a burden for operators. However, this argument was dismissed by Lord Holmes.

‘This is just a deeply disappointing and avoidable mistake. This is not the hard stuff. The data is known. The specification for every vehicle on the road is known and it can be applied to the routes. It should have been seen as a positive step for all concerned.’

Bus Open Data: A data revolution but an accessibility fail, Transport Network, 8 July 2020

Bus accessibility fail is open to legal challenge, peer warns, Transport Network, 27 July 2020

Disability taxi access to Bank Junction is not a luxury but a necessity, Taxi Point, 3 July 2021

Talking Buses Come to Manchester, 30 September 2016

Business and Planning Bill must include small breweries

House of Lords 13th July 2020

Today (13th July 2020) speaking in the Business and Planning Bill Chris warned that, if changes were not made to the legislation, hundreds of small business’ in the brewing trade may needlessly go out of business.

In response to Covid-19 this relaxation of licensing laws for breweries, pubs and the wider hospitality sector to automatically extend premises licences to allow sales of alcohol off the premises is welcome.

However, hundreds of small breweries find themselves completely locked out, unable to serve their product to the public, successful business’ facing bankruptcy for want of small, doable, legislative changes.

Chris said:

“The situation, for hundreds of small breweries is, currently, precarious.”

“These breweries are facing a bleak, if not no,  future for want of simple changes to the legislation which would enable them to share in the unlock and have a successful summer.”

The current difficulties are caused by the fact that:

  • Some breweries do not have a premises licence and cannot offer takeaway and delivery directly to the public. This Bill will not help them during the Covid-19 crisis.
  • 1 in 4 breweries (around 500 of the 2000 breweries in the UK) do not currently have any way to sell directly to the public.
  • Small breweries have seen their sales reduced 65-82% because of Covid-19 and have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and the hospitality sector, such as the Business Rate holiday or £25,000 grant.

Chris proposed several amendments to the Bill. He said:

“65% of small breweries have been mothballed during Covid-19. Trade during the summer months will be vital for their survival.  We have the opportunity to make small changes to this legislation,  enabling them to trade successfully going forward.”

“We could do such a service for small breweries, if we legislated for an extension to the licencing relaxation to allow small independent breweries who currently cannot sell directly to the public to be able to do so on a temporary basis.”

“The innovation, ingenuity and hard work we have seen from the small brewers, over the past decade has been impressive.  New brands, flavours and concepts have brought new generations and sectors of society into, not only the product, but the methods of production and community centred approach that many of these business’ have taken since they were established.”

“Small legislative changes will make a big difference to our breweries, we owe it to them to bring them into the Bill.”

Read the Business and Planning Bill and all documents here.

Digital Technologies and Democracy Select Committee Report Published

Trust is bust, democracy hangs on: just, who has sussed, who is fussed?

Thirteen months in the making, today (29th June 2020) we published “Digital Technologies and the Resurrection of Trust”. Our Lord’s select committee report into democracy and digital technologies and a committee on which I was honoured to serve.

Thousands of pages of written evidence, hundreds of hours of in person testimony and many more hours of analysis and discussion distilled into 45 recommendations. Each recommendation standing on its own merit but, taken as a whole, with the potential to positively impact our digital experience and democratic engagement very much for the better.

Chaired brilliantly by David Puttnam, our cross-party committee approved every detail of the report unanimously.  Lord Puttnam said, understandably, it was like making a movie.

It has all the elements of Hollywood blockbuster:  David’s data, purloined by Goliathian tech giants. Our love for democracy tested to its limits, light and dark, duplicity disguised as dream, a man, on an unshakeable mission, ‘to do no harm’.

But this movie is already rolling and has been for well over a decade; picking, pushing, click bait, click hate, the more extreme, the more cash they cream.  The business model is simple, the more extreme, shocking or divisive the content, the longer the user dwells and the more monetizable the whole thing. The ‘attention economy’. Oh yes, at the same time, your data is stored and sold to the highest bidder for whatever they choose – they own it.  The bucks have never stopped here.

