Commission on Integration and Cohesion

Speech by Darra Singh Chair of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion on "Our Shared Future"

As a Local Authority Chief Executive, working first in Luton and now Ealing, I always had a sense that where I worked was unique.

As diversity grew in both areas, the challenges were different in each.

In Luton, I was responsible for a ground-breaking scrutiny review that asked local people what they thought it meant to be a Lutonian, and that tailored services as a result.

I had to ensure we were providing enough positive activities for young people so that tensions in local schools and colleges could be avoided.

And I had to make sure each local agency in the area understood how they could contribute to building cohesion.

In Ealing, that focus on partnership working is the same. But we have different ingredients that demand a different approach.

We have the largest Polish population in the country and also the largest population of Indians, Afghanis and Iraqis in London. We lead on running the West London Mela and run a highly regarded Summer Festival - all of which are open to all communities.

And we have a broad mix of affluent and more deprived areas. Which means that wards and neighbourhoods can look very different from each other. And need different support from the Council as a result.

At the centre of my report today is this sense that each place is different.

But that types of communities are emerging that will help us understand how best to respond to that difference.

Our new analysis shows that communities across the country are responding to the challenges of change in very different ways.

So today marks the completion of the work of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion. But I hope will also mark the start of a pioneering new approach.

One that avoids a one size fits all mentality. And one that responds to local distinctiveness.

Let me make this clear. Across the country the picture is positive.

4 out of 5 people in England think that people of different backgrounds get on well in their local area.

Projects and community groups are thriving in the local areas we have visited.

Civic pride is alive and kicking.

But in specific areas, there are challenges.

By challenges I do not mean riots. One of the strong messages from our consultation is that cohesion is not just about eruptions and violence.

This is not about pictures of burning cars being used to suggest that rural communities are at risk of disorder and breakdown.

But it is about the challenges that may lead to lower level tensions.

Frustration in settled communities when newcomers alter the balance of how things have always been done.

Prejudice against particular ethnic groups who people think are getting a better deal than them when it comes to housing or education.

Suspicion and mistrust between generations, or between particular communities.

It is about whether people understand what is expected of them, and what they can expect in return.

It is about the simple civility that pours oil over troubled waters.

And it is about moving away from simple language to a picture with greater complexity.

So whilst there is no cause for alarm, there is a clear case for action.

Over the past 5 years, I think areas have been straitjacketed into one understanding of integration and cohesion.

And that means some of them have been able to say “this is not for us. Integration and cohesion is about race riots. It’s about Northern Towns. That doesn’t sound like us.”

I think we need to bring all local areas into this debate.

I think all local areas need to consider whether there are elements of integration and cohesion work that will help them manage tensions and build stronger communities.

In short, I think integration and cohesion is everybody’s business.

So I am proposing today that a new national framework be set up that helps build a bridge between local distinctiveness and the need for good practice to be shared.

I want us to move from thinking we are a nation in crisis if there is a disturbance in a single area.

But I want to make sure that the single area with issues can be supported by others with similar challenges.

So I am proposing that central Government break down the one size fits all assumption. That it should offer support in terms of family groups.

By family groups I mean areas facing similar challenges, grouped together into broad categories or types.

I think that local areas should develop relationships in these family groups so they can build on what they can share.

In making this suggestion, I am conscious of how family groups or types are used elsewhere. By police forces, for example. Or those used by Ofsted to support schools.

But I am taking my lead from the analysis we are publishing today.

It suggests that there are some local areas where the challenges are still 2001 type experiences.

Areas still recovering from manufacturing decline. Often with two communities, living parallel lives. Residential segregation a problem.

A lack of understanding of what binds communities together. A focus on difference.

But it also highlights other family groups which currently need support.

A second family group of rural areas with no previous experience of immigration, for example.

Eastern European workers taking low paid jobs in agriculture or food. Fear among established communities over competition for resources. Clashes over little things – like when to put the bin out, how to queue for the bus.

A third group. Deprived urban areas just starting to experience diversity.

Lower house prices attracting newcomers. Traditional communities feeling threatened. And competition for resource putting barriers up. And enabling extremists to play on suspicions and myths.

Or our fourth group. Also urban but with high demand for low skilled labour to do low paid jobs linked to tourism and manufacturing. Competition for jobs and public resources. Clashes over norms of behaviour.

And finally, a fifth cross-cutting family group. With poor cohesion due to a specific issue.

This can happen in any area. Terrorism arrests. A media campaign about a proposed centre for asylum. Clashes over planning, second home owners or particular types of crime. A retirement community concerned about youthful behaviour.

Five family groups.

Because our analysis shows that in each area, when it comes to cohesion, the people matter. Who they are, how old they are, what education they have.

And it also shows that the characteristics of that place matter. Whether there are community facilities. Green spaces. Affluent areas.

And when you add globalisation to this complex mix, and the pace of change that results from it, you have a distinctive local picture that only local leaders can respond to.

When I said before that residential segregation was a red herring to this debate, this is what I meant.

Clearly for some types of areas, it’s the headline issue.

And where it is, local authorities will need to go the extra mile to bring people together in the other spheres we have identified.

But you can’t boil this debate down into one issue.

Local complexity means that you need to think about a whole range of options. Not just assume that each local area is the same.

Ruth Kelly asked us to define the ingredients of an integrated and cohesive place.

One that could be used to support each type of area.

Our report sets out what we think those ingredients are.

Let us be clear here. Our report does not focus on Muslim communities.

Though we were set up in the wake of 7/7, if our typology tells us anything it is that integration and cohesion is not just about Muslims.

