Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Tenth Report

5  Responding to migration nationally

National roles and responsibilities

71.  Many Government departments have responsibility for different aspects of policy in relation to migration and community cohesion. The Home Office has lead departmental responsibility for the Government's migration policy. CLG holds lead responsiblity for community cohesion. In October 2007, a migration directorate was created within CLG; its role is to "co-ordinate work across Government to support local authorities and communities in identifying and managing the consequences of migration at the local level, both for cohesion and the provision of services".[157] Other departments are also responsible for aspects of migration and cohesion. For example, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) is responsible for policy on the provision of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) tuition, which has implications for integration. The new Government Equality Office (GEO) has responsibility for tackling inequalities, which some migrant groups experience.

72.  In addition to Government departments, myriad other groups and organisations are either responsible for or involved in community cohesion and migration. Four non-departmental public bodies (NDPDs) hold responsibility for different aspects of work: the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is responsible for promoting equality and good relations; the Advisory Board on Naturalisation and Integration (ABNI), which advises Government on the requirements for citizenship; the Community Development Foundation (CDF), which advises Government on community development work and administers grants; and finally, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which advises Ministers on the labour market implications of migration. Last year, a further body was established, called the Migration Impacts Forum (MIF). The role of this group is to provide a forum for debate on the wider impacts associated with migration experienced by local areas.[158] Others also hold some degree of responsibility for community cohesion in relation to migration. This includes local authorities, regional development agencies, the regional government offices, the police, the NHS, employers of migrant labour and voluntary organisations.


73.  Given the sheer number of bodies involved in migration and cohesion, some argue that a new national body for migration is needed to rationalise the situation. The CIC argued that a new national body was needed to manage the integration of all migrants. Currently responsibility for policy on migrants is held by different bodies, depending on the type of migrant—refugees, asylum seekers, or economic migrants. The CIC suggested that the new body should be sponsored by CLG but independent: "the model might be that of the ABNI".[159] Its suggested role could include overseeing the development of a strategy for all migrants, gathering evidence, spreading best practice and providing guidance on integration.[160] Darra Singh argued that "there needs to be a focal point in terms of responsibility and accountability and also an ability to respond".[161] The ABNI agrees that "there could be a role for a new body"—though does not comment in its evidence on whether its own organisation should be merged into this new body.[162] Sarah Spencer argued that a new national body may be better at delivering than a Whitehall department, but stressed that a body is not a substitute for a government strategy on migration.[163]

74.  On the other hand, the EHRC is "cautious" on whether to create a new national body, on the grounds that action is best pursued locally with national guidance. It argues that it would be "preferable to encourage a more strategic approach among existing central and local government institutions, including the major role that the EHRC can play".[164] Trevor Phillips told us that "some of the basics" need to be got right first, before considering whether a new body is needed.[165] Professor Cantle expressed concern about a new body, stating "I would be worried about some sort of 'one size fits all' approach".[166] He argued that action to promote integration inevitably falls on local authorities, so was unconvinced of the necessity of a new body.[167]

75.  The Government has considered the case for establishing a new national body with responsibility for the integration of migrants. It concluded that there was "no clear rationale for developing an Integration Agency", arguing that "these functions can feasibly be provided within existing structures, and the development of an additional agency does not justify the cost that this would entail."[168]

76.  We agree with the Government's conclusion. We did not hear sufficient evidence to convince us that a new body is necessary at this time, and we find persuasive the Government's analysis that establishing a new body could risk duplicating the work of existing bodies and prove costly.[169] Instead, we recommend that all bodies with responsibility for the integration of migrants take further concerted steps to ensure that they are working together to follow a common strategic approach to the task. We also recommend that the Government review the case for further rationalisation of existing structures on migration and cohesion when it reports in early 2009 on its progress in implementing the actions set out in its report Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach.[170]


77.  There is currently no single Government strategy for the integration of all migrants. The UK has a National Refugee Integration Strategy but no strategy for the integration of economic migrants. The CIC has indicated its support for a national strategy covering all migrants. It points out that, unlike the UK, other EU countries have introductory programmes for all new migrants. It argues that a consequence of not having a national strategy is that a "plethora of local initiatives" have developed, many of which are good, "but there is a duplication of effort".[171]