And the point, for some, is not to manipulate the democratic process. It’s not about backing a winner or determining the loser, the greater prize, is to destroy trust in the very democratic process itself.

As Lord Puttnam perfectly puts it:

“It is easy to forget the fragile foundations upon which so many of our freedoms are built – until they become threatened.”

And threatened they most certainly are, right now, under a “pandemic of misinformation and disinformation”.  Fake news is nothing new particularly not in the political arena.  What is new is the volume and the velocity which distorts and drowns out facts.  Yes, those fusty things, facts, thoroughly and fundamentally done in.

Covid could hardly bring a clearer screen for this moving picture. Fake news now ramped up to killer status.  In the midst of the pandemic, the anti vaxers, conspiracy theorists and Covid cures taken despite their incredulity. It’s not just the proposed Dettol that stinks.

Just this last week or so, two separate events epitomising so much of what we speak of in our report.  First, the Trump Tulsa rally.  Putting aside the decision to hold a mass rally during the worst pandemic in a century, let’s consider the role of social media in this scene.  K-Pop loving Gen Z via TikTok got heavily involved, creating fake accounts and snapping up vast numbers of Tulsa tickets they had no intention of using.  As a result, just over six thousand Trump fans in a venue fitted for over nineteen thousand. Interestingly, the true success of the TikTok attack was probably not the, undoubtedly powerful and undermining, images of empty seats but the destruction of potentially lucrative data for the Trump campaign team come the November election,

So, objective achieved, Trump, successfully trolled.  Successful, in its own terms, certainly but what of the essence of it?  Is trolling Trump any more virtuous than Trump twittering?

And now Facebook faces an advertising boycott despite announcing plans to prohibit hate speech and better protect groups such as immigrants from attacks. Facebook’s plans have not gone far or fast enough to prevent dozens of brands including Unilever, Verizon and Coca-Cola cancelling advertising for between a month and six months causing shares to fall more than ten percent over the last week.

What about freedom of speech? I completely endorse this right as the bedrock of democracy.  But what about freedom of reach?  It is significant and brings us back to that issue of volume and velocity.  Say what you like, it may well leave a rancid taste but your right to say it, is right.  But, when such views, for want of the bucks, are promoted and recommended by the platforms, this is a distortion, not a right, and, as we state in the report, the platforms must have a clear responsibility for this.

Our 45 recommendations deal with this principle and, also cover, in detail, the regulation, regulators, sanctions and more:

Regulation of mis/disinformation

We recommend that the Online Harms Bill (OH Bill) should be introduced within a year of this report’s publication and should make it clear that mis and disinformation are in scope.

As part of the OH Bill, Ofcom should produce a code of practice on misinformation – if a piece or pattern of content is identified as misinformation by an accredited fact checker, it should be flagged as misinformation on all platforms. The content should then no longer be recommended to new audiences.

Fact checking

Ofcom should work with online platforms to agree a common means of accreditation, initially based on the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a system of funding that keeps fact checkers independent both from Govt. and from platforms and develop an open database of what has been fact checked across platforms and providers.

Content moderation

The Government should establish an independent ombudsman for content moderation to whom the public can appeal should they feel they have been let down by a platform’s decisions. The ombudsman’s decisions should be binding on the platforms and create clear standards to be expected for future decisions for UK users. These standards should be adjudicated by Ofcom. The ombudsman should not prevent platforms removing content which they have due cause to remove.

A joint committee of Parliament would oversee the work of the proposed ombudsman, including setting the budget and having the power of veto over the chief exec’s appointment.

Political advertising

We recommend that relevant experts in the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), Electoral Commission, Ofcom and UKSA should co-operate through a regulatory committee on political advertising. Political parties should work with these regulators to develop a code of practice for political advertising, along with appropriate sanctions, that restricts fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election, or referendum. This regulatory committee should adjudicate breaches of this code.


