Social Mobility Policy Committee

The Social Mobility Policy Committee’s final evidence session scrutinised the government’s approach to social mobility through the Opportunity Mission and its funding mechanisms. Ministers (DfE and DWP) outlined the pathways to work framework, including a £1 billion employment-support package (pathways to work) and planned autumn updates. The session highlighted a dual emphasis on breaking the link between background and outcome while preserving identity, expanded employer engagement, and devolved funding to local authorities via combined authorities. Key topics included the Get Britain Working trailblazers for youth, governance challenges between central and local government, data-sharing across departments to measure outcomes, NEETs/care leavers, and curriculum reforms. The ministers committed to ongoing updates, deeper employer collaboration, and continued evaluation, while signalling that targets should reflect complex, place-based labour markets rather than simple KPI metrics.

The Social Mobility Policy Committee examined how linked administrative and survey data can illuminate social mobility in the UK, focusing on datasets (LEO, LFS, longitudinal studies), data governance (Digital Economy Act, five safes in SRS), and data-linkage challenges (households, unique identifiers). Witnesses outlined current data-sharing arrangements (HMRC, ONS, ADR UK) and opportunities for improvement (health data linkage, standardising local-authority data, care-experienced children, and cross-department governance). There were calls for clearer leadership and a potential Ministerial lead, as well as recognition of gaps (occupation data; health data exclusions) and limits on AI use due to governance. Overall, the session highlighted practical steps to improve data access, linkage, and use for policy on social mobility, without endorsing firm government commitments in this session.

The Social Mobility Policy Committee’s oral evidence session scrutinised how rural living affects social mobility, focusing on data availability, housing affordability, transport connectivity, and governance. Witnesses highlighted fragmented data sources, higher rural costs, transport-related social exclusion, and the importance of local partnerships. Key policy stances included calls for cross-departmental rural policy, fair funding for rural areas, expansion of rural affordable housing, and improved connectivity, alongside recommendations to streamline funding distribution and empower local actors rather than create new bureaucratic structures.

The session scrutinised how social mobility is defined and pursued in education, with emphasis on regional disparities, funding, and the role of local, multi‑agency partnerships. Witnesses pressed for system join‑up across government departments, better data sharing, and place‑based approaches (including Youth Hubs and corporate parenting for care leavers). They proposed concrete actions: ring‑fenced internships, data exchanges between DfE/DWP/local authorities, and enhanced cross‑sector collaboration to address NEETs, early‑years deprivation, and housing barriers.

The Social Mobility Policy Committee session heard four union witnesses outline how social mobility is shaped by pay, learning, public services funding, and accessible career guidance. They argued for strong, funded education across early-years through higher education, stressed the importance of flexible, vocational routes (includes apprenticeships and BTECs), and called for independent, wide-ranging careers guidance. Key government commitments referenced include moves toward a youth guarantee, reform of apprenticeships funding, and a cross-government industrial strategy, with emphasis on tackling child poverty, improved regional equity, and investment in further education and transition pathways. The witnesses urged government to restore and expand union-led learning initiatives, enhance support for FE, and ensure regional strategies include local authorities, combined authorities, and employers to reduce NEETs and regional disparities.

The session explored how social mobility should be defined and measured, the role of data and longitudinal datasets, and the pathways through education, employment, and regional development. Witnesses emphasised equality of opportunity over purely income-based mobility, argued for consistent SES-background data collection by employers, and highlighted data gaps (e.g., LEO, SLC) and the need for better tracking of outcomes post-education. They proposed place-based interventions (opportunity areas, local multi-agency hubs), stronger school and university interventions, and systemic government leadership across departments. Key recommendations included: measuring parental background (age 14) as a core SES metric; expanding employer data collection on socioeconomic background; restoring or increasing targeted tutoring and maintenance funding; avoiding student-number controls; establishing a cross-government social mobility strategy led by the Prime Minister; reforming Treasury to enable investment in human capital; and leveraging philanthropy with regional targeting. The witnesses cautioned that progress is patchy, with significant regional disparities and persistent downward mobility, and urged early upstream interventions and better data to inform policy.