Integration and Community Cohesion

Motion to Take Note

15:12:00

Moved by

That this House takes note of the role of integration in reducing barriers to community cohesion in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, today’s debate is about ensuring that we look at why integration is not working or happening in parts of our country, and how this impacts on the ability of our communities to generate an environment of bringing together respect and belonging for shared purposes that bring benefit to all. I look forward to noble Lords’ contributions, but particularly to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook. I wanted to start my contribution by saying a little bit about my family’s experience and contribution to the country I call home, but as I started to write this speech I felt that it was becoming more and more about my family. However, I think it is important that I do this journey just to give a perspective from somebody who has been here all their lives, bar nine months. My family’s heritage is Indian—a heritage that is a strong and integral part of who I am, as it is for many of the nearly 2 million people of Indian heritage living in our country. My family’s story starts in 1937, when my paternal grandfather, Captain Mall Singh of the British Indian Pioneers regiment, was invited as a guest to the Coronation of His Majesty King George VI. My grandfather’s service, and later my paternal uncle’s service to the Indian army and the Indian police, lay at the heart of the family’s duty to its community and countries. In 1938, my maternal grandfather arrived in London and after a while made his home first, for a short time, in Coventry. He then established himself and subsequently his extended family in Leicester. As the bombs flattened Coventry and parts of Leicester, he, with fellow Indians, worked to support the rebuilding and do whatever else they could during those years of war. My grandfather was one the community. Of course, he experienced forms of discrimination that we cannot imagine today. For example, when trying to find rooms to rent, he would find signs that said, “No blacks, Irish or dogs”. However, that never deterred him or his colleagues from their commitment to a country they loved and invested in. After the war, there was a need to rebuild, and the country needed people. He helped house and settle over 40 families. However, as things returned to normality, he recognised that there was also a need to provide a voice for Indian workers. With his friends, he founded the Indian Workers’ Association to be the bridge between the unions and the employers. In 1952, my grandfather became the first Asian to open a hosiery factory in Leicester, providing employment and supporting the local economy. In 1960, I arrived with my parents from India, just before my first birthday. I grew up in a Great Britain that was challenging for people of colour. The 1960s and 1970s saw a big shift in the expectations from the wider community. During the 1960s there were still relatively few people of colour, and I grew up with Irish and Scottish neighbours—my friends know that I am not a great curry eater; I grew up with broths and stews. The street was my community. My mother, who had arrived not speaking any English, learned, through the support of that street, how to use the transport systems, to get home working, to take me and later my siblings to school, and generally to become part of the wider community. School life teaches you a lot, but when you are one of two people of colour in a class, it really does teach you a lot more. It teaches you how to survive and how to be strong and resilient. It also taught me how people would stand up for me, just as I stood up for the Ugandan Asians when they arrived in 1971 and 1972, after being expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. Racism rose heavily in Leicester at that time, but this community did not resile backwards; it moved forward and became one of the strongest communities that Leicester has. I also grew up, like many of my background, with parallel lives between what it was like at home and what it was like outside. We had to balance the culture—my parents’ expectation—with what my friends expected. They never understood why I could not go out to dances and music halls, but they knew that, while I was at school, I was one of them. All these things shaped what I did not want a community to look like as I grew up. I wanted my children and my friends’ children to be part of everything, so I became very involved in the regeneration of Leicester. In fact, I was then the young person on the advisory group. I was also the adviser to the Leicestershire Police for recruitment, and I became a college governor to ensure that students from all backgrounds could understand each other’s needs. However, even today, the left-behind communities are the same communities that were there when I was growing up. They are the same communities that were ignored and totally marginalised by the people in power. Those communities were not migrant communities—they were the white