It is about places across the country that are thinking innovatively about bringing together different groups, different communities, different generations.

So we have focused on those places.

The local authorities already doing a great job of taking integration and cohesion seriously.

And from their experiences, we have developed our key ingredients.

They include strong local leadership. What we call the ability to set out a shared future for a place.

An understanding that to move forward, we need to look forward.

This means being able to stress what everyone holds in common rather than focusing on the difference between them.

It means that difference, history and divergent pasts are respected but not prioritised.

And that what matters is not where we have all come from, but where we are going.

In practical terms, this means shaping places and giving them their local and civic identity. Take Gateshead for example. Reinventing itself through culture.

Signalling with the Angel of the North that both place and vision matter. Giving local people the chance to visit the Baltic Centre together.

Or other areas providing local projects that help people open their communities up. Finding activities that can be shared.

Working towards practical shared goals.

I think volunteering is key here.

I have stressed the importance of young people volunteering in their local area. Working with other young people of different backgrounds on joint activities.

I think this could be delivered through existing structures. But there needs to be some incentive to make it work.

Equally, adults volunteering with young people. Mentoring them, helping them engage, bringing them forward as local leaders.

All of this is about a sense of a shared future. A sense that we all know where we are heading. And that our similarities outweigh our differences.

For local leaders, this also means welcoming new arrivals into a relationship of rights and responsibilities.

And finding ways to make citizenship resonate with settled communities as well as newcomers.

Part of this is about promoting our common language. Only translating what is really necessary. Ensuring everyone who settles can speak English.

Part of it is about rethinking citizenship ceremonies. Working with the best areas to make them a landmark occasion for new citizens. Involving employers and local leaders.

But thinking too about how to make the most of the civic occasion they have become.

And asking whether we could use a similar ceremony for young people when they finish their Citizenship GCSE for example.

But part of this is also working with migrant communities for whom Citizenship is not necessarily the answer. Those who are EU citizens coming to rural areas to pick crops or pack foods.

We have seen great examples of information packs for those new migrants. And projects aimed at helping them to integrate.

In Cornwall, responsible employers’ schemes. In Peterborough, welcome packs that settled communities can help shape. With “cultural briefing” on responsible behaviours.

In the North West, a charter for employers and new migrants that sets out clear standards.

But we have also seen some local areas struggling to respond to the pace of change. Wanting expertise, but not knowing who to go to.

Rolls Royce solutions like those in Peterborough overrun with people from other areas coming to find out what works.

There is duplication of effort. And reinvention of solutions.

Some local authorities go to a lot of effort to create bilingual leaflets for their Polish communities. With good clear symbols and pictures getting across the key messages.

And then others reinvent their own. Slightly different. Or worse still, just translated straight.

With no thought to how a leaflet only printed in Polish can alienate wider communities. Or how a leaflet with no direction to English lessons is a wasted opportunity.

So we think there is a gap in the support being provided to this type of area. And our proposal is a new body that could bring this support together.

Somewhere that would provide a helpline for areas. Specialist teams. A catalyst for bringing good practice together.

And somewhere that would help communicate to settled communities going through this change. To counter suspicion and mistrust.

This mythbusting is at the heart of our third key principle. Making social justice visible.

We are clear as a Commission that without a strong focus on equality of opportunity and tackling discrimination we will not achieve our vision of open and cohesive communities.

But we also know that efforts to tackle issues faced by particular communities can backfire when handled badly.

All communities need a sense of ownership and involvement in decision making.

And trust that issues will be arbitrated fairly.

That means Government agencies need to open up. Get on record how they have made their decisions. Be open to scrutiny about them.

Or let communities make those decisions for themselves. Ask young people how they want their youth services money to be spent.

Support coalitions between the voluntary and private sector that deliver innovative projects to tackle disaffection.

This ownership will in turn build a new and stronger civil society. Based on mutual civility and respect.

And here, integration and cohesion is not just about Government. It is about individuals.

It is about the everyday transactions within society that make us who we are.

It is about meaningful interaction.

In schools, through twinning and linking. We think a national linking programme is what is needed to make this a sustainable option for schools.

But linking could go wider. Linking of places of worship, linking of workplaces.

Our Community Week proposal would be the centre of this work. A week of action, delivered by communities themselves.

Celebrating what is local. Civic pride and civic values.

Making use of high quality community facilities. Making links between all parts of all communities - between and across faiths, generations and countries of origin.

And providing a focus for all the good work on meaningful interaction we have seen during our review.

Over the last few months, the Commission has been out to see and hear about the huge range of this sort of work already underway.

We have been inspired by what we’ve seen. Excellent work exists. We have tried to capture some of it.

And based on our findings, our report makes several recommendations which we hope the Government will study carefully.

It calls for a new understanding of integration and cohesion.

For central government, our call is to allow the local distinctiveness to shine through. To provide the right national framework to allow communities to flourish and respond to the challenges they face.

And to provide a national framework with renewed leadership to commit to developing a shared national future.

For local government, we know that there are areas that are making real progress. But our call is for stronger leadership on this issue.

Recognise that integration and cohesion is part of your core business. And work with a range of partners to bring your communities together.

But alongside this, our report is a call to action for individuals within communities. To those already making a difference. And those looking for a way to do so.

As I hand over my report to Ruth today, I commend her sensitive handling of these issues to date. And ask her and her colleagues to continue to take these issues seriously.

To play the long game.

There are challenges, but only by recognising them will we deal with them. And move forward in confidence.

Only by working together on this will we build cohesive and integrated communities.

And only by recognising what we have in common rather than what divides us will we map out our shared future.

Speech by Darra Singh on 14 June 2007.