---

Social Inclusion

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, like most of the speakers before her, has spoken from a depth of experience that I cannot claim to have. I shall therefore offer one or two more general reflections, which I hope may be helpful. One of the reasons why I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, for initiating the debate is the language that she employed. It is the language that this Government have used from the beginning: that of exclusion and inclusion. I have no doubt that that terminology is preferable to that of equality and inequality. The terminology of equality simply describes people in terms of where they are, while the terminology of exclusion and inclusion describes people in terms of what they can do and how they participate in the life that our societies, political communities and economies have to offer. Life chances are, after all, chances of participation. I sound one cautionary note: governments can combat exclusion, and from the beginning the present Government have definitely set out to do just that, but they cannot bring about the inclusion of everybody in all areas of participation, nor should they try. The total inclusion of every person in everything going on is an almost totalitarian notion. One can try to provide chances, but I do not believe in the attempt to make people do what the chances offer. For instance, I am a strong opponent of compulsory voting and would be quite prepared to make the case that I hinted at in those terms. What matters are chances of exclusion and of participation. There are three major areas of participation that are particularly significant and where exclusion is particularly dramatic. The first is the political process. When I whispered to my noble friend Lord Weatherill, who is no longer in his place, what I was going to say, he said that he would leave immediately. When he was the Speaker of the other place, he initiated a process of understanding citizenship better. Not only does that process affect large parts of the education system but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, said, the crucial subject of Britishness is part of the notion of citizenship. Advancing citizenship as a value and understanding it better, including what shared values go with it, is part of the battle against exclusion, although that is very difficult at this time, when so many turn away from the political process and feel disenchanted. The second major area of participation is the economic process. That means access to the labour market, which in turn means education; that is to say, preparation for the labour market. My next point is without polemical intent but concerns me quite greatly. This Government have shown an extraordinary insistence on what is sometimes called and often implied to be meritocracy, on training people to actively participate in the knowledge society. Their objectives include getting 50 per cent or 55 per cent into higher education. I have long been concerned with that strong emphasis on meritocracy and on those who are led to higher education. I have never forgotten the great work that the late Lord Young of Dartington wrote 40 years ago on a negative utopia. It was a horror story of what it means if one is too obsessed with those who go furthest in education. The world in which we live and in which we are going to live—indeed, the economic universe in which we are going to live—is not just one where people have doctorates, Masters’ degrees or even Bachelors’ degrees. It has a whole variety of requirements and opportunities. My own sense has for some time been that when one talks about inclusion in the labour market and in the economic process, it is as important to concentrate on vocational training and apprenticeships for all as it is to concentrate on expanding the university population. For me, one major issue in terms of inclusion would be a greater concentration on those areas of education which may ultimately lead to higher education, but which may not, and which are available to all and encourage all. The third major dimension of participation is that of civil society—the associations in which we happily live our lives and in which we can do things for others and often do. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a major interest in this area, particularly in volunteering. I also know that he, like many others, was disappointed that when he looked at the facts, he found it was often those who were quite integrated in society who volunteered. Volunteering was an offer that was not taken up by the excluded, although it was often intended to be for them. I do not know what the answer is. I am, as your Lordships may have gathered from my earlier comments, an opponent of compulsion by governments, but it seems to me that some voluntary national social service would not be the worst idea to discuss as one considers how participation in the associations of civil society can be encouraged. I conclude with something I feel strongly about. So far as creating an inclusive public sphere is concerned, I believe that the United Kingdom is doing better than any other European country. There is reason to be proud of the way in which the public sphere has become inclusive. This debate and its participants could not be rivalled in any other country of Europe, I know. It is one of many examples of success in an area in which undoubtedly more can be done.