workless or working class—and they still remain those communities. I have previously said, and I have spoken to the Minister about it, that I do not want that divide to get bigger, because those are the divisions that create the intolerances and incohesion that we see in many parts of the country today. I want AI learning and digital inclusion for all communities, particularly those that have been so left behind. I will ask the Minister some questions about that later. Segregation and inward-looking communities create intolerance and tensions. I want children born and brought up here to be able to engage with everyone. I do not want the mothers of those children excluded from wider debate or decision-making. As I have said every time I have spoken on this type of subject, I want all people to know how to speak, read and write English so they are not excluded from decision-making that impacts on their lives. A couple of years ago in Leicester, we had riots. These caused deliberate disharmony, but they were not by the people of Leicester. People had come in to deliberately distort what was going on in Leicester. It was only the strength of the women of those communities coming together that stopped the sort of violence that I had not seen for a long time in Leicester. The incorrect reporting of it and the misinformation that was going around on social media flamed up the distrust between communities and I am glad that they are now working harder to make sure that never happens again. What we say and how we say it matters, especially if you are public facing. Although I certainly do not advocate for censorship around an honest debate about the issues and concerns that impact on the lives of all citizens and the need to feel free to challenge what is negatively affecting our lives, it is also critical that we know that every action has a reaction. Over the past 64 years of my life, I have been a citizen of a country that has seen so many changes, as you can imagine. When people ask me how British I feel, my response is always, “I am British.” I do not need to demonstrate that. My children do not even think they are British; they think they are English. They were born here. My siblings were born here and see themselves as English. I do not want to constantly have to defend the fact that I am a truly loyal citizen of the country that is my home and is the country I love, but we cannot have this debate if we cannot honestly challenge why people think that we are different. We have a country that is full of brilliant traditions and norms that we are all a part of, but we are also enriched with the cultural norms that I grew up with. I know that my family and friends share and enjoy Diwali or Holi with us whenever we have them. Tomorrow is Holi and it is the festival of colours. If you are in India, trust me, you cannot walk anywhere without having colour thrown at you. It is a reminder of how colours come together to bring joy. My mum is 85 years old. She instilled in us the need to be active learners. I will be eternally grateful for her wisdom. I suspect that she raised a few eyebrows in her youth when her beehive hairstyle, ankle grazer slacks and winklepickers were the norm, against Asian ladies who were wearing the salwar kameez. I have tried to wear a sari elegantly, but I cannot; I stride. From all the things that I saw growing up, the one thing I know is that I can love both cultures equally as much. I have resorted to my own personal experiences because, as a child who saw racist attacks but also the incredible solidarity of my neighbours and friends, I fear the debates we are having today are negating all the progress we have made, and we have made a lot. It is easy to lose that progress if we descend back into our groups and feel that we do not belong. I will end with a couple of questions for the Minister. What measures do his Government have in place to ensure that, where there are large communities from economically deprived backgrounds, digital skills and skills generally are part of the focus of the Government’s drive to be inclusive of everyone, regardless of their faith and ethnicity? Will the Minister ensure that English is available to everyone and that women, particularly from migrant communities, are able to engage? My biggest fear is that they are not always able to access the services that are rightly theirs to access. Will he and the Government look carefully at how we build our economies around people’s strengths, and not their weaknesses? If we do not, we will go back to the “us and them” situation that I grew up with in the 60s. It was not a nice time to be a child in those days when you were being pitted against each other. I do not see colour. I cannot see my friends’ colour; I just see them as friends. I want children to grow up seeing children as children. I want adults to treat their children and other people’s faiths and children with respect. The most important thing is that we are all stakeholders in our communities. If we cannot do that, sadly, those that have divisive, loud voices win the argument. I beg to move.

