The founder of a recruitment software firm used by NHS trusts and police forces has challenged Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s call for employers to rethink AI screening, arguing that stepping back from the technology would leave recruiters facing 2.5 unemployed people for every vacancy with fewer tools to manage applications.
“Andy Burnham is right to ask whether young people are getting a fair chance in recruitment. I do not agree, though, that stepping back from AI screening would solve that,” said Charles Hipps, founder and chief executive of Oleeo, which develops AI-powered applicant tracking software.
Burnham criticised AI screening and remote interviews on the Jimmy’s Jobs of the Future podcast last week, saying recruitment had “changed post-pandemic, not necessarily for the better” and asking of video interviews: “How does a young person shine in that situation?” His comments came amid official figures showing nearly one million young people out of work or education.
Hipps said manual sifting was not automatically fairer. “Recruiters were making quick decisions about candidates long before AI came along. 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.”
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show there were 2.5 unemployed people for every vacancy in the UK in March to May 2026, up from 2.3 a year earlier, while the number of vacancies has continued to fall, reaching 712,000 in April to June.
“Employers are dealing with more competition for fewer available roles,” Hipps said. “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.”
He argued some criticism rests on an inaccurate view of how the systems work. “There is also a fairly outdated picture of AI screening behind some of this criticism, where an algorithm scans for a few words and rejects somebody without explanation.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 can look for evidence of skills, relevant experience and transferable capability, then show the recruiter why an applicant has been highlighted. It can give recruiters a prioritised view without automatically filtering anybody out, while leaving the recruitment team in control of who moves forward.”
Hipps cited Sopra Steria, the European technology and digital services company, whose recruitment team had more than 1,100 applications to review at a time when AI-generated applications were becoming harder to distinguish through wording alone. Using AI to assess the evidence within them cut screening time by 50 per cent while maintaining 90 per cent alignment with expert human judgement, he said, with final decisions remaining with the recruitment team.
On remote interviews, Hipps drew a distinction with AI screening. “They serve completely different purposes. A video interview may not be right for every candidate or every stage, but it can 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.”
He acknowledged the technology could be misused. “Employers should understand what a system is assessing, why somebody has been brought to their attention and how to challenge its recommendation. I would be far more concerned by a system that produces an unexplained score than by the use of AI itself.”
Hipps said candidates’ use of generative AI was making applications sound increasingly similar, at a time when entry-level vacancies have fallen by almost a third since late 2022. “That is another reason traditional CV sifting 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 is whether the technology helps more people receive proper consideration and leaves recruiters with more time to understand the person applying,” he said. “When it does, stepping away from it would not make recruitment more human. It would make an already stretched process harder to manage.”
