National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.