Conclusions and recommendations
Effect of migration on community cohesion
1. Public
concerns about the effects of migration cannot simply be dismissed
as racist or xenophobic. Tensions often arise on real practical
issues, such as the proliferation of Houses in Multiple Occupation
(HMOs). (Paragraph 16)
2. We welcome the
Government's commitment to ensuring that the review of the private
rented sector examines the effect of migration on housing. We
recommend that the review include a detailed assessment of the
effects of migration on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and
the problems which result both for existing communities and for
the individuals who live in them. We also welcome the Government's
commitment to supporting local authorities in the use of their
discretionary licensing powers. However, further action is needed.
We reiterate the recommendation made in our Report The Supply
of Rented Housing, where we argued that the Government should
make it easier for local authorities to regulate HMOs, and in
particular that the process of applying for extended licensing
should be easier. In areas where migrants tend to live in HMOs,
public concern about migration can be reduced if the problems
of HMOs are tackled. (Paragraph 21)
3. The rapid pace
of change experienced by many communities has led to increased
local public concern about migration and can negatively affect
community cohesion. (Paragraph 24)
4. There is no straightforward
relationship between the number of migrants in an area and levels
of cohesion. Some areas experience high inward migration yet have
a good level of cohesion in comparison to the national average.
Nevertheless, cohesion can be negatively affected by migration,
particularly in areas where there is poverty and/or little previous
experience of diversity. (Paragraph 28)
Pressures on local public services
5. We
welcome the EHRC and LGA commissioned study into the allocation
of social housing, and welcome its interim report findings showing
that there is no evidence to suggest that migrants receive unfair
priority access to housing. (Paragraph 35)
6. Tensions between
groups caused by issues of access to housing are undoubtedly exacerbated
by the acute shortage of social and affordable housing in England.
(Paragraph 36)
7. In order to respond
to migration effectively, it is critical that local authorities
do all they can to improve their local intelligence on current
and future migration flows and plan ahead. (Paragraph 42)
8. Local authorities
need to have transparent decision-making, including in relation
to decisions on the allocation of social housing. Councils also
must communicate effectively with their local communities to prevent
myths about migrants arising and spreading. (Paragraph 46)
9. Local authorities
need to take the lead in countering local myths on migrants. We
see no necessity for a national rapid rebuttal unit, but recommend
that central Government share best practice on myth-busting and
communication strategies. (Paragraph 48)
10. Local authorities
need the freedom to develop local responses to migration; a one-size-fits-all
solution is not appropriate. The Government should encourage local
authorities to learn from each other, particularly where there
are examples of innovative solutions to migration, such as establishing
educational assessment centres and local welcome centres for new
arrivals. (Paragraph 54)
11. We recommend that
the Government monitor the extend to which schools are more ethnically
segregated than the communities they serve. (Paragraph 58)
12. Integration should
not be forced; rather, opportunities to promote sustained and
meaningful interaction between people from different backgrounds
should be encouraged, for example through encouraging participation
in community groups around issues of common concern. (Paragraph
59)
13. To promote cohesion
effectively, all activity that promotes contact between people
of different backgrounds should reach out as widely as possible
to people who are not normally involved in community initiatives.
(Paragraph 61)
14. 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. (Paragraph 63)
15. 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. (Paragraph
64)
16. 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. (Paragraph 68)
17. 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. (Paragraph 70)
Responding to migration nationally
18. We
agree with the Government's conclusion [on the establishment of
a new national body with responsibility for the integration of
migrants]. 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. 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. (Paragraph 76)
19. 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. (Paragraph 78)
20. 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. (Paragraph
80)
21. 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. (Paragraph 83)
22. 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. (Paragraph 86)
23. 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. (Paragraph 87)
24. 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. (Paragraph 90)
25. 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. (Paragraph 98)
26. 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. (Paragraph 103)
27. 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.
(Paragraph 104)
28. 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. (Paragraph 107)
29. 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. (Paragraph 108)
Government funding
30. It
is of vital importance for effective service delivery and community
cohesion that funding for local services adequately take into
account the number of migrants. (Paragraph 112)
31. We recommend that
Government urgently prioritise work to incorporate the use of
alternative administrative data into local population estimates.
(Paragraph 116)
32. We are not convinced
that the Government's recently announced transitional fund will
provide sufficient income to fund local public services under
pressure from migration. We recommend that the Government immediately
establish a contingency fund capable of responding effectively
to the additional pressures which may be put on local government
services from migration. The Government should work closely with
the local government sector to develop appropriate funding criteria.
(Paragraph 126)
| 