15:26:00

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. Since joining your Lordships’ House, I have met only kindness from your Lordships, officials, staff and police. I am grateful to Black Rod, to the Whips’ team, to the conveners of this debate and to pioneering Peers without whom I would not be here. I also thank our remarkably patient doorkeepers, who have already witnessed my talent for missteps. On my first day, I charged through the automated gates, triggering a shutdown. It was a swift lesson in tradition and modernity, and surely not my last. In a sense, your Lordships are doorkeepers too. If I were to distil my purpose in this House, it would be this: that after three decades in leadership development across business, academia and faith, I see myself as a doorkeeper—not barring access but opening doors, perhaps even portcullises. As a wayward teenager, it was I who needed doors opened. My mind raced ahead in some areas and lagged in others. I could have spent life dodging openings. Mentors changed everything. They helped me find my path into Sheffield University, then to Cambridge and Maryland. In Sheffield, I helped bridge industry, education and reform centres to unlock youth potential. Two decades on, alumni lead companies and communities. I saw deep barriers trapping talent, not least in white working-class areas. If you can inspire a plain-speaking teen in their free time, you can handle anyone, perhaps even your Lordships. I learned that the political scientist Robert Putnam was right. Unattended diversity can fracture communities, but with intent and leadership, it forges strength. Inclusion is not passive—it takes effort. My parents, Suresh and Padma, arrived in Britain in the 1970s—not with nothing, but with capital and a commitment to service. They ran a family business—30 years of dawn prayers, long commutes and 10-hour shifts—yet my mum still cooked a fresh Gujarati meal every night. That kind of sacrifice not only sustains families; it builds nations. Their values were inherited from my grandparents. At 15, my grandfather, Manishankar, left India as a cook’s assistant, alone and impoverished. He endured unimaginable hardship yet rose to become general manager of a large export business, with my indomitable grandmother, Kantaben, beside him. Their journey is a testament to resilience and the structures that foster it. Here, economic opportunity is shaped by global dynamics, as was underscored so eloquently in the previous debate. As chair of Labour Indians, I note that, since Manishankar Raval’s maiden voyage nearly a century ago, India, that is Bharat, is rising as an economic and cultural powerhouse. A strong partnership is key to UK security, education, health, climate goals and growth. I stand for a new Silk Road linking India to the Middle East and extending beyond continental Europe to the UK. Faith too is key for cohesion. Even the smallest hamlet has a place of worship, and faith remains central to many. My political awakening came when resisting the enforced closure of a major Hindu shrine gifted by Beatle George Harrison: Bhaktivedanta Manor in Hertsmere. This was not just door closure but attempted door erasure, granting me a lifelong affinity with other persecuted minorities. That injustice led me at 16 to join Labour. In 1997, Tony Blair’s Government rescinded the decision, safeguarding a monument of spirituality, inclusion and service. I protested outside Hertsmere Borough Council. How extraordinary now to stand before you as Lord Raval of Hertsmere, the place I call home, with my wife Lucy and our daughters, Lukshmi and Sita, who are no doubt watching at home. Cohesion does not happen by accident. That is why in 2007 I founded Faith in Leadership. With a stellar faculty, we equip faith leaders to serve their communities while building deep cross-faith relationships, fostering trust while disagreeing well. Our 2,500-plus alumni lead critical work, from responding to Grenfell—where faith coalitions remained long after statutory services withdrew—to co-ordinating action during Covid-19 and other crises. We have shared this British model with international friends committed to neighbourliness and coexistence, most recently in Bahrain, to foster exciting cross-border collaboration. Two years ago, I chaired the Prime Minister, then in opposition, in a meeting with faith leaders. His commitment to religious pluralism is steadfast. I thank him, along with my supporters, the brilliant noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Khan, the Faith Minister, and my noble friend Lord Rook—whose maiden speech I eagerly await—for their dedication to people of all faiths and none. I leave your Lordships with the words of Pandit Sriram Sharma Acharya, whose teachings have shaped millions worldwide, including my family. From his ashram in Haridwar—literally, the “door to the Almighty”—he taught that: “Our world is one single family”. That is integration—not just living together, but belonging to each other. Cohesion is the bond that strengthens society. I look forward to working with your Lordships, my fellow doorkeepers, to fortify it.