78.  The Government has acknowledged that there may be a case for developing a single 'Migration Integration Strategy,' and announced that the Migration Directorate within CLG will take forward work on this.[172] A single national migration strategy may be useful in bringing together the work of different Government departments into a coherent single approach. However, a single strategy is not necessarily going to be the most effective means of achieving good practice on integration locally, where the delivery work takes place. There is a widespread consensus that there is a need for varying responses to migration and cohesion in different local areas. The Government says that at the heart of its approach to cohesion and migration "is the belief that cohesion must be understood and built locally", and that central government's role is to set the "national framework" for local action.[173] The LGA agrees, arguing that each local area is unique and therefore requires different responses.[174] If the Government decides to introduce a single national 'Migration Integration Strategy,' it must not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Central Government should not dictate to local authorities what practice should be adopted locally. Rather, the role of central government should be to set a national policy framework for action on integration and community cohesion, and provide guidance and support to others, particularly local government.

79.  The current absence of a national strategy for the integration of migrants does not mean that the Government is taking no action. There has been a flurry of recent Government activity, primarily in response to the CIC's recommendations. In June 2007, the CIC made 57 recommendations on community cohesion, many of which related directly to migration. All of the recommendations but one have been acted on.

80.  The Government has recently published a Migration Impacts Plan that sets out the Government's approach to managing the impacts of migration.[175] Its activity has also included establishing a migration directorate; establishing two new advisory bodies, the Migration Impacts Forum and the Migration Advisory Committee; integrating performance measurement on community cohesion into the new PSA and Local Area Agreements (LAAs); introducing a duty to promote cohesion on schools; undertaking consultation on the provision of ESOL; introducing a community cohesion fund; and publishing a number of guidance documents. Darra Singh indicated that overall the Government's response had been positive—"the pint glass is at least half full, if not a little bit more".[176] Trevor Phillips told us that he was "broadly" content with the Government's response.[177] Much of the Government's current activity on community cohesion and migration has been instigated in the past year, and it is too early to judge the overall effectiveness of the Government's actions in response to the CIC. We welcome the Government's increased activity on community cohesion and migration. As much of this activity is new, we recommend that the Government review the overall effectiveness of its activities in response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion in 2009.


81.  Community cohesion is not solely the responsibility of central government. At a national level, the EHRC is of particular importance: community cohesion cannot be achieved without tackling inequalities. The EHRC is a non-departmental public body, launched in October 2007. The EHRC has an important role in promoting community cohesion through two related areas of work: tackling inequalities, and promoting good relations.

82.  The first area of the EHRC's work is focused on reducing inequalities. Its strategic focus is on "narrowing gaps in life-chances and outcomes for disadvantaged groups […including] migrant communities".[178] The Equalities Review, which reported to the Government in 2007, found that some migrant communities were significantly disadvantaged. For example, based on current trends, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women will never have the same access to employment as white women.[179] And the employment rate among immigrant Somalis is just 12 per cent, in comparison to 67 per cent for all other new immigrants.[180] The CIC concluded that discrimination and inequality are barriers to integration and cohesion.[181] Professor Cantle pointed out that if inequalities are tackled then there will be increased opportunities for people to relate to each other on an equal footing, for example in the workplace or at university.[182] The second area of the EHRC's work is promoting good relations among and between groups, which is a statutory requirement under the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC distributes grant funding to voluntary groups to promote good relations, from an overall funding pot of £10 million.[183] From 2002 onwards public authorities have been statutorily obliged to promote race equality. The EHRC is responsible for enforcing the race equality duty which can be an important tool for promoting the integration of migrants.

83.  In our Report of last year on Equality, we recommended that the EHRC work closely with the private sector to promote equality and tackle unfair discrimination.[184] This approach is equally necessary for work on integration and good relations as it is for work to reduce inequalities. The CBI told us that some employers already take action to integrate their employees beyond encouraging their workers to learn English, with one in six (16 per cent) providing practical information about life in the UK to help their workers integrate.[185] Other examples of employers taking steps to integrate their workers include providing new arrivals with a 'buddy', helping set up bank accounts, and finding accommodation.[186] The CIC recommended that the EHRC, in partnership with the CBI, convene regular forums where employers and employees can meet to set out clear action plans for how employment issues can contribute to integration and cohesion. This recommendation has been accepted.[187] We welcome the EHRC's intention to convene regular forums for employers and employees on integration and cohesion. In addition, we call on the EHRC to encourage and support employers in taking action to integrate their migrant employees into local communities.

Government performance—room for improvement

84.  Despite the Government's recent increase in activity and policy focus on community cohesion and migration, there still remains room for improvement. We have identified four areas where improvements are needed: the co-ordination of policy across departments; the spread of best practice; the provision of English language tuition; and policy on the integration of short-term economic migrants.


