Jack Straw is right to say that the full veil, while perfectly legal, makes a ‘visible statement of separation’. Isn’t that its intent, as a symbol of piety? He also intended to spark public debate. Have tabloid guides to the hijab, niqab and burka and radio debates between different Muslim views left us more informed? Or is a beleaguered minority again being stigmatized? Have the garments of fewer than 10,000 British Muslim women (out of over 800,000) become the barometer of broader community relations?

The big picture is missing: what defines our shared citizenship? What do we all need to sign up to for a shared society to work? Without this, minorities face injunctions issued out of a clear blue sky – ‘we don’t do it like that here’ – without knowing how the rules of engagement fit together or are decided. These questions are just beginning to be asked.

How much integration do we need? When is ‘live and let live’ a valid choice in a free society, and when do parallel communities threaten our broader cohesion?

What are we trying to achieve? Keeping the social peace is not ambition enough. For the left to make our politics possible, we need a ‘progressive integration’ agenda – a vision rooted in equality which understands that integration is a two-way street. We should set a dual test of successful integration over the next decade.

First, an objective audit of social equality. Use the facts to assess fairness and promote equal life chances for all. Pakistani and Bangladeshi children, and Afro-Caribbean and white working class boys are left behind at school. How can we close the gender pay gap and the ‘ethnic penalty’ in employment? Can we end child poverty across our society?

Second, a more subjective test of whether we feel that we share a society. How strongly do different individuals and communities report that they feel ‘integral’ and have equal citizenship? This affects well-being directly. It is also a means to an end. Without a strong collective ‘us’, a politics of competitive grievance between the worst-off will derail social progress.

Can government promote integration – and how? We need to define more clearly the roles of government, communities and individuals, rather than debating who is to blame for where we are now.

A first priority for government is to break down barriers to equal opportunity. Proficiency in the English language is a first step for any aspiration to economic or civic equality. Other tools of citizenship, such as knowledge of our democracy and history, are lacking among embedded Anglo-Saxons too. There are tough policy tensions. What if choice in school admissions sees minority children, whose parents wanted integration, in mono-ethnic schools because of ‘white flight’?

There are big unanswered questions – but also an unusually blank policy slate. The new Department of Communities and Local Government at least takes these issues away from prisons and policing, while the new CEHR must bring together the different equality ‘strands’.

Why will the public engage? ‘Who decided that we have shared values? When? I don’t remember being part of any conversation about that? Actually, we don’t,’ said one participant in a Fabian/QNews and City Circle debate on ‘Being a British Muslim’ in July. ‘Actually, we do,’ I thought. But we have never held that public conversation. Britain has taken the most laissez-faire attitude to defining the duties and rights of citizenship of any western democracy. We need more than that now – but the public process could be just as important as any constitution or charter which results. Expressing opinions about Muslim fashion is going to be the easy part.

This article will be pubished in the November 2006 edition of Progress magazine

[email protected]