If you really care about social mobility, you won't support paying interns

There is a more obvious solution to the problem, but it's one that the Government doesn't want to entertain

Getting rid of unpaid internships may help graduates and the well-connected, but it's no solution for people from working class backgrounds (Rex)

Are you in favour of exploitation? Slave labour? A system in which only those who are from wealthy families are given the opportunity to enter well-paid careers?

If not then you probably agree with the three quarters of respondents to a survey by the Social Mobility Commission, who think the Government should force companies to pay for internships that last longer than four weeks.

The assumption is that businesses are benefitting from free labour by eager young workers privileged enough to be able to survive on no income for months on end in the hope that it may at some point lead to a permanent paid position. But making companies pay for their interns isn’t the solution.

By simply forcing all the businesses involved to stump up cash for the unpaid internships they currently offer, we’re not only failing to realise the true value of internships, but also absolving the Government of its duty to provide a financial safety net which evens the playing field.

Anyone who’s ever been tasked with “looking after” an intern knows that it usually creates more work than it alleviates. You have to find jobs basic enough that they’ll be doable but not so easy that they won’t learn anything, and do so at the same time as trying to explain the basics of the industry, arrange software training, assess progress and check over all the work.

Many companies are willing to do this because, after a few weeks, the intern will likely start adding value. But it’s a huge up-front time investment to make, and if they were obliged to pay interns, they would undoubtedly take fewer of them on.

Forcing companies to pay for internships would raise the bar to the point where they would become essentially the equivalent of an entry-level job. That benefits university graduates – particularly those who attended elite institutions – and candidates with contacts and prior experience. But it means that young people from working class backgrounds looking to enter industries traditionally reserved for the middle and upper classes will be at a huge disadvantage.

There is an obvious solution to this problem, and that is introducing a system in which people who are not earning money are entitled to state-funded income. This is not revolutionary: it’s supposed to be what we’re currently entitled to, what your monthly national insurance contribution sets you up for. It’s also what the baby boomers running the country were entitled to in the Eighties, before a sustained right-wing campaign stigmatised welfare and moved to punish people who weren’t working, rather than encourage them to pursue their career of choice.

In Finland, a recent trial has proved the success of a Universal Basic Income – whereby every resident is given an amount of money per month regardless of their circumstances. Such trials have consistently shown that allocated funds in that way improves recipients’ mental health and lowers the country’s unemployment rate. Ontario, Canada is already set to follow suit.

By contrast, the British benefits system is currently structured in such a way that people are discouraged from claiming job-seekers’ allowance, and pressured into taking any job available as early as possible. People with the ability and aspiration to pursue a career are being forced to take jobs stacking shelves and mopping floors instead of taking the time to build their prospects by learning new skills, attending networking events and, yes, completing internships.

The value of a workforce which is happy and fulfilled is completely ignored by the Government, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. More and more companies are offering flexible working hours, unlimited holiday, remote working and moving towards new measures of success. They understand that a lot of people are no longer satisfied with a job which passes the hours and gets you a pay-cheque. They realise that the satisfaction of employees is beneficial to their bottom line.

Getting companies to pay for unpaid internships may benefit the few people lucky enough to secure those positions, but what about the people who require financial support for other types of career-building?

By having a proper financial backup for people pursuing career options, we would allow for the fact that some people work better as freelancers but can’t afford to take the risk of quitting a day job; that more young people than ever would rather teach themselves a craft than spend tens of thousands of pounds on a university degree; or simply that many of us require some time out to reassess a career choice later in life, without having to worry about the financial consequences.

These are all options available to people with money, but a pipe dream to people from a working class background or a lack of parental safety net.

The Government should recognise the value of a diverse workforce across different industries, and open its eyes to the long-term benefits of an initial welfare system designed to help people find work which is right for them, rather than passing the buck to the private sector and increasing class inequality by focusing so narrowly on the needs of those already privileged enough to secure internships. A sticking plaster solution is an insult to people who need a real one.