Commission on Integration and Cohesion

Speech by Darra Singh Chair of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion at the launch of the Commission's Interim Statement

Six months ago, we were asked by the Communities Secretary to consider how we could better build cohesion in places across the country.

To look at why integration and cohesion works in some areas but not others. And to come up with practical ideas for places experiencing rapid population change.

We have seen our task so far as being about finding the local ingredients that make a place integrated and cohesive and we have until June 2007 to complete our work.

Today is not about final recommendations. It is about setting out what we have heard so far. It is about dealing with some big issues so that we can in a sense "clear the decks" and make sure we focus on the local in June this year.

Our interim statement does not represent all of the research that we have commissioned into the different types of areas across the country and it does not reflect the remaining visits we have yet to make. But it is a summary of the key themes that people have told us are important. Based on over 600 responses to our consultation, and conversations held with over 1,000 people so far. So I would encourage you to read it. Tell us if we have got the context right, and what local solutions we can consider before coming back in June with our final report.

The statement says some strong things, in particular about the need for everyone settling in England to speak English. 60 per cent of the people we asked said that was a key barrier to not being English. However, it also confirms the strong link between cohesion and deprivation and it suggests that integration and cohesion are not only about visible and cultural differences, but that divisions can also be caused by what people have in common - particularly when it comes to competition around access to public services.

And it asks whether given that competition, it is time to rebalance our approach cohesion. Whether our efforts to respect difference are inadvertently leaving some communities out in the cold.

We don't use the term multiculturalism. It's a word that in our views struggling under the weight of the conflicting meanings placed upon it.

It attracts a level of debate that's not helpful in developing our understanding of what works. And I don't think it captures the complexity of current population change.

It belongs in 1967 and not 2007.

But we do use the term "shared futures" - which I think captures what integration and cohesion really means to people.

The future can be shared even if the past is divided.

Coming together to discuss that shared future - developing a sense of what binds us together, and how we will move forward together - that is the way we will make sense of the rapid change in our communities.

And those shared futures are what are at risk when we consider the rise of extremism. When a minority of Muslims reject our shared values and opt out of the mainstream. When the Far Right campaign against population change and immigration.

They are rejecting the chance to unify around our shared concerns, and to paint a picture of our common future. And in doing so they remind us why we should all care about integration and cohesion in the first place.

But caring about integration and cohesion and doing something about them are quite different things.

There are real barriers to building integration and cohesion that we can't ignore. Three in particular have been of real concern to my Commission so far.

Firstly, deprivation. If unequal life chances and persistent poverty remain a feature of our communities, they will never be cohesive.

Secondly, and linked to that, what we have called in the interim statement "competition for shared resources".

Debates about integration and cohesion to date have focused on visible difference and difference in cultural practice. But what about where people have exactly the same concerns? - getting a house, getting a regular job, getting access to healthcare.

Divisions aren't only caused by difference. They can also arise from people having the same worries and fears. And often those fears are about how public services are being allocated.

I recognise that resources will always be finite. But if it feels like one group in a community is getting a better deal than others, then that sense of unfairness will damage cohesion.

It's that sense of competition that we see in the myths spread by Far Right parties. In the feelings of injustice expressed by established communities - who think they see new people getting the best deal and feel left behind.

So in our final report, we will include examples of where councils and projects are already recognising that issue, and tackling it head on.

The third - and possibly the largest - barrier we have seen so far is not speaking English.

We asked people in our opinion polling what they thought the key barriers to being English were.

Only 5 per cent said that they couldn't see any barriers at all.

We wondered for the others if one of those barriers might be people's faith - that in some sense, you have to be Christian to be English. But only 4 per cent of people thought that was the case.

So we looked at what people thought was the biggest barrier. And overwhelmingly, it was speaking English.

Now, I do think that the issue of language is potentially contentious. However, it is an issue that demands a public debate. 60 per cent of people thought that not speaking English was a barrier to making a real contribution to this country.

That finding has to influence all of our thinking from now on.

Because what it suggests is that there is a tangible step the Government can take to build integration and cohesion. It must make sure that both new migrants and those who still rely on their heritage languages can speak English.

Learning English is clearly the responsibility of the individual, but local authorities, central government and employers have a key role to play.

On new migrants, there have been some important steps.

We have seen examples of centres such as New Link in Peterborough that teach people English at the same time as teaching them about their new neighbourhood - which helps the integration process.

We have seen moves to link benefits with speaking English, which underlines the importance of English as a means of getting a job.

And we have received consultations from employers who are taking the lead on making sure their employees speak English by providing lessons in the workplace.

Take First Bus, for example - who provide English classes on site for their workers. Free of charge, flexible, and often on Saturday mornings.

Or Bradgate Bakery in Leicester. Who partner with Leicester College to provide on-site ESOL classes. Investing in their workforce to increase and improve productivity.

But I haven't yet seen much thought around how speaking English affects those who are not temporary economic migrants. Those who are part of families that have settled in England and are already building connections and social networks.

