IT is six years since the former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg launched his social mobility strategy. One of the key aims was to end unpaid internships, which Mr Clegg rightly condemned as favouring the well-off and well-connected. It did not take long for Mr Clegg’s critics to point out that he himself benefited from the practice – his own party has also employed unpaid interns. But the aim of the strategy was right: to bring an end to the who-you-know-not-what-you-know culture.

Sadly, six years on, the aim of the strategy has not been achieved – indeed, the evidence suggests unpaid internships are becoming more, not less, common, probably because in difficult times companies see it as a way to keep costs down. Many young people are also having to complete an increasing number of unpaid internships before they land a job.

However, the struggle to end the practice goes on. A bill which proposes a ban on unpaid internships of over four weeks is progressing through the Lords and the coalition of opposition to unpaid work experience continues to grow. A poll by the Social Mobility Commission suggests 72 per cent of the British public support the ban.

The reasoning behind the proposed ban is strong. The fact that an internship is unpaid naturally favours those who can afford to work for several weeks or months without a wage. The other problem is that internships are frequently organised informally, through friends or family, which again favours the better-off who are much more likely to have such connections.

A ban on unpaid internships of more than four weeks would address much of the problem by ensuring – as the law stipulates – that anyone who comes under the legal definition of worker is paid the minimum wage. It would also be good for employers, most of whom, according to a YouGov poll on the subject, support the idea. There may well be some businesses who cling to the belief that getting extra workers for nothing is a good idea, but properly paying for interns, and advertising as widely as possible to find the right candidate, will increase the pool of talent and is therefore good for business. There would also be an obvious benefit for wider society by increasing social mobility.

Some exceptions are already built into the law – a secondment as part of a university or college course, for example. And even if the ban goes ahead, it would still be possible for businesses to have people in for unpaid work experience of under a month. These are sensible exemptions that would allow small firms and charities to offer short spells of work experience which we know can make a real difference to young people looking for their first break in the workplace.

The hope now is that the ban will become law – it will then need monitoring to ensure that it is having the intended effect. The who-you-know culture is not going to disappear overnight. But a ban would re-affirm an important aim of any fair society: what you know will get you far.