Improving social mobility: Lords Social Mobility Policy Committee report

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

On 4 September 2026 the House of Lords is scheduled to debate the House of Lords Social Mobility Policy Committee report, ‘Social mobility: Local roots, lasting change’ (18 November 2025, HL Paper 201 of session 2024–26).

1. What is social mobility?

There is no single definition of social mobility. In its May 2025 report, ‘What is social mobility?’, the Sutton Trust provided the following definition:

Social mobility is the link between someone’s socio-economic (or “class”) background—the social and economic circumstances they grew up in—and their own outcomes as adults. A country that has high social mobility is one where this link is weak, where the circumstances someone grows up in have little impact on where they themselves end up. Whereas a country with low social mobility is one where someone’s socio-economic background is highly related to the type of job and income level they themselves go on to in adulthood […]

A traditional or more stereotypical conception of social mobility tended to revolve only around high attainers and the pathways of elite universities and elite occupations, also known as bottom-to-top mobility or long-range mobility. While this is an important facet of social mobility, and an indicator of fairness and opportunity in society, it is only one facet. More modern definitions of social mobility tend to also encompass shorter-range mobility (eg coming from a low-income family and ending up on a middle income yourself), as well as wider issues around the importance of high-quality jobs, wellbeing and wealth, ultimately focused on ensuring young people have the opportunity to flourish.^[1]

Other key terms within this definition can include:

• intra-generational mobility—the extent to which a person’s ‘social positioning’ can change within their lifetime
• inter-generational mobility—the extent to which a person’s ‘social positioning’ is determined by that of their parents
• absolute social mobility—the percentage of the population who move from one class into another
• relative social mobility—the likelihood that anyone from a given social class will make it to the top^[2]

1.1 How much social mobility is there in the UK?

The Social Mobility Commission (SMC), an advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by the Cabinet Office, produces annual reports on social mobility. Its 2025 report, ‘State of the nation 2025: The evolving story of social mobility in the UK’, included international comparisons of social mobility. It also contained details on long-term tracking of trends in the UK, covering areas such as occupation, income, education, housing and wealth.

Amongst its key findings, the report highlighted “extreme regional differences” in social mobility in the UK. It found many former mining and industrial areas, such as those in the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, the West Midlands, Wales and Scotland, continued to experience “significant disadvantage” with little improvement in social mobility seen since the early 2000s.^[3] In contrast prosperous areas in London and surrounding regions consistently provided better conditions for social mobility. It found that rural areas faced distinct challenges, including limited access to educational institutions and skilled jobs.

The report also highlighted the widening educational achievement gap for disadvantaged students aged between 11 and 16 years old during the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, it argued that disadvantaged students were increasingly falling behind in higher education (HE) attainment. While the SMC found there had been improved employment opportunities for young people overall, significant socio-economic gaps remained in accessing professional and managerial roles. On this, the report concluded:

[…] increasingly, we need more than better education to improve life chances for everyone—fair economic opportunities at all education and skill levels, and in all places, are critical.^[4]

Turning to international comparisons, the SMC found the UK performed well compared with Canada, Denmark and the USA in terms of absolute income mobility (people whose income is higher than their parents’ income was at the same age). However, it said that the UK faced “a concerning decline over time” with new generations increasingly unlikely to earn more than their parents did at a similar age. The UK ranked near the US and below countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Nordic states when it came to relative income mobility (the “strength of the link” between a parent’s income and their child’s income).

In education, the report found that the UK had similar levels of social mobility to France and Japan in offering young people a good chance to exceed their parents’ educational achievement. However, it said a child’s education level still heavily depends on their parents’ background.

The SMC has also launched the ‘Social mobility index’, which it describes as the most comprehensive summary of social mobility statistics in the UK.^[5] This categorises local authorities across the UK into one of seven categories, ranging from ‘most favourable’ to ‘least favourable’, across four indices:

• promising prospects (measures levels of education, professional work and earnings from people from similar socio-economic backgrounds)
• conditions of childhood (measures earnings, qualifications and occupation levels of parents)
• labour market opportunities for young people (measures occupation level and unemployment rate over time)
• innovation and growth (measures area’s productivity level, ‘new economy’ jobs and economically-active residents with postgraduate qualifications)

Interactive data on social mobility by area, along with other social mobility data from the report, is published on the Social Mobility Commission website.^[6]

1.2 What impacts how socially mobile someone is?

A number of factors are considered to impact the social mobility of an individual. For example, research by the Sutton Trust examined the impact of geography, gender and ethnicity on opportunities for disadvantaged young people. Its June 2026 report, ‘Crossing paths: How gender, ethnicity and place shape opportunity’, emphasised big variations across England and argued that school achievements were not equally rewarded in the labour market, especially for girls and some ethnic groups.