From personal experience, I do think we need to look at spouses coming from abroad for example.

I am not concerned here with the whys and wherefores of marriages - arranged or otherwise.

But I know from my own personal experience that as second and third generation immigrants make a home for themselves in this country, they gradually begin to speak English.

Often for second generation immigrants, English is the primary language outside the home even if heritage languages are still spoken around the dinner table.

And research suggests that by the third generation, English is common currency in all situations.

So - what happens when brides and grooms who do not speak English arrive in families for whom English is already a second language? It seems to break that chain.

They become parents to children for whom English is not necessarily a primary language. And the language barrier is potentially resurrected for the next generation.

I am not undermining the role of marriage and family in building social capital. I am not singling out particular groups for criticism.

I am simply asking the question as to whether we have thought laterally about this. Thought about the levers Government and others already have, and applied them to this group. 40,000 spouses arrived here in 2005.

One thing might be to provide language lessons for them. Under the new rules, they - and other groups of migrants - will not be entitled to language classes until they have been in the UK for 3 years. By that time, they will have learned to survive without English, and the opportunity to teach them may have been lost.

But perhaps we could be braver, and expect spouses to have learned English before they arrive here, which would signal the emphasis we place on its importance.

This is not a final recommendation from the Commission. It is a personal reflection.

But it supports the logic and general principle that it is a good thing to speak English, and to participate fully.

As a Commission, that is why we would also like more evidence on the real story behind the provision of English lessons.

Again, we are acutely aware that there will always be a finite pot of money provided by Government. But we are not yet clear that there is enough money set aside for free English lessons for all who need them.

And while employers are not a substitute for Government when it comes to language provision, we would like to see the early and positive signs of their involvement being spread more widely. Where big companies lead in expecting their suppliers to teach their employees English, others will surely follow.

Finally, translation can never be a substitute for speaking English.

My own personal view is that there shouldn't be Polish road signs for example - but I do hear the arguments about how globalisation means that some communities won't even be staying in England long enough to learn English.

So to try and bring all of those arguments together, we have committed to providing guidance with our final report on where and when materials should be translated. We will be looking to build that guidance on the firm foundations of what already works in different parts of the country, and would welcome any further views you may have on the subject.

Before closing, I want to mention just two other key themes that have occurred to us as part of our work as a Commission so far.

The first is the importance of focusing on the local, while recognising the impact of national narratives.

Take the theme we've identified around perceived favouritism for example. 57 per cent of people in our poll told us that they thought some groups in Britain get unfair priority when it comes to public services. But when we asked them to think about their local area, that dropped to 25 per cent.

If Government really wants to get to grips with this problem with perceived unfairness, therefore, it will have to act both locally and nationally. Because even where people think it doesn't happen in their local area, they are concerned about the general principle.

Similarly when we asked people the area they most identified with, 29 per cent identified most with their immediate neighbourhood. Whereas for 26 per cent of people Britain was what gave them a sense of their identity.

So if we want to build that shared set of values and sense of shared belonging that will strengthen cohesion and integration, we will need to act nationally as well as locally to make sure they resonate with everyone.

The second theme is about the best ways to bring people together.

We can recognise that people have shared concerns that drive division - the allocation of resources point I have already mentioned.

But other more positive shared concerns can also overcome those divisions.

Look at Friends of the Earth encouraging people of all faiths in Birmingham to join together to combat climate change for example.

That is why in our interim statement we look at interaction in the context of these shared activities. It suggests two possible areas of opportunity.

One is around building the value of everyday interactions. 32 per cent of the people we surveyed already had daily contact with other ethnic groups at work, school or college. Let's make those everyday interactions better.

In that context, school twinning is an important step. But what about using school buildings as places for wider twinning within the neighbourhood context? School twinning in Kirklees has involved parents as well as children, for example, leading to a more sustained set of interactions.

The second area of opportunity is improving contact outside of formal settings. Only 33 per cent of the people we surveyed had mixed socially outside work or school with people of different ethnic groups from themselves.

I am not going to recommend that the Government tell people who to be friends with.

But the Government and the Third Sector in particular can have an influence on the four spheres of interaction identified in our interim statement: these are residential areas and neighbourhoods, education, employment and arts and culture.

And both Government and its partners can combat the compound separation across those spheres that leaves us drifting into division.

In conclusion - you have until May to tell us what you think the recipe for integration and cohesion looks like.

And in the meantime, we will push ahead with new research into the different types of challenges to cohesion, and whether that gives us a sense of the different types of local areas we can join together to support.

We will move forward with new research into what works in the local areas that have seen a measurable increase in cohesion.

And my Commissioners and I will be out on the road meeting people in communities across the country to find out what they think has worked well.

Our aim is to translate the big questions posed by the complexity of change, into a set of meaningful and realistic questions that provide a checklist for local areas responding to the dynamic changes in their communities.

Speech by Darra Singh on 21 February 2007.

Speech by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Ruth Kelly at the launch of the Commission's Interim Statement [External link]