Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, which always has a particularly important place in the calendar. I look back fondly at our debate this time last year on families and the really wonderful work that the outgoing most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury did on Love Matters, helping people accept families as they are in the present world. These are not always wonderful—we remember RD Laing and the schizophrenogenic mother—but, for the most part, families are the building block of society. That seems to me to be the right place then to move into social cohesion, such a critical issue.

I am alienated by the Library briefing referring to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to give me my definition of social cohesion. Social cohesion goes back to Durkheim, the French sociologist and founder of sociology, 150 years ago; to Max Weber and Karl Marx trying to understand how societies would operate in the face of declining social and religious factors and the change in the workplace. They talked about social cohesion and the outfall of suicide, delinquency and deviance if social integration was not properly respected. Of course, in today’s world, social cohesion is even more difficult.

One reason I became Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when my boss had asked me to take a much chunkier department, was because my observation, as a social scientist, was that the framework that held people together was increasingly disintegrating. People were held together by the docks, the steelworks, the mines: that was the drumbeat of communities. In a world where people work from home, those common causes are no longer there, and it is the DCMS responsibilities that hold people together. Going to the Last Night of the Proms is an act of social cohesion. Going to the cup final at Wembley is an act of social cohesion: people are there together, regardless of their class, their background and so on. Museums, sport and galleries are all ways of creating social cohesion in a world where it is not always the Church that provides that cohesion. I regret that.

There was a time when political parties created social cohesion. Anybody who went to my constituency, when I was first an MP, joined the Tory party not because they were Tories but because they would meet nice people. I know that it was the same in a lot of Labour constituencies, but it is not like that any more. The work of the Church, and all faith groups, is enormously important because it gives meaning to life, it helps the needy, it helps the lonely and it helps people through the life cycle. The great thing about faith groups—religious, Muslim, Hindu, Christian—is that you celebrate birth, you celebrate adolescence, you celebrate marriage and you prepare for death. This is how we create communities that care for each other and understand each other. It was shocking, the most reverend Primate’s comment about people who are so obsessed with being online, they do not have a friend. How often do we see that with children? Their friends are their online friends. How dangerous and sinister is that?

I want to talk about this new development, articulated by Dame Sara Khan as “freedom-restricting harassment”. That is a rather fancy name, but we see it in the cancel culture in schools and universities—the idea that people are not free to speak the truth as they see it. The joy of the House of Lords is that we cannot be intimidated; we can say what we like without even having to be afraid of our constituents getting at us afterwards, as those who have been in the Commons will understand. I have spent many years in universities, as have many, and my message to graduates getting their degree is always, “University is the place where you have created your values, you decided who you are. It is not just about facts and knowledge, it is about wisdom, trust, values and what you believe to be right for the future”. The fact that our universities are particularly international in nature is all the more important, because the stranger factor is so sinister and dangerous, but if you have learned together, you work together and understand different cultures—how important that is for the economy.

Those of us who are followers of McKinsey will recognise that diversity is one of the critical factors in successful businesses. I applaud employers and I think we should say more about them in terms of social cohesion, and the work they are doing on diversity and inclusion. It sounds very woke but it really matters. Can you be yourself at work? Can you be the best possible person you can be? Can you give 110% of your effort? Because if you are feeling insecure about being of a different ethnic group, sexual orientation or whatever, you are not able, you are not liberated, to do the best you can in your economic enterprise.

How much more important is this now too, with all this working from home, which I have viscerally opposed? Except for women, or men, with childcare purposes, I will not believe that working from home is a healthy thing to do. We are social people. We need to go to work. Young people need to go to work to see grumpy old women like me at work, and grumpy old people like me need to see young people who will explain to them about TikTok. This is how we share values and how we change. The sooner we move away from thinking that working from home is a wonderful thing, I shall be delighted. I accept that it has transformed life for many women, and I will allow it there, but otherwise nothing will convince me.

On democracy, the most reverend Primate made really serious comments about people failing to vote, their alienation and disinterest. I get very angry when I hear people say, “All politicians are in it for themselves”. If you want to do it for £80,000 a year or whatever it is, working seven days a week, you try. I meet a lot of people in the business world who sneer at politicians, and that really winds me up big time, but there is an issue about the effect of social media. This is familiar. When we all went to political meetings when we were young—long ago—people would argue and debate. You would never leave a political meeting thinking it was 10-0 or 8-2, everything was divided, but social media is about assertion. There are no facts, no evidence, no logic; there is assertion, and this vulgarises and polarises debate.

I commend the most reverend Primate particularly on his presidential address at the York Diocesan Synod last March. He quoted Jonathan Sacks, with whom I used to work a lot, talking about the temptation for religious leaders to be confrontational, like politicians. He said, “I am trying to resist this temptation, please pray for me. And please resist it yourself”. He also said that with this divisive mindset:

“Choices must be set out as stark divisions. Not to condemn is to condone … A prophet hears not one imperative but two: guidance and compassion, a love of truth and an abiding solidarity with those for whom that truth has become eclipsed”.


It seems to me that that is what we have to do. I want to draw attention to the English-Speaking Union, which encourages young people to debate, to take each other’s sides in an argument, to speak with logic and rational purpose—to become the citizens we need.