The Government should legislate immediately to introduce imprints on online political material. This could be done through secondary legislation.

Advert libraries

Ofcom should issue a code of practice for online advertising setting out that in order for platforms to meet their obligations under the ‘duty of care’ they must provide a comprehensive, real time and publicly accessible database of all adverts on their platform. This code of practice should make use of existing work on best practice.

Personal data in political campaigns

The Government should legislate to put the Information Commissioner Office’s (ICO) draft code on political campaigners’ use of personal data onto a statutory footing.

Algorithmic recommendation

For harmful but legal content, Ofcom’s codes of practice should focus on the principle that platforms should be liable for the content they rank, recommend or target to users.

Ofcom should issue a code of practice on algorithmic recommending. This should require platforms to conduct audits on all substantial changes to their algorithmic recommending facilities for their effects on users with characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010. Ofcom should work with platforms to establish audits on relevant and appropriate characteristics.

Ofcom should be given the powers and be properly resourced in order to undertake periodic audits of the algorithmic recommending systems used by technology platforms, including accessing the training data used to train the systems and comprehensive information from the platforms on what content is being recommended.

Platforms v publishers

The report uses the term ‘platforms’ but holds them to a responsibility for a duty of care, responsible for the content that they promote to large audiences, rather than content they host. Ofcom should have the power to sanction platforms that fail to comply with their duty of care in the OH Bill. These sanctions should include up to 4% of global turnover, and powers to enforce Internet Service Providers blocking of serially non-compliant platforms.

Regulatory capacity

The Government should introduce legislation to enact the ICO’s proposal for a committee of regulators that would allow for joint investigations between regulators. This committee should also act as a forum to encourage the sharing of best practice between regulators and support horizon scanning activity.

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation should conduct a review of regulatory digital capacity across the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), ICO, Electoral Commission, ASA and Ofcom to determine their levels of digital expertise. This review should be completed with urgency, to inform the OH Bill before it becomes law.

Freedom of expression

We protect free expression online by focusing on what platforms algorithmically promote rather than what they host. This means that platforms would not be encouraged to remove harmful but legal content. They would be required to not promote it through their algorithms or recommend it to users. This gives people the freedom to express themselves online but stops it from reaching large audiences.

We also support free expression by improving platform’s content moderation decisions. We do this by requiring greater transparency of what content they take down so that the rules that govern online debate are clearer and by establishing an online ombudsman who will be empowered to act for users online.

Anonymity online

Ofcom should work with platforms and the Government’s Verify service, or its replacement, to enable platforms to allow users to verify their identities in a way that protects their privacy. Ofcom should encourage platforms to empower users with tools to remove unverified users from their conversations and more easily identify genuine users.

Online voting

We received a small amount of evidence that was in favour of online voting. In the round, however, opinion was overwhelmingly against introducing voting online. We heard that online voting might cause people to question the trustworthiness of election results and create fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

Exercising your democratic vote is an important act that should have some ceremony about it; visiting a polling station, for those for whom this is possible, is an important part of this. We should not seek to substitute or undermine this significant and important act with an online process.

Journalism in a digital world

We recommend that the CMA should conduct a full market investigation into online platforms’ control over digital advertising.

The Government should work urgently to implement those recommendations of the Cairncross Review that it accepts, as well as providing support for news organisations in dealing with the impact of COVID-19.

Education/digital literacy

Ofsted, in partnership with the Department for Education, Ofcom, the ICO and subject associations, should commission a large-scale programme of evaluation of digital media literacy initiatives.

The Department for Education should review the school curriculum to ensure that pupils are equipped with all the skills needed in a modern digital world. Critical digital media literacy should be embedded across the wider curriculum based on the lessons learned from the review of initiatives recommended above. All teachers will need support through Continuous Professional Development to achieve this.