15:33:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for introducing this debate and for her excellent, thoughtful and wonderfully personal speech. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Rook and look forward to his maiden speech. An extraordinary honour befalls me: to congratulate my noble friend Lord Raval on his outstanding maiden speech, which illustrated the important and powerful way in which he will flourish in the work of this House. I had the privilege to be one of my noble friend’s introducers. He is a remarkable individual. He read law at Cambridge and remains attached to the institution today, serving as a member of the faculty of divinity. He had a very distinguished business career as an organisational consultant and chose to use the skills that he had honed in the private sector to give back to the community. He created Faith in Leadership, a UK-based organisation which now operates internationally, to create an inclusive community of private and public leaders working together for the benefit of the community. The philosophy is, to quote my noble friend: “Faith leadership is the resource for humanizing and reconciling the world we live in”. It is a theme which we fully appreciate in his words today and for which he was also recognised with the honour of an OBE in 2018. My noble friend has worked tirelessly with the emerging and existing leadership of the faith communities in our country and is highly regarded and trusted by all. He is also a very proud member of the British Indian community and is steeped in understanding of the powerful and valuable cultures of the diaspora communities. The late, great Rabbi Hugo Gryn used to say that there were harmonisers and polarisers. We are grateful to have one of our country’s great harmonisers now gracing our Benches, and with clearly a great contribution to make. This is an important debate and I look forward to all the contributions. I will just raise two areas, and put some questions to the Minister. One of the great challenges we have is how we protect and develop our diverse and cohesive democracy: a challenge that is not unique to our country. It is regrettably clear that open and inclusive approaches to society do not automatically lead to these outcomes. Indeed, we must always work at it to protect our democracy and build in resilience. The challenges we face cover many areas: how we build a society of common values, rights and responsibilities, and how we draw in different communities and underpin their economic and social needs. Secondly, we must also ensure the integration of communities and how they develop, understand and achieve their place in society. Thirdly, we must bear down on extremism, especially on those whose actions tear the fabric of a cohesive society and whose perceptions of the exercise of their rights not just undermines the well-being of another community but stretches the culture of democracy. Where these issues arise, the number of agencies and parts of the country involved provides illustrates that the key to the success of any of this work will be the capacity of the Government to join it all up. I believe this subject is worthy of being one of the missions of this Government. Of course, I am not asking them to add to the existing five they are already focusing on, but I stress that this does need a whole-of-government approach. I appreciate that the Minister is from one department, and I am not seeking at this time to sketch out a new job description for him. I know—and many in this Chamber will know, from their experience—of his very active and strong engagement with many Members of this House on these issues. But I would be very grateful if the Minister would outline how the department is working with others on this task across government. In particular, I would be grateful to know how the Home Office and his department are working together—especially as there seems to have been a slight change in those arrangements—and whether we are connecting all the different parts that are required for effective work on community cohesion. Secondly, last March, Dame Sara Khan produced a report for the Government on social cohesion and resilience which covered many important areas. Its recommendations were very broad and dealt with a number of different agencies and parts of government. I would be grateful if the Minister would give the House an update on whether this Government have reviewed the report, whether they are going to make a substantive comment on it and whether they are going to support its recommendations. In particular, I would be very grateful if the Minister would comment on the recommendation for an office for social cohesion and democratic resilience, on the need for a five-year strategy on this and on the creation of a cross-Whitehall cohesion response unit. I sense that my noble friend Lord Raval is among a good crowd of harmonisers in the Chamber today, and I hope that the Minister will take on board many of the matters and observations we raise in this debate. I hope the Government will strongly reflect on them and know that within this Chamber there is a strong group of people who are keen to work together in a cohesive way to build resilience and cohesion in our society.

