Editorial: Government falters on fairness test

Frank Field is the man charged with leading a review on child poverty; Graham Allen is looking at early intervention for children from disadvantaged backgrounds; and last week Alan Milburn was unveiled as the government's "social mobility tsar". He will report to parliament annually on his work.

Milburn authored the Unleashing Aspirations report on fair access to the professions for the Labour government a year ago, in which he called for responsibility for careers advice to be removed from Connexions. In a speech on social mobility last week, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: "Fairness demands that what counts is not the school you went to or the jobs your parents did but your ability and ambition." A glance at the background of the current Cabinet, however, gives the most damning indictment on social mobility in this country today. More than half of the Cabinet were privately educated compared with seven per cent of the general population.

The make-up of this Cabinet is nowhere near reflective of the country it represents. But at least there is the will to reduce the extent to which the life chances of one generation pre-determines the next.

While these three reviews are welcome, the worry is that against the background of spending cuts, they will pay only lip service to the issues. The government will want solutions that cost little. So Field is likely to recommend shifting the focus of child poverty away from money - poverty is defined as less than 60 per cent of median household income - and towards an "index of life chances". These are likely to include a heightened focus on good parenting. Allen's early intervention review will seek out good practice and examine raising private finance via social impact bonds.

But this government is turning its back on prevention. Universal provision is under siege, from child benefits to Sure Start children's centres.

Clegg said last week that "high-quality pre-school education will change the lives of the children who benefit". We can all say: "I agree with Nick" to that. Then he repeated the (Tory) mantra of "taking Sure Start back to its original purpose of early intervention, increasing its focus on neediest families".

If taking Sure Start away from children who currently benefit is fair or progressive, it would be good to hear how.