85.  Given the shared responsibility for community cohesion and migration and the number of organisations involved, it is worth highlighting the importance of co-ordination. The Audit Commission noted that at least six Government departments have a direct interest in inward migration and found that "local agencies are not always clear about where to go for information or support".[188] The need for a more joined-up approach across Government is perhaps best illustrated in the recent controversy over English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision. The Secretary of State, Rt hon Hazel Blears MP, told us that she "could not possibly overestimate" the importance of speaking English for the integration of migrants.[189] Yet last year DIUS introduced changes to ESOL funding which restricted access to free tuition.[190]

86.  A further example of where there is a need for a more joined-up approach across departments is between the Home Office and CLG on the Government's overall migration policy. The limited data on migration flows across England makes it difficult for CLG and local authorities to anticipate and respond to the consequences of migration. In early 2008, the Government began to phase in a new points-based system for managing migration, with five tiers of entry level depending on skills. The number of migrants, the type of work that they are engaged in, and where they move to will all undoubtedly affect local communities. The Minister for Borders and Immigration, Mr Liam Byrne MP, told us that "community cohesion is one of the issues that we take into account as we launch the new points system".[191] The Government's impact assessments indicate that cohesion has been considered. However, no detailed assessment has been made, as data are sparse.[192] The effect of migration on community cohesion should be central to decisions on migration policy. We recommend that the Government closely monitor the effects of the new points-based system on community cohesion and publish regular evaluations of its findings, starting next year.

87.  We have commented in previous reports on CLG's dependency on others to deliver. [193] Given this dependency and the sheer number of Government departments and bodies involved in cohesion and migration, it is of vital importance that the Government ensure that there is a joined-up approach. The Secretary of State told us that the need for a corporate approach was one the reasons for establishing the Migration Directorate.[194] The tensions that exist between different departmental priorities indicate that CLG faces a challenge in influencing other departments to prioritise community cohesion. CLG's recent publication of a migration plan, Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach, indicates that the department recognises the need for it to take a lead in ensuring a joined-up approach across Government to migration. We welcome the Government's recent publication Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach. Success in achieving a joined-up approach on community cohesion and migration depends on the leadership and influence of CLG. The publication of the migration plan is a promising development: the Government now needs to build on that plan to ensure that all its departments, and their respective policies, take account of and prioritise community cohesion in their day-to-day work.


88.  Evidence from the Audit Commission, and others, suggests that there is a need for best practice on the integration of migrants to be disseminated (para 69). National expertise can, in the words of Sarah Spencer, reduce the potential for the "re-invention of the wheel".[195] Over the past year, there has not been a shortage of Government guidance on the subject. CLG's published documents include Community cohesion contingency planning and tension monitoring,[196]Cohesion guidance for funders,[197] and Translation of publication,[198] and the Government is expected to publish a 'Cohesion Delivery Framework' on best practice in Summer 2008. While the increased availability of information on community cohesion and integration is undoubtedly welcome, we are not aware of any evidence showing that it has, as yet, led to enhanced community cohesion.

89.  The term best practice can sometimes be misused. There can be a tendency to refer to any local initiative that is innovative as 'best practice', without any proper evaluation. The CIC commented on the "plethora of local initiatives" that have developed in recent years.[199] There are many examples of projects and activities labelled as good practice which may have clear outputs, such as the number of people who participated in an event, but are less clear on outcomes.[200] The Community Development Foundation (CDF) administers grant funding, including work to promote community cohesion, on behalf of Government. CDF told us that community development work tends to be long term and leads to "subjective outcomes" which are difficult to measure.[201] Its evaluation process primarily relies on the funded groups completing questionnaires stating how they feel the projects went, rather than an evaluation of the experiences of the beneficiaries. This type of evaluation also neglects the effect of projects on overall local community cohesion. CDF acknowledged that "further evaluations and perhaps a longitudinal study should be undertaken" to determine the impact of community development work on community cohesion.[202]

90.  The long-term nature of work to promote community cohesion and the integration of migrants should not be a barrier to, or an excuse for lack of, effective evaluation. The spread of best practice on community cohesion and integration is meaningless without a shared understanding of the actual effectiveness of different initiatives. We recommend that the Government develop and disseminate guidance on the evaluation of community cohesion and migration initiatives.