Currently, we have a sub optimal online world that is contributing to the erosion of trust in our democratic institutions and processes.  We hope that our report and the 45 recommendations within demonstrate that there is nothing inevitable about this and, velocity aside, not that much which is new.

It’s in our hands, our (well washed) hands and as we type, tap, and share, we must take more care.  What kind of conversations and discussions do we want to be part of and on what kind of social media? Do we want rigorous respectful debates that are open, transparent, accountable and trustworthy?

If not, why not pack away the public square, put away the polling stations, and with muffled cry, let our democracy die.

It’s no one else’s democracy, save ours.

AI, a public good?

The Covid pandemic is providing ample opportunities to consider the potential of technology for public good, indeed, what area of public good is more important than public health?

One example, the NHSX tracing app promised significant benefits although, unfortunately, these seem far from being realised. It does, however, give us an opportunity to look at where it has worked and consider the risks.

A recent report from Stanford shows how Taiwan managed to avoid the extreme lock down measures seen here and around the world yet still successfully limited and contained the spread of the virus. How? The report shows five interconnected factors: pandemic readiness, national electronic health records database, wide scale testing, big data analytics and the use of mobile technology to track movements of individuals who tested positive for Covid-19.

The benefits of a functioning mobile app are clear but the use of this technology has raised concerns around transparency, trust  and data privacy rights.  This is an important issue for public discussion. I am passionate about the potential of technology for the public good and believe there is no better part of society than the public sector to lead the charge in the UK’s role as a global leader in responsible AI innovation.

Our Civil Service colleagues will be able to do a tremendous amount of social good if they approach the design and implementation of AI systems by making the realisation of ethical purpose and the pursuit of responsible practices of discovery a first priority.

Last year the govt published a guide to using artificial intelligence in the public sector.  The guidance consists of three sections:

  • understanding AI;
  • assessing, planning and managing AI and, most importantly,
  • using AI ethically and safely.

The guidance focuses heavily on the need for a human-centric approach to AI systems which aligns with positions of other forums including our work on the Lords AI select committee.

The Guidance also stresses the importance of building a culture of responsible innovation, and recommends that the governance architecture of AI systems should consist of a framework of ethical values; a set of actionable principles; and a process-based governance framework.

I have asked the government what plans they have to put this guidance on a statutory footing.

I hope they will think carefully about the statutory and non statutory mechanisms to ensure the safe and ethical use of AI and data technologies. The government has also promised that a national data strategy will be published this year. It is absolutely essential that we get this right. If we make sure we are regulating in such a way that supports the design implementation of ethical, fair and safe AI systems then that really would be ‘world beating’.

Lord Holmes Review Published

Seated at table facing audience; left to right: Grace Quantock, Matthew Campbell-Hill, Carly Jones, Chris Holmes, Oliver Dowden MP
Launch of Lord Holmes Review, Whitehall, 3rd December 2018

Today, to coincide with UN Day of People with Disabilities, my independent review into disability and public appointments will be launched in Westminster. Currently just 3% of public appointees declare a disability. An absolutely shocking figure. That is 180 people out of 6000 public appointments on 500 bodies responsible for £200 billion of public funds across, but not limited to: healthcare, education, the criminal justice system, energy, security and defence. These are significant positions that have an impact on all our lives.

When the Minister for Implementation, Oliver Dowden, invited me to conduct the review he made the point that it is essential that public appointees are truly representative of the society they serve. I completely agree. I believe it is also about talent and this is a core principle underpinning the review. We must access and enable talent in its broadest most brilliant form, not just that of a tiny elite. So much talent is currently sadly wasted, often as  a result of inaccessible, non inclusive, non innovative approaches, practices and cultures.

I agreed to lead this independent review to uncover the reasons for this shocking – 3% – statistic. To discover and fully expose the barriers, blockers and bias but, most importantly, to set out ambitious,  achievable recommendations to make long-overdue change.

A key recommendation is that the Government set a target of 11.3% of all public appointees to be disabled people. .  Other recommendations focus on consistent, comprehensive data collection and transparency alongside a more innovative and flexible approach at all stages of the recruitment process.

