---

Social Policy

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for calling this debate and for his most thoughtful, analytical and challenging opening speech. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wei. The call from the Government for a big society represents one of the most fundamental changes to the future way in which this country is governed and a change that I believe is urgently needed if we are to achieve, ""the publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm"," already mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and for which we pray at the start of business each day in this House. I begin by paying tribute to my right honourable friend Dr Oliver Letwin who, as a well-educated Cambridge philosopher of course, first articulated and argued the intellectual framework for the big society, which he called—I like the name—"the neighbourly society". Letwin describes the relationship between government and civil society as, ""Government helping to sustain a society that is a rich tapestry of active citizens, families, places of worship, dedicated professions and independent associations"." That is a vision which I celebrate and embrace. It marks the fundamental difference in the philosophy and vision of the world between those of the left in politics and those of the right. In the far-off days when I used to teach students philosophy, I used to describe both socialism and the freedom and responsibility of individuals as equal though opposite views of how the world should be. I still believe that to be true in the sense that socialism is an honourable ideal—intellectually valid and immensely appealing, especially to the idealistic young. I speak as one who tried to join the Communist Party when I was 16. Fortunately, my father found my application form and threw it in the fire. Socialism, in however watered-down its current form, still teaches, and, by its actions promulgates, the belief that the state is the answer to all society's needs—that politicians, bureaucrats, committees, national tsars and state initiatives can cure all ills and provide for the needs of all its citizens. But the history of the past 50 years and more has shown, perhaps sadly, that across the world this view of society has utterly failed. Millions queued for the barest necessities of life in the Soviet Union. Millions in China lived a life of abject poverty. A divided Germany demonstrated in the sharpest relief the difference in the lives of those living under socialism and those in the free West. Here in our own country, 13 years of a Labour Government who shared that belief in the state have left us with 5 million households living on state benefit, 2.5 million people out of work and a gap between rich and poor, successful schools and failing schools, the unbelievably inflated property wealth of the few and what the journalist Will Hutton described as the "living tomb" of the sink estate. Inequalities of access to health and so many more aspects of a good life all demonstrate that reliance on the state has not worked. What is the alternative? It is for the state to support communities and individuals to enable them to have control of their lives. Of course, the state must be there to take care of those who are genuinely unable to take of themselves or others. But for the vast majority of those in society, government should stand back and allow families and small communities, villages, local streets, professions, trade unions, universities and charities the freedom to manage their lives and their immediate communities. I quote Oliver Letwin again: ""Society is characterised by a complex network of professional, voluntary and involuntary relationships. Professional relationships like a GP’s relationship with his or her patients. Voluntary relationships like a mentor’s care for an at-risk young person. And then involuntary … relationships, like a mother’s love for her son"." But it is worse than the failure of the economic strategies. My biggest concern is what reliance on the state as the answer to everything has done to civil society. It disempowers people and threatens individual initiative and creativity. One moment of my own political education came many years ago when my husband and I were living on the Canadian prairies. Our tiny township—five grain elevators, 23 houses, a village shop, a church and school—was completely cut off from our nearest town each year when the snow thawed and the dirt road became impassable. Down at the curling rink one evening, I complained. Like a true Brit, I said, "It’s a disgrace. They should do something about it. They should build us a proper road". A puzzled silence greeted my remark. One of the guys finally said, "Pauline, who’s ‘them’?". Again, like a true Brit, I said, "Well, government, I suppose—central government or the provincial government". There was another silence. One man then leant forward gently and said, "Pauline, around here, them’s us. If we want a road, we build it". The philosophy of "them’s us" sums up the spirit which I deeply admire wherever it is to be found. It is the heart of the politics I cherish. Reliance on the state has also removed for many the incentive to provide for themselves and their family. We have all too many families in this country who have never seen anyone go to work, perhaps in some cases for as many as three generations. There are whole housing estates where fewer than 10 per cent of adults are in work. When state benefits are so attractive, why bother to work? This is not a healthy society. Even more, though, I fear the way in which reliance on the state has destroyed trust. More and more, we have seen over the past 13 years how the judgment of professionals has been undermined by the assumption that the state and its bureaucrats know best; and how state-imposed targets, volumes of legislation and notes of guidance have replaced a trust in the professional judgment of judges, teachers, doctors, social workers and many others in the professions. In her excellent Reith Lectures a few years ago, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke of the decline of trust in our society. She quoted Confucius, who said that three things are needed for good government—weapons, food and trust. If a ruler cannot hold on to all three he should give up the weapons first and the food next, but hold on to trust to the end. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke of a crisis of trust and what she called a "culture of suspicion". This, I fear, is the culture that the previous Government have imposed. Anyone who has taught children and young people will tell you that suspicion and overmonitoring simply result in children who behave well when the teacher is looking but run riot as soon as her back is turned. Such children have not learnt to take responsibility; nor have they internalised the need for the rules and regulations. Drivers on the North Circular—who face speed cameras every mile or so—demonstrate to me every week as I drive on it that not only children behave in this way. The alternative must be for the state to help and sustain the communities which make up civil society. While providing still for those most vulnerable and unable to help themselves, the state should support from below, empowering individuals and communities to care for themselves; to be good and considerate neighbours; to care for their neighbourhood and its facilities; to say, "What can I do about this?" or "Let’s do this", rather than, "Why don’t the Government do something about this?". Communities that have taken control of their environment and collective lives have found immense satisfaction, new friendships and a sense of pride and purpose in what they do. This new relationship of government and civil society is indeed a partnership but it is a partnership of equals. Nanny does not know best. Those closest to the problem will know best how to solve it. Communities given power and support by the Government will benefit directly from finding solutions unique to them, rather than having to accept the one size fits all from the centre. In this partnership, citizens must accept that they have responsibilities as well as rights and that the state or the Government cannot and should not give us everything we need and want. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, put it: ""The passive culture of human rights suggests that we can sit back and wait for others to deliver our entitlements. I suggest that if we really want human rights we have to act and to meet our duties to one another"."