91.  There is a widespread consensus that the ability to communicate in English is vital for the integration of migrants—a view shared by the Government.[203] The CIC concluded that a shared language is fundamental both for settled and for new communities.[204] Communicating in English is important to ensure access to work and participation in community life.[205] The settled residents we spoke to on our visits expressed concern about the limited English of migrants in their neighbourhoods. Improving levels of spoken English among migrants can help to alleviate public concerns, as well as improving the ability of migrants to integrate.

92.  The Government provides funding for ESOL tuition. In August 2007, funding changes meant that adults taking English language classes no longer automatically qualified for a rebate on tuition fees, reducing the amount of free provision available.[206] The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Bill Rammell MP, explained why the changes were needed: "the current position is simply unsustainable. A massive increase in demand for free ESOL tuition is having an adverse impact on the overall skills budget".[207] The increase in demand for ESOL classes is demonstrated by the Government's increased expenditure on provision: between 2001 and 2004 ESOL spending tripled, and is now just under £300 million.[208]

93.  The funding changes have been heavily criticised for reducing access. The Refugee Council expressed concern about the effect on asylum seekers, arguing that the funding cuts ran counter to the Government's objective to secure the integration of migrants,[209] and argued that all asylum seekers should be eligible for funding from the date of their claim, rather than having to wait six months or until being granted refugee status.[210] The University College Union (UCU), which represents ESOL teachers, argued that "women from low income families, especially those from African and Asian settled communities are hit hardest by the new fee regime".[211]

94.  Notwithstanding these objections, the overall effect of the funding changes on different groups is not clear. Patrick Wintour, Acting Chair of the ABNI, explained that providers tend not to identify learners by their immigration status,[212] so data are available on the overall number of learners, but not the type. Sally Hunt, General Secretary of UCU, told us that there had been a decline in the number of people learning English at the lower qualification levels, which she claimed indicated that the most vulnerable learners had been most affected by the funding changes. However, she acknowledged that "the difficulty is, without having the data available in a way we can really break down, we think it is not possible for huge judgements to be made".[213]

95.  Our evidence indicates that large numbers of migrants who want to learn English are unable to because of restrictions on, or lack of, free provision. ABNI told us that in many areas there are long waiting lists for access to classes.[214] In Peterborough, we were also told that there were long waiting lists.

96.  In Burnley, we heard that many Asian women who came to the UK as spouses had limited English. Sally Hunt noted that English language classes were inaccessible to such women, as spouses do not qualify for free ESOL provision for a year.[215] The Government has no plans to change this requirement. It is currently consulting on whether people coming to the UK on spouse visas need to acquire some English before they can come.[216]

97.  Following criticisms about the effect of the ESOL funding changes on integration and cohesion, the Government issued a consultation, Focusing ESOL on Community Cohesion, on the refocusing of funding priorities. The policy objective is to target English language provision at those who intend to stay in the UK long term and to areas in need, particularly areas of low community cohesion.[217]

98.  We recognise that there are finite resources for free English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the effect of the Government's restrictions on access to free ESOL provision on community cohesion. We are also concerned about the absence of national data on the type of learners who access tuition and levels of unmet demand. Given the Government's stated priority to encourage the speaking of English to promote integration, the absence of data is a major flaw. We recommend that the Government take immediate action to collate these national data, which will enable an assessment to be made of the effectiveness of ESOL provision in promoting integration. We further recommend that, in light of these data, the Government review ESOL provision. This review should include considering the case for removing the requirement for spouses to be resident in the UK for 12 months before they are eligible for free ESOL provision.

Paying for ESOL

99.  The Government has proposed that employers of migrants should do more to pay towards the cost of English language provision, arguing that "those who benefit economically from migration should also bear some of the costs".[218] The Government's latest consultation document states that it "will seek to do more to secure contributions from employers, particularly those who recruit directly from overseas".[219] The Government has not specified how it will ensure that employers pay towards English language provision. In response to a question on whether compulsion was necessary, the Secretary of State informed us that DIUS was "in dialogue with employers", saying "I do not think that they have ruled out the possibility of legislation if absolutely necessary".[220]

100.  All our witnesses agreed with the principle of employers paying towards the teaching of English for their workers. The ABNI argued that some of the pressure on English language classes could be alleviated by employers taking responsibility for provision.[221] Professor Cantle argued that there should be a "strong onus" on employers to pay, noting in particular that it is essential that workers understand health and safety instructions.[222]

