A taxpayer-funded National Audit Office internship limited to women, applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds and those with black heritage has prompted criticism from British conservatives who say public-sector opportunities should be awarded on merit.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A taxpayer-funded internship at Britain’s National Audit Office has become the latest flashpoint in the country’s debate over diversity hiring, public-sector opportunity and whether government-backed programs should exclude applicants based on race, sex or class.
The six-week National Audit Office diversity work experience program is open only to women, applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds and people with black heritage, according to a GB News report. The eligibility rules mean a white male student from a middle-class background cannot apply.
The program has drawn criticism from Restore Britain and Reform UK, whose officials and supporters argue the internship amounts to taxpayer-funded discrimination against certain young Britons.
The National Audit Office is the United Kingdom’s public spending watchdog. It audits and scrutinizes Whitehall departments and public bodies, including the National Health Service and the BBC. For the 2025-26 financial year, the NAO requested a budget of 111 million pounds, or about $149.5 million.
The internship pays a pro-rated annual salary of 25,089 pounds, or about $33,600, for the Newcastle placement. The London placement pays the equivalent of 27,000 pounds, or about $36,300.
The program is aimed at penultimate-year undergraduates from any degree discipline. According to the description, interns can gain experience in financial audit, value-for-money work, live audit projects, research, fieldwork, shadowing, networking and training related to government, assurance and Parliament.
The advert tells prospective applicants: “If you are interested in developing your skills in a professional, supportive environment and gaining insight into a career in public sector accounting, we encourage you to apply.”
Critics say that invitation is limited by identity-based eligibility rules that prevent some students from being considered before their qualifications are reviewed.
Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman, said the policy is discriminatory.
“A Government department barring white men from applying for an internship is blatant discrimination,” Yusuf told The Telegraph.
“Jobs and opportunities should be awarded on merit, not handed out or withheld on the basis of race or sex,” Yusuf said. “Young people deserve a fair chance to succeed regardless of their background.”
Yusuf described the program as “anti-white, anti-merit ideology masquerading as diversity and inclusion.” He said Reform UK would eliminate such schemes and restore equal treatment.
Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe has previously criticized similar programs, including a Bank of England internship that barred white candidates. In that case, Lowe wrote to Bank of England Gov. Andrew Bailey and asked, “What message does this send to a bright, hard-working student who happens to be white?”
Critics are now asking the same question of the NAO, arguing that a public agency should not close a paid career pathway to a student because he is white, male and from a middle-class background.
Claire Coutinho, the shadow minister for women and equalities, also criticized identity-based restrictions on opportunity.
“Nobody should be blocked from opportunities because of the colour of their skin or the job their parents did,” Coutinho said.
“We should all be judged by the content of our character and not protected characteristics,” she added. “Identity politics will only make us more divided as Kemi Badenoch has argued for years.”
The NAO defended the internship, saying the program is designed to improve access for groups under-represented in audit.
“Our long-running diversity internship schemes offer valuable work experience in the audit sector,” a spokesman said.
“The internship opens doors to people who are under-represented in the sector including anyone from less affluent backgrounds,” the spokesman added.
Under the Equality Act 2010, public bodies and employers may use “positive action” to address disadvantage or under-representation if the steps are proportionate. Opponents of the NAO program argue that even if such measures are legally permitted, public-sector programs should not exclude applicants from taxpayer-funded opportunities based on race or sex.
The NAO dispute follows other controversies involving identity-based internships in Britain’s public sector.
Last year, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, Britain’s intelligence agencies, reportedly reopened paid summer internships from which white applicants were barred. Those programs were limited to young people from black, Asian, mixed-heritage or ethnic-minority backgrounds who also came from socially or economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Security expert Professor Anthony Glees called the exclusion of white British students from intelligence internships “downright offensive” and warned that such programs could raise national security concerns.
“This is completely bonkers,” Glees told GB News. “When I first saw this story, I thought it was a joke. I thought it was made up.”
Other public institutions have operated similar programs. Transport for London runs an 11-month paid placement for candidates who are BAME, disabled or from disadvantaged backgrounds. The House of Commons, House of Lords and Senedd Commission have partnered with the Windsor Fellowship to provide internships for BAME applicants. Four BAME students are expected to be placed at the Senedd and trained “at the heart of Welsh politics.”
Supporters of diversity internships generally argue that targeted programs help people from under-represented groups gain access to sectors where they have historically been less visible. Opponents argue that such programs create favored and disfavored categories of applicants and undermine the principle of equal treatment.
For Reform UK, Restore Britain and other critics of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the NAO internship is being presented as an example of a broader public-sector shift away from merit-based competition and toward identity-based eligibility.
The dispute also carries political significance as right-leaning parties and campaigners increasingly focus on DEI programs as evidence that public institutions are dividing citizens by race, sex and background. Their central argument is that taxpayer-funded opportunities should be open to all qualified applicants and awarded through fair competition.
The NAO says its internship is intended to widen access in the audit profession. Critics say the rules go too far by blocking some students from applying at all.
The clash over the program now places Britain’s public spending watchdog at the center of a wider national argument over how far public bodies should go in using identity-based criteria to shape access to paid opportunities.
Original article
Comments