---

Social Exclusion Unit

I thank the Minister for initiating this debate and for clearly explaining the Government's priorities and goals in this area. I am also glad that he began by defining social exclusion, although it struck me that it was not really a definition of social exclusion: he defined social exclusion as life below the minimum acceptable level, but I have always taken that to be a definition of poverty. I and my party colleagues would distinguish more clearly between inequality and social exclusion. We think that the Government have a duty to tackle both; they can both be considered problems that require political solutions. However, they are not quite the same thing—although one might lead to the other. For me and most Liberals, social exclusion is essentially a political concept. It means that some people cannot fully participate as citizens and in political life because of the material and other conditions of their lives. Democracy cannot function unless people have more than just formal rights to participate in politics and government. They must have what the philosopher John Rawls called ““the fair value”” of their rights. That means that where people are unable to function as citizens because of poverty, ill health, lack of education or skills, fear of crime or discrimination, the Government have a duty to take corrective action. Of course, one of those corrective actions could be redistribution of wealth and income. That is one way of tackling exclusion, although it is not the only one; there are other policy prescriptions. There might also be separate reasons for following redistributive policies, such as fairness. For example, my party is committed to the idea of a local income tax, which would have a powerful redistributive effect, but we are committed to it largely because it is fair rather than because it would help to tackle social exclusion in the sense that I have defined it, although it would have some effect in that regard. For us, ultimately, social exclusion means political exclusion. It is a form of political exclusion, and it needs to be tacked in and of itself. That means that, from our point of view, there is a great deal to praise and celebrate in the work of the social exclusion unit. Under a Liberal Democrat Government, it might have a somewhat different focus, concentrating more on the political aspects of exclusion and perhaps not being quite so influenced by the underlying view, which I think I heard in the Minister's speech, that the best way to tackle almost any aspect of poverty is to get people into work. That is probably more the view of the Chancellor than it is of any other Member. It seems to us that that is often the best way to approach such individuals' problems, but not always. The Government ought to remember that there is more to life than work, especially in the case of single parents. Forcing people into work could have adverse effects when it is not the best course of action from their point of view or from the social point of view. In the past, the Conservative party has called for the abolition of the social exclusion unit. We do not share that view, nor is it our policy that the unit should be abolished. It is reasonable for the Government to spend public money on developing policies that are in line with their current political objectives. The social exclusion unit has produced a good range of projects and ideas that further the Government's objectives, but we have some doubt about whether the Government are fully committed to implementing its ideas. That is the fault not of the unit, but of the Government. Are they as committed to tackling social exclusion as the policy prescriptions of the SEU suggest? Let us consider transport. The unit's website states:"““Good transport links can help people to break out of social exclusion.""The key to success is helping connect people to jobs, schools, training, health care and healthy, affordable food. But making such key places truly accessible means more than improving trains and bus links; it also means improving local and national planning decisions, providing specialist support to help people get to work and improving design.””" I agree. That is an excellent place at which to start transport policy, but to what extent does that objective influence the Government's transport policy as a whole? There is a section in ““Opportunity for All”” about transport, but it is pathetically brief and says in the main that local authorities should talk to other local agencies. But where will the resources come from to fulfil the goal as laid out in the social exclusion unit's documentation? In my constituency, for example, central Government do very little to help local transport and improve local transport planning in the form to which the SEU refers. We are not a rural area, so the rural transport grant does not help us much. We are not a major urban centre either, so we do not always receive the help with major projects for which we might have hoped. Instead, Government policy concentrates on major road-building projects, such as the creation of a 10-lane A14 at the cost of £490 million, the main objective of which is to help the road haulage industry rather than to help the socially excluded to get around. The balance between road building and public transport, especially local public transport, does not seem to have been sufficiently influenced by the concept of social exclusion, as it should have been. I come now to prisoners and reoffending. About three years ago, the unit produced an excellent practical and humane document on reducing reoffending by ex-prisoners. The paper ““Opportunity for All”” announced some pilot projects on reducing reoffending and giving help to prisoners' families to try to stop the cycle of criminality that the report observed. That is good news, although it has taken a rather long time to come. To what extent does the SEU's approach affect the core values of the Home Office? Since 1996, 18,500 new prison places have been created, including 13 new prisons, yet still the prisons are full to bursting. Previous Home Secretaries seem to have been proud of the fact that they presided over record prison populations, but the question is whether that is compatible with the approach of the SEU. I think there is a serious tension.