Supporting the whole community
62. As well as work deliberately designed to
promote contact between people of different backgrounds, general
voluntary activity that promotes civic participationinvolvement
in public lifecan be of equal importance for community
cohesion. One of the Government's three measures of cohesion is
"the percentage of people who feel that they belong in their
neighbourhood".[137]
A sense of belonging to local neighbourhoods can be increased
through participation in community life. Community groups, such
as residents' associations, have an important role in bringing
people from different backgrounds together, often on issues of
local concern, for instance anti-social behaviour. Involvement
in such groups can facilitate meaningful and sustained contact.
The residents' groups that we spoke to stressed the need for greater
support for their work. Mr Bone, a member of a residents' group
in Burnley, argued that the Government needed to trust community
groups and give flexible funding.[138]
63. Despite the good work being undertaken by
community groups such as residents' associations, witnesses reported
the limited involvement of recent migrants. Ms Spencer argued
that there were barriers to migrants actively participating in
community life owing to the nature of the work migrants were employed
in (long hours, low pay and shift work).[139]
A representative from a residents' association that we met in
Barking and Dagenham stated that it wished to involve more black
and ethnic minority residents in their work, but that this was
proving difficult as very few volunteered.[140]
A Joseph Rowntree-funded study of the experiences of Eastern European
migrants found low levels of community participation. Their sample
group of migrants were less than half as likely to volunteer locally
than the UK population.[141]
Fewer than 25 per cent of the migrants interviewed felt that they
could influence local decisions, in comparison to the national
average of 38 per cent.[142]
The study also found that new migrants had significantly lower
attachment to their local neighbourhood than settled residents.
While a sense of belonging and participation in local community
life may increase with length of stay, a significant increase
in attachment to the local area is unlikely to occur without new
arrivals being encouraged to be involved in the local community.
Community groups, such as residents' associations, have an
important role in promoting community cohesion and participation
in community life. Local authorities should encourage community
groups to involve migrants in their organisations.
64. The Government has a commitment to empowering
communities and is expected to publish a White Paper on empowerment
in summer 2008. A recent independent study of community participation,
by the Research team on Governance and Diversity at Goldsmiths,
University of London, concluded that the Government's policy on
community empowerment has developed in parallel to its agenda
on community cohesion, and argues that there is an urgent need
for the two agendas to be drawn together.[143]
We recommend that the Government ensure that its work on community
empowerment, and the development of a Community Empowerment Bill,
include measures to encourage the participation of migrants in
civic life.
Single identity groups
65. An issue of recent contention has been the
public funding of single identity groupsgroups formed on
the basis of a particular identity, such as ethnicity or religion.
The CIC concluded that there should be a presumption against funding
single identity groups. The rationale for this is that funding
single identity groups does not necessarily help cohesion, but
rather can negatively affect it by reinforcing difference between
groups. The CIC made three recommendations on single group funding:
first, that if single identity group funding is provided, the
reasons for the award need to be clearly publicised to all communities
in the local area; secondly, that such groups need to take steps
to be more outward-facing; and thirdly, that CLG should issue
guidance to grant-making bodies on the appropriateness of single
identity group funding.[144]
On our visit to Barking and Dagenham, a resident argued that general
community groups, such as residents' associations, were disadvantaged
by the focus of funding on single identity groups.[145]
66. On the other hand, Ms Seabrooke, Chief Executive
of CDF, expressed concern about the CIC's recommendations. She
argued that single identity groups can support cohesion and feared
that funding to marginalised groups could be reduced because of
the CIC's recommendation.[146]
Ms Bowles, also from the CDF, suggested that the term 'single
identity groups' can be misleading, as it implies only one identity.
She explained that the term can be problematic if it is interpreted
by funders, such as local authorities, as referring to a wide
range of groups whose participants may have multiple identities.
For example, if an Asian women's group is perceived as being a
'single identity group' then funding could be threatened; yet
this group could comprise women from different nationalities,
religions and backgrounds.[147]
67. In response to the CIC's recommendations
on single identity group funding, the Government has issued draft
guidance which calls on funders to "look for opportunities
to maximise" interaction between people of different backgrounds
and consider how activities will promote community cohesion in
their consideration of funding decisions.[148]
The guidance nevertheless recognises that in some circumstances
single identity group funding may be appropriate. The Secretary
of State explained in a letter of response to the Chair of the
CIC why such funding may be justified: "new migrant groups,
for example, may find the support of other new migrants essential
to acclimatising to their life in the UK".[149]
68. Focusing funding on activities that bring
people of different backgrounds together benefits the whole community,
including migrants. On our visit to Barking and Dagenham migrants
stressed the importance of opportunities to mix with the settled
indigenous population. One participant remarked that she did not
want her daughter to grow up only speaking to people of her own
nationality. Funders should expect community groups to look
for opportunities to maximise interaction between people of different
backgrounds. Where funding is granted to single identity groups,
the criteria against which funding is awarded need to be clearly
publicised to all communities in the local area.
