The AI Hiring Debate Is Focusing on the Wrong Problem

Andy Burnham is right to ask whether young people are getting a fair chance in recruitment. But stepping back from AI screening entirely would not solve the underlying problem. 

Recruiters were making quick decisions about candidates long before the advent of AI. When a large employer receives hundreds or thousands of applications, people are already being sifted according to qualifications, previous employers, job titles and the wording used in their CVs. Having a person carry out that process manually does not automatically make it more considered or inclusive. 

The question we should be asking is not whether recruitment uses technology, but whether that technology helps employers make better, fairer decisions. 

The challenge of modern recruitment volume 

The labour market is difficult enough as it is. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there are currently 2.5 unemployed people for every vacancy in the UK, up from 2.3 a year earlier, while the number of vacancies has fallen to 712,000.[1] 

Employers are facing increased competition for fewer available job openings. Removing technology would not give recruiters additional hours to consider every application. It would leave them facing the same volume with fewer tools to manage it. 

Recruitment teams have always needed ways to handle large numbers of applications. The difference today is that candidate expectations, application volumes and the use of generative AI have all changed the landscape.

Why AI screening is often misunderstood 

There is also a fairly outdated picture of AI screening behind some of the criticism, where an algorithm scans for a few words and rejects somebody without explanation. 

I would question that kind of system, too. Good recruitment technology should not replace human judgement. It should support it. The role of AI should be to help recruiters identify evidence of skills, relevant experience and transferable capability, while making it clearer why a candidate has been highlighted. That is very different from handing a hiring decision to a machine. 

The role of technology should be to give recruiters more time. The most effective use of AI in recruitment is not about removing people from the process. It is about removing some of the administrative burden that prevents recruiters from spending more time with candidates. 

We have seen this in practice with organisations managing significant application volumes. For example, Sopra Steria faced a challenge where recruiters were reviewing more than 1,100 applications at a time, when AI-generated and highly polished applications were becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish through wording alone. 

Using AI to support screening reduced the time required while maintaining strong alignment with expert human judgement. Crucially, final decisions remained with the recruitment team. 

That gave recruiters more time for the part of hiring where human judgement adds the most value: meeting candidates, understanding their motivation and assessing their potential. 

The importance of transparency in AI hiring 

Recruitment technology can, of course, be used badly. Employers should understand what a system is assessing, why somebody has been brought to their attention and how recommendations can be challenged. 

A system that produces an unexplained score is not a good recruitment system. 

The future of hiring should be built around transparency, accountability and human oversight. Technology should help employers understand candidates more effectively, not create another barrier between applicants and opportunities. 

Giving candidates a fairer opportunity to show their potential  

There is a wider conversation here about candidate experience. Remote interviews and AI screening are often grouped together, but they serve very different purposes. I would not put remote interviews and AI screening in the same category either. 

A video interview may not be right for every candidate or every stage, but it can also be the only practical way for somebody to take part. Young people may be applying outside their local area, working shifts, studying or unable to afford repeated travel for early-stage interviews. 

For some candidates, meeting in person creates a better conversation. For others, insisting on it creates another hurdle before they have had any opportunity to show what they can do. Employers need enough flexibility to make that judgement rather than treating one interview format as inherently fairer. 

Conclusion: Looking beyond the CV in the age of generative AI 

Burnham’s concern about young people being reduced to formulaic answers is understandable, particularly now that candidates can use generative AI to make applications appear increasingly similar. 

But that is also why traditional CV screening is becoming less useful. Recruiters need to get beyond polished wording and establish whether somebody can demonstrate the skills or potential required for the role. 

The test for AI in recruitment is simple: does it help more people receive proper consideration while giving recruiters more time to understand the person behind the application? 

When it does, stepping away from technology would not make recruitment more human. It would make an already stretched process harder to manage. 

References 

[1]Office for National Statistics, Vacancies and Jobs in the UK: July 2026, published 21 July 2026.