101.  However, there are different views on whether employers should be forced to pay, or simply encouraged. Sally Hunt argued that there is a "very strong case for compulsion" because relying on voluntary contributions from employers does not work. She suggested that in many circumstances it is not in the individual interests of businesses to encourage their workers to learn English, as English enables workers to understand their employment rights.[223] UCU pointed out that "around two thirds of employers provide no workplace training whatsoever".[224] The TUC argued that "the reality is that in the absence of adequate levers" employers are unlikely to pay. It suggests that additional fees could be raised from agencies registered under the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.[225] Nevertheless, even if statutory requirements on employers are introduced, Patrick Wintour told us that "employers are extremely adept at being able to find their way round all sorts of statutory requirements" on training.[226]

102.  On the other hand, evidence from the CBI indicates that it is not necessary for employers to be compelled to pay as many already voluntarily provide language training. For example, First Bus—a bus company that recruits employees from mainland Europe—provides free English language training for three months to applicants prior to their employment. Once in the UK, employees are encouraged to continue learning English.[227] The CBI told us that 28 per cent of employers provide English language training to their employees or signpost them to relevant courses.[228]

103.  We are not convinced that compulsory measures to make employers pay towards the cost of English language provision are needed. We do, however, consider that the Government is right to encourage employers to pay more. We recommend that the Government examine the case for introducing financial incentives, including through the taxation system, to encourage employers to pay more towards the provision of English language tuition for their employees.

104.  Even if employers pay increased contributions towards English language provision for their employees, this is not a complete solution to the problem. There are other barriers to learning English than cost, such as the amount of time required and the accessibility of classes. It may be difficult for migrants to learn English if they are working long hours or shift work.[229] Further, not all migrants are in employment. Witnesses have pointed out, for example, that there are many Asian women who come to the UK as spouses who tend to have low levels of English and employment.[230] The Equalities Review found that only one in ten Pakistani women are in employment in the UK, and it identified lack of English as a significant barrier to employment.[231] Speaking English is vital for participation in community life, not just vital in the workplace. It is important that the Government's current emphasis on employers paying for ESOL does not detract from the need to ensure that English classes are available to all those in greatest need, including in particular Asian women in settled communities.


105.  Just under half of new migrants into the UK intend to stay only between one and two years—44 per cent of new migrants in 2005.[232] The changing nature of migration, with the arrival of large numbers of short-term economic migrants, presents challenges for integration and community cohesion, although the rate of immigration from EU countries may be slowing.[233] If migrants do not intend to stay in the local area there is less incentive for them to get involved in the community, understand local norms, and to learn English. Local authorities need to respond in different ways to integrate short-term migrants. For instance, information provided to migrants about the local area may need to be continually repeated and reinforced because of the high population turnover.[234]

106.  Questions remain about how the Government is going to ensure that the limited English of short-term migrants is improved. The Government's approach is to place the onus on employers to pay for English language classes. Trevor Phillips supports this, arguing that for short-term migrants "to be perfectly honest, they can help themselves or their employers ought to help them".[235] The LGA is concerned about the effect on community cohesion of the Government's emphasis on long-term migrants.[236] Under the new points-based system for international migrants, one of the criteria for obtaining an employment visa is the ability to speak English. EU migrants are treated differently from international migrants; there are no requirements on them to learn English to work in the UK. Professor Cantle argued that short-term migrants should have the same access to free ESOL as long-term migrants, as they still need English to participate effectively in the workplace and as a citizen.[237]

107.  There may be little incentive for employers to pay for English language provision for short-term migrants if staff are only employed for short periods of time. Equally, there may be little incentive for individual short-term migrants to invest in learning English if it is not a requirement for work and they do not intend to stay in the UK long term. The result of this situation may be an unhappy stalemate—with Government, employers and individuals all unwilling to pay for learning English. The Government's emphasis on targeting free ESOL provision at long-term migrants is right. However, there is still a need for short-term migrants to integrate for community cohesion, and learning English is an important means to integration. Although it may not be the primary responsibility of the state to pay for short-term migrants to learn English, it is the role of Government to encourage short-term migrants to learn English, for the sake of settled communities that are experiencing this type of migration, as well as for the sake of the migrants themselves.