The report also highlighted how geography, gender and ethnicity interrelate, noting that these “don’t always follow straightforward intersectional patterns”.^[7] For example, a Bangladeshi girl on free school meals (FSM) in the North West has GCSE attainment almost two times higher on average than a white British FSM boy from the South East, but earns almost £5,500 less at age 28.^[8]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) publishes a range of research about social mobility and factors affecting it. Among its research it has emphasised the importance of regional inequalities and has studied factors such as the impact of UK house prices on social mobility.^[9] It has also highlighted the key role played by education, arguing “today’s education inequalities are tomorrow’s income inequalities”.^[10]

In addition, the IFS has recently drawn attention to the increasing share of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET). This figure has grown following the Covid-19 pandemic, after a sustained fall for more than a decade.^[11]

2. Committee inquiry into social mobility

In December 2024, the House of Lords Liaison Committee recommended the establishment of a committee “to consider how educational and work opportunities could be better integrated to improve social mobility in the UK”.^[12]

The House of Lords Social Mobility Policy Committee published its report ‘Social Mobility: Local roots, lasting change’ on 18 November 2025. The committee focused its inquiry on four aspects of social mobility:^[13]

• the importance of place
• NEETs
• education and training opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds
• data

The committee said that while there have been many efforts to address the issue of social mobility, barriers still existed. In particular, it pointed to education as a “fundamental barrier to many”.^[14] The report highlighted the million young people in the UK who were NEET and concluded they were a high priority group who were “the most disadvantaged, furthest from the labour market, and in danger of experiencing the least amount of social mobility, if any”.^[15]

The committee argued that educational reform was necessary to promote opportunities for all:

At GCSE level, the focus on academic learning and a narrow set of core subjects, means many students are not encouraged to study more creative, technical and vocational subjects, so that the pool of skills needed in our economy shrinks. We hope the curriculum review may address this.

Many students struggle to pass outdated and rigid maths and English GCSEs which are essential for their chosen apprenticeships in industry. This year, 20% of those taking English and maths GCSEs were resitting their exams, with an additional burden on the colleges and employers who are left having to help them to clear an unnecessary hurdle. Of those resitting, too few pass.

Moreover, the financial barriers are increasing for those from low-income backgrounds who may wish to attend university. Spiralling living costs, with the cut off for a maximum maintenance loan remaining frozen at its 2008 level, are creating further obstacles to social mobility.^[16]

The committee emphasised the differences, and therefore different challenges, that existed in different parts of the country. It argued central government alone could not develop and implement policy change to remove barriers to social mobility. Instead “devolution of power to local government” was seen as key. The committee argued that the current local government restructure proposed by the Sir Keir Starmer government presented an opportunity to devolve necessary power and resources to allow local authorities and partners “to promote social mobility and address the acute NEET problem”.^[17]

Among the committee’s recommendations were calls for the government to:^[18]

• improve the collection and sharing of data on NEETs and create an adaptable framework approach to moving NEETs back towards education and work
• expand the numbers of and remit of the ‘Youth guarantee trailblazer’ pilots (there are currently eight), which the committee argued were “good examples of central government working with the new mayoral combined authorities to help young people into work”^[19]
• increase the household income threshold at which a student can get the maximum maintenance loan during their time at university, to match inflationary rises
• closely monitor the effectiveness of the new growth and skills levy to deliver more entry-level apprenticeships and consider the extension of the levy at a reduced rate to small and medium-sized enterprises^[20]
• build a dataset to analyse the relationship between parental income and educational outcomes for a wide section of the population, rather than just those claiming certain benefits

3. Government response

The government published its response to the committee’s report on 24 July 2026.^[21]

Between the publication of the committee’s report and the government’s response several recommendations had already been addressed by government actions or the publication of other reports. For example, the government had already responded to proposals to end the EBacc as part of its response to the curriculum and assessment review in November 2025.^[22] The government also highlighted ongoing work by Alan Milburn, who was commissioned by the government to carry out a review into the drivers of youth economic inactivity. The review published an interim report in May 2026.^[23]

The government’s response accepted a number of the committee’s recommendations. As outlined below, it also highlighted work it was already undertaking in some of the areas mentioned in the committee’s report.

3.1 NEETs: Data sharing and the youth guarantee trailblazer pilots

The government outlined several measures it was taking to address the issue of NEETs. This included the NEET prevention package, which it said contained targeted interventions to reduce the proportion of young people who were NEET and included new risk indicators, strengthened school responsibilities and an auto-enrolment backstop for post-16 places.