Local authority performance
69. The Audit Commission found that "in
general, councils' approach to community cohesion is not well
developed [
] Strategy was a particularly weak area, with
individual council work on community cohesion often not part of
a wider strategic framework".[150]
A further criticism made was that "a number of councils still
do not have an overarching strategy, resulting in uncoordinated
or untargeted activity".[151]
Mr Davies, from the Audit Commission, qualified these statements
in oral evidence, remarking:
it is clearly those parts of the country where this
[migration] is a newer phenomenon where they [councils] are much
more challenged by this and do not have the existing depth of
skills and capacity to deal with it.[152]
He also commented that the support provided to councils
by the local government sector was "dramatically better"
than it was several years ago.[153]
The LGA and IDeA have provided a range of best practice materials
to promote cohesion and the integration of migrants. Professor
Cantle described community cohesion work as "fairly new",
and stated that "over 200 local authorities now have dedicated
staff for community cohesion [
and that] there are now dedicated
action plans and performance frameworks in place".[154]
70. The new performance framework for local government,
the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), comes into force in April
2009 and will take into account community cohesion. Local authorities
will be assessed primarily against locally selected targets from
a set of 198 national performance indicators. Two out of the 198
indicators are on community cohesion. The Minister of State, Rt
hon Hazel Blears MP, informed us an expected 85 local authorities
would include community cohesion as priority local targets.[155]
The inclusion of community cohesion in the local government performance
framework was recommended by our predecessor Committee in its
report on social cohesion in 2004.[156]
We welcome the inclusion of community cohesion within the Comprehensive
Area Assessment. This will be useful in encouraging local authorities
actively to promote community cohesion and respond to migration,
particularly in areas where there are tensions.
93 Our Shared Future, p 4. Back
94
Annex Back
95
Our Shared Future, para 4.24. Back
96
Ev 163 Back
97
Our Shared Future, para 4.30. Back
98
IPPR, One London? Change and Cohesion in three London boroughs,
March 2008, p 20. Back
99
Annex Back
100
Our Shared Future, para 4.33. Back
101
Annex Back
102
IPPR, One London? Change and Cohesion in three London boroughs,
March 2008, p 20. Back
103
Q 103 Back
104
Q 119 Back
105
Q 121 Back
106
Q 93-94, Q 102. Back
107
Our Shared Future, para 7.22. Back
108
Our Shared Future, para 7.29. Back
109
Q 248 Back
110
Annex Back
111
Lord Goldsmith QC, Citizenship: Our Common Bond, March
2008, p 114-115. Back
112
Lord Goldsmith QC, Citizenship: Our Common Bond,
March 2008, p 114-115. Back
113
Annex Back
114
Q 152 Back
115
Communities and Local Government, The Government's Response
to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, February 2008,
p 41. Back
116
Ev 150 Back
117
Ev 150 Back
118
Ev 86 Back
119
Q 175 Back
120
Q 90 Back
121
Q 90 Back
122
Q 125 Back
123
Q 63 Back
124
The Cantle Report, Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent
Review Team, December 2001. Back
125
Ev 124 Back
126
Annex Back
127
The Smith Institute, Citizenship, cohesion and solidarity,
June 2008, p 13. Back
128
Q 64 Back
129
Q 63 Back
130
Annex Back
131
Q 95 Back
132
IPPR, One London? Change and Cohesion in three London boroughs,
March 2008, p 12. Back
133
Annex Back
134
Annex Back
135
Annex Back
136
Q 110 Back
137
Ev 86 Back
138
Q 117 Back
139
Q 184 Back
140
Annex Back
141
Markova, E and Black, R, New Eastern Immigrants and Social
Cohesion, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, May 2007. Back
142
ibid. See also Communities and Local Government, Citizenship
Survey, April-September 2007, England and Wales. Back
143
Ev 112 Back
144
Our Shared Future, Annex D: The question of Single Group
Funding. Back
145
Annex Back
146
Q 226 Back
147
Q 228 Back
148
Communities and Local Government, Cohesion Guidance for Funders,
February 2008, Foreword. Back
149
Communities and Local Government, Letter from Hazel Blears,
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to Darra
Singh, Chair of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion,
6 October 2007. Back
150
Ev 66 Back
151
Ev 67 Back
152
Q 27 Back
153
Q 28 Back
154
Q 62 Back
155
Q 256 Back
156
ODPM Select Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Social
Cohesion, HC 45, para 28. Back