108.  The Government does not have any specific policy or guidance on what action is needed to integrate short-term economic migrants. There is also no Government guidance on what, if anything, local communities have the right to expect from short-term migrants in return for living in the UK, particularly as there is freedom of movement within the EU. The Government's policy in relation to the rights and responsibilities of migrants is focused on what is required to become a British citizen. However, not all overseas nationals who live in the UK wish to become citizens, including many short-term economic migrants from Eastern Europe. The Government's lack of guidance on how to manage the integration of short-term migrants and what is expected from them makes it more difficult for local areas to respond to migration. We recommend that the Government's guidance to local authorities on migration and cohesion take into account that many overseas migrants are not here to stay long term, which presents increasing challenges for achieving integration.

157   Ev 79 Back

158   Ev 85 Back

159   Our Shared Future, para 5.22. Back

160   Our Shared Future, para 5.24. Back

161   Q 145 Back

162   Ev 64 Back

163   Q 193 Back

164   Ev 101 Back

165   Q 9 Back

166   Q 85 Back

167   Q 85 Back

168   Communities and Local Government, Review of Migrant Integration Policy in the UK, June 2008. Back

169   Communities and Local Government, Review of Migrant Integration Policy in the UK, June 2008. Back

170   Communities and Local Government, Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach, June 2008, p 11. Back

171   Our Shared Future, para 5.20. Back

172   Communities and Local Government, Review of Migrant Integration Policy in the UK, June 2008. Back

173   Ev 79 Back

174   Ev 129 Back

175   Communities and Local Government, Managing the Impacts of Migration: A Cross-Government Approach, June 2008. Back

176   Q 136 Back

177   Q 5 Back

178   Ev 101 Back

179   The Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: Final Report of the Equalities Review, February 2007, p 26. Back

180   The Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: Final Report of the Equalities Review, February 2007, p 40. Back

181   Our Shared Future, para 2.21. Back

182   Q 80 Back

183   Q 25 Back

184   Communities and Local Government Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2006-07, Equality, HC 468, para 27. Back

185   Ev 99 Back

186   Ev 99 Back

187   Communities and Local Government, The Government's Response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, February 2008, p 47. Back

188   Ev 66 Back

189   Q 258 Back

190   See para 92 Back

191   Q 229 Back

192   Home Office, UK Border Agency, Points-based system-key documents, Back

193   Communities and Local Government Committee, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Departmental Annual Report 2007, HC 170, para 1. Back

194   Q 266 Back

195   Q 192 Back

196   Communities and Local Government, Guidance for local authorities on community cohesion contingency planning and tension monitoring, May 2008. Back

197   Communities and Local Government, Cohesion Guidance for Funders: Consultation, February 2008. Back

198   Communities and Local Government, Guidance for local authorities on the translation of publications, December 2007. Back

199   Our Shared Future, para 5.20. Back

200   Ev 67, 97 Back

201   Q 213 Back

202   Ev 97 Back

203   Ev 63, Q 74, Q 258, Our Shared Future, para 5.35. Back

204   Our Shared Future, para 5.35. Back

205   Q 74 Back

206   Provision of English language courses for speakers of other languages (ESOL), Standard Note SN/SP/4271, House of Commons Library, February 2008. Back

207   "False claims make me snap, crackle and pop", The Guardian, 16 January 2007 at Back

208   Ev 81 Back

209   Provision of English language courses for speakers of other languages (ESOL), Standard Note SN/SP/4271, House of Commons Library, February 2008. Back

210   Ev 143 Back

211   Ev 155 Back

212   Q 159 Back

213   Q 161 Back

214   Ev 62, 121. Back

215   Q 172 Back

216   Q 258 Back

217   Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), Focusing ESOL on Community Cohesion, DIUS Consultation, January 2008. Back

218   Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), Focusing ESOL on Community Cohesion, DIUS Consultation, January 2008, Introduction. Back

219   Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), Focusing ESOL on Community Cohesion, DIUS Consultation, January 2008, Introduction. Back

220   Q 266 Back

221   Ev 63 Back

222   Q 70 Back

223   Q 171 Back

224   Ev 156 Back

225   CCM 38 Back

226   Q 167 Back

227   CCM 34, para 14. Back

228   CCM 34, para 12. Back

229   Q 184 Back

230   Annex Back

231   The Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: The final report of the Equalities Review, February 2007, p 70. Back

232   ONS, International Migration, Series MN no.32, 2007, para 2.1. Back

233   IPPR, Floodgates or turnstiles? Post-EU enlargement migration flows to (and from) the UK, 30 April 2008. Back

234   The Audit Commission, Crossing Borders, Responding to the local challenges of migrant workers, January 2007, para 74. Back

235   Q 11 Back

236   Ev 131 Back

237   Q 76 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 16 July 2008