The publication in June of the year-long deliberations of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion marks yet another significant contribution to the debate on how we build unity while respecting diversity. The report contains examples of local projects that have brought communities together. While sharing this best practice can only be positive, it is doubtful that the Commission will have as big an impact as the seismic Cantle report or the work of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) under the leadership of Trevor Phillips. Between Phillips and Cantle, the debate has been redefined in such a way that, rather than championing diversity, our goal is now to bring people together.
This latest report is in danger of missing the point. A great fuss has been made about the suggestion that local authorities should transfer money from translation budgets to providing English language classes. This is all very well, but we need to recognise that translations are inevitable if we are to protect the most vulnerable. It seems strange that at the same time as the Department of Communities and Local Government is trumpeting the cause of English, the Department for Education and Skills is cutting funding for language classes.
Stressing the importance of the English language is a key bridge to a more cohesive society, but it would be better to make language classes more widely available by linking them to citizenship, rather than punishing those who do not speak English by limiting their access to information.
Another recommendation is the suggestion that local community groups are funded on the basis of cohesion rather than ethnic grouping. This is old news – the most forward-looking local authorities and national funders have been doing this for years. The real problem is the absence of funding overall and the lack of opportunities for people to interact with one another.
These are big issues which require further work, but as this Commission finishes and the CRE is disbanded, who will take up the challenge? There is a real fear that within the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, with its integrated equalities mandate, issues of good relations and cohesion will become the poor relation.
The emphasis of the report on local areas should give councils plenty of food for thought. However, this creates a danger that Whitehall will devolve responsibility for integration and miss its own crucial role. The Commission’s interim report identified poverty and deprivation as key barriers to cohesion; ongoing inequalities in our society demand national attention therefore. We can promote interaction all we like but as long as ethnic minority communities experience worse life chances, they are being asked to become involved without a level playing field. Central government must take responsibility for this. Localism must not mean passing the buck.
Existing inequalities might also be exacerbated by moves towards introducing greater choice in public services. Research shows that those most likely to benefit from choice mechanisms are those with higher incomes and social capital. The rhetoric of choice also seems to suggest that people should access services in the way they prefer. But ministers say this does not stretch to language. Many minority communities will be asking themselves where the line is going to be drawn – does this mean the move to more ‘culturally competent’ services that recognise social and cultural preferences is to be reversed?
The climate in which the Commission’s report has been published is very different from that which greeted the Cantle report. The debate around integration is now seen by too many through the lens of terrorism. Cohesion must be about everyone in the community. The government sets the climate in which local solutions are found. As long as migrants continue to be presented as a problem and Muslim communities feel singled out, integration will be almost impossible.
All of this presents a political as well as a social challenge. For years Labour has relied upon a substantial part of the ethnic minority vote. This is understandable since the party has consistently brought in progressive race relations legislation and been the leading advocate of multi-ethnic Britain. However, Labour has also frequently stressed diversity above all else and this may have weakened the cause of social solidarity. There has been too much emphasis on what differentiates people rather than what they have in common. Too often the left has been guilty of substituting cultural diversity for equality.
It may be dangerous territory for the government to move away from, but it is vital that they do. It is in the long term interests of the party to regain the cause of solidarity and win ethnic minority votes on the basis of delivery rather than paying lip service.