The government agreed with the committee’s recommendation concerning data sharing, arguing that improving data sharing was “essential to supporting young people who [are] at risk of becoming NEET”.^[24] It pointed to commitments in the 2025 ‘Post-16 education and skills white paper’ to enable local authorities, strategic authorities, schools, and FE providers to identify, track and share data about young people more effectively, stating:

[…] we will work across government to explore how the data that helps identify young people who are at risk of becoming NEET is accessible.^[25]

It said that lessons from the youth guarantee trailblazers would help to further develop a national risk of NEET indicators framework and would inform a wider roll out of measures such as an expanded youth employment support package. However, the government did not accept the committee’s recommendation to expand on the number of youth guarantee trailblazer pilots or to expand their remit to become pilots on social mobility. The committee had suggested a mix of strategic authorities and local authorities from post-industrial, coastal, rural and urban areas, including local authorities which are outside combined authority areas.^[26]

The response also rejected committee recommendations for differentiated targets for reducing NEET numbers, with separate goals for different categories or tiers of NEETs. While noting that “the challenges that local authorities [LA] deal with vary across the country”, it said “we do not have plans to introduce individual LA targets, but we do acknowledge these broader cohort challenges”.^[27]

3.2 Educational and training opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds

Responding to the committee’s recommendations for educational reforms, such as the EBacc framework and changes to maths and English GCSEs, the government noted that it had accepted recommendations to reform the EBacc framework in response to the curriculum and assessment review. It said that it was also introducing a package of reforms “to support more students to make progress towards and achieve level 2 in English and maths and break the cycle of unnecessary resits”.^[28] It also pointed to other changes, such as the expansion of T levels and “further improvements to T level content and assessment”, which sought to give greater parity to vocational training.

The government rejected the committee’s recommendation to increase the household income threshold at which a student can get the maximum maintenance loan during their time at university in line with inflation, arguing “we need to ensure that student funding is sustainable”.^[29] It did however highlight plans for the introduction of targeted maintenance grants from academic year 2028/29, which it said would provide disadvantaged students with up to £1,000 extra per year, on top of existing maintenance loans.^[30]

Regarding the committee’s recommendation to extend the growth and skills levy at a reduced rate to SMEs, the government’s response (published by the Department for Education) noted that “[HM Treasury] is responsible for the operation of the levy”.^[31]

 3.3 Data

The government’s response to the committee’s recommendations on data included a commitment to publish a clear timetable for linking data from the longitudinal educational outcomes (LEO) dataset and the pupil parent matched dataset (PPMD) by the end of March 2027.^[32]

Turning to recommendations to build a dataset analysing the relationship between parental income and educational outcomes for a wide section of the population, rather than only those claiming certain benefits, the government said it was:

[…] currently exploring options for further data linking across government, to improve the granularity of disadvantage data and the coverage of parental income data, beyond those in families claiming benefits. While it is not yet clear what will be achievable, we will aim to set out any feasible options for widening this coverage by March 2027, alongside the proposed timetable for the LEO-PPMD linkage.^[33]

3.4 Other government announcements

Since becoming prime minister on 20 July 2026, Andy Burnham has made a number of announcements touching on the issues raised by the committee report and subsequent government response, particularly in relation to NEETs and education.

On 27 July 2026 he announced changes to the education system to introduce greater opportunities for technical education from the age of 14. Writing in the Times, he argued that the low take-up of technical education was one of the reasons for the higher proportion of NEETs than other countries, arguing “what’s holding them back isn’t ambition, but the skills and experience to make the most of it”.^[34] He said changes “won’t be designed by Westminster” and instead would be informed by mayors, local leaders, employers and schools.^[35] Andy Burnham has also announced plans to give greater powers to mayors, including control over technical routes for those aged 16 to 19.^[36]

On 22 July 2026, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee published its report on ‘Youth employment, education and training’. A government response has not yet been published.

4. Read more

• Harriet Marsden, ‘Burnham’s school overhaul: A NEET solution?’, The Week, 1 August 2026
• House of Commons Library, ‘NEET: Young people not in education, employment or training’, 5 June 2026; and ‘Youth unemployment statistics’, 18 June 2026
• Department for Work and Pensions, ‘Young people and work: Interim report’, 28 May 2026
• Social Mobility Commission, ‘State of the nation 2025: The evolving story of social mobility in the UK’, 18 December 2025; and ‘State of the nation: Data about social mobility in the UK’, accessed 20 July 2026
• Sutton Trust, ‘Crossing paths: How gender, ethnicity and place shape opportunity’, 18 June 2026; and ‘What is social mobility?’, 15 May 2025