Opening up public appointments to disabled talent is not looking to give anyone an unfair advantage. An equitable, inclusive, fully accessible and positive process puts everyone on the same start line. It allows everyone to run whatever race they choose with fairness, dignity and respect throughout. A guaranteed interview is not a leg up, it’s a tool to allow someone with valuable lived experience to get in front of an interview panel. Offering alternative ways to apply is not giving a neuro-diverse person an edge, it may well be the difference which means someone could apply at all.

The review benefitted greatly from the contributions of the nearly two hundred members of the public who responded to our call for evidence as well as Disabled Peoples Organisations, Ministers of State, Civil Servants and Public Appointees. Individual stories and experiences are the most powerful case for change as well as understanding the status quo. As one respondent said “access is not just physical, it’s emotional and attitudinal.”

Although the recommendations are focussed on increasing the number of disabled applicants, interviewees and appointees, I believe that they could have general applicability and benefits in many situations, across public appointments and to all talent acquisition and recruitment practices.

Positive change requires leadership, culture and innovation and I am convinced that substantial, sustainable change is possible. It will not be easy but it is absolutely achievable. Currently, talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. I hope this review and its recommendations will play some part in addressing this avoidable failing.

Let’s turn this public Dis-appointment into an opportunity to show that we are a country that enables and empowers all our talent, not least, that held by disabled people across the nation.

The Review is available in full and in accessible formats on Gov.UK.

Chris calls on govt to end scandal of unpaid internships

Chris’s private members bill to end unpaid internships is scheduled for second reading in the House of Commons today (23rd November 2018) Chris is calling on the Government to back his bill to end the scandal of unpaid internships.

Also published today new Sutton Trust research finds confusion around the law on interns.
Over a quarter of graduates (27%) have taken on an unpaid internship, with many having to rely on parents, friends and second jobs to get by.

Pay As You Go surveys graduates and employers to get a detailed view, for the first time, of the types of internships that graduates are completing in their first few years in the job market. The research finds that graduate internships appear to be on the rise, with 46% of 21-23 year olds having done one, compared to 37% of 27-29 year olds. Younger graduates are also more likely to have taken on more than one internship.

In many top professions, internships are seen as a requirement before a first job. But previous research by the Sutton Trust found that unpaid internship now costs a single person living in London a minimum of £1,100 per month. The significant costs associated with unpaid internships are shutting many less advantaged young people out of careers. In prestigious industries such as media and the arts (including fashion, theatre and tv), up to 86% of internships on offer are unpaid.

According to today’s report, middle-class graduates are more likely to have taken on an unpaid internship than those from a working class background (29% vs 23%). They were also more likely to have received money from their parents to fund their internships (29% compared to 20% of working class), and have money saved they could draw on (39% compared to 33%). Working class graduates were more likely to take on extra work to fund themselves (31% compared to 25% of those from a middle class background).

The research finds that both graduates and employers are confused about the current law on unpaid internships. Almost half of graduates (47%) thought unpaid internships were ‘legal in most situations’ or didn’t know, while up to 50% of employers incorrectly thought a range of scenarios where an intern was being paid under the national minimum wage were legal.

While doing an internship is associated with higher salaries, there is some evidence that doing multiple unpaid internships may actually have a negative impact on employment and wages. This suggests that many young people in certain industries are being trapped in cycles of unpaid placements without significant benefits to their career. Many internships offer little in the way of training, and are instead focused on completing necessary work for their employer. 70% of employers say that interns do useful work for their business.

The Trust is backing Lord Holmes’ bill and would like to see all internships longer than one month to be paid at least the national minimum wage of £7.05 for 21-24 year olds, and ideally the Living Wage of £9 per hour (£10.55 in London).

In addition, the report recommends that internship positions should be advertised publicly, rather than being filled informally and recruitment process should be fair, transparent and based on merit.