15:38:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this particular debate. I was delighted to listen to the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Raval, and I look forward to the same from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, later on. I will start with Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister in 1965, who appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, to head the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants. This was set up to provide for the integration of the minority community into British society. To a great extent, many of the efforts for good race relations have their roots in the work of churches in the early days, and this continues even today—I thank them for what they are doing. I have mentioned before what it is when we talk about being British: “Being British is about driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry to … watch American shows on a Japanese TV … But most of all being suspicious of anything foreign”. This arguably sums up the confused debate about identity in this country. For several years, we have had debates in the press and magazines that have been called by my colleague Vince Cable, among others, the politics of identity. The old political certainties of left and right are less clear cut in modern Britain, with politicians competing to be the toughest on crime and the best at promoting concepts such as community cohesion, a concept which to my mind lacks strategic thought and which, like a mighty river, disappears in the desert sands. There is now a search for the shared values that might be called English or British. Many have argued that it is important to articulate a shared sense of national identity in contemporary conditions of flux and change. If so, how can we reconcile this with diversity, openness and pluralism of belief and practice? Fixed notions of shared identity, even if they could be agreed upon, are less necessary than promoting individual identity, pluralism and genuine multiculturalism. Add to this mix the wars in Russia and Ukraine and the Middle East, and the growth of terrorism and the death of multiculturalism—which, according to Trevor Phillips, leads to separateness and ghettos of different communities. Jonathan Freedland noted in the Guardian “a kind of drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again and again on a … small minority, first prodding them, then pounding them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life”. Of course, this is a difficult time in which to have the kind of calm and reasoned discussion about identity which politicians claim to want, but it is for this reason that I value this debate. There is a confusion not only about identity but about what it is we are trying to talk about when we talk about race, religion, identity and ill-defined multiculturalism all mixed in the pot. For example, some politicians have claimed that the wearing of the veil by some Muslim women constitutes a visible statement of separation or difference. Of course it is right that there is a sensible debate about such issues. We should question what happens when an individual or group identity impinges on other people’s lives or liberties. But do we really believe that wearing of the veil will have a bearing in the process of community cohesion or the advancement of an integrated society? Britain has been at the forefront of legislative and other machinery to establish equality of opportunity for all citizens, and strong new legislation on race, disability, gender, age, faith and sexual orientation has put new emphasis on protecting and promoting good relations between different groups. However, confusion still remains over whether this has helped to strengthen society towards a common identity. To unpick the confusion, we need to analyse the current state of multi-ethnic Britain and examine the changing patterns of all our communities. For example, we talk about our ethnic minorities, but when have we ever taken into account that the largest ethnic group in Britain is our mixed-race community? We also need to consider post-war migration and the process of globalisation, which crosses the geographical boundaries of all nations. In conclusion, true multiculturalism is proactive and means that equality and diversity are at the core of everything we do, from government to individual responsibility. It means taking a much more proactive stance towards combating racism and discrimination; really tackling social, economic and civic participation in all aspects of society; and positively valuing, not merely tolerating, the value and contribution of different cultures and perspectives and treating them with respect. We must accept that a framework of human rights provides a context in which the rights of any one group and the rights of wider society can be balanced.

15:45:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate and for her thoughtful introduction. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Raval, on his very insightful maiden speech and I look forward to listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rook, later on. Diverse communities are enriching, and an engine for innovation and progress, but diversity is a double-edged sword. If we do not cohere as diverse communities, society becomes fragile. We have witnessed economic, social and political divisions widening, trust in government and institutions waning, and social fabric fraying. Larger flows of people, misinformation, international conflicts, and the import of issues from the countries of origin of some of the communities have exacerbated the tensions. Consequently, we have witnessed loss of pride of place in communities, anti-social behaviour and rioting. Lack of appropriate policy responses to manage diversity over the past six-plus decades have also contributed to the balkanisation of communities. In the name of multiculturalism, policies have been advanced which have widened differences and hindered integration. As just one example, community-based funding instead of area-based funding after the uprisings in 1982 contributed to one community being set against another, fuelling resentment and driving the disenchanted and other left-behind groups into the hands of the populists. Given the complex nature of diversity today, multifaceted interactions are needed to build trust, break barriers and bind communities and society together. This requires a sense of inclusion, trust in the state and a broad framework of shared values that hold society together but enable different perspectives to be explored. Integration is a foundational step towards community and social cohesion, but it is not enough. Many worthy efforts have been made to enhance social connections, build trust, engender understanding and create meaningful dialogue to break down barriers. But, as I said, these are necessary but not enough. What we need are national and local strategies for integration and community cohesion. These must be accompanied by ensuring that economic growth and prosperity benefit all, with opportunities that ensure social mobility. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned AI and digital exclusion. As another noble Lord said earlier, such strategies should not sit in one department at the centre. For any policy to be successful it needs to straddle many aspects of public policy. It requires joined-up policies both horizontally and vertically; that is, connecting with local government and civil society organisations. These need to include education and learning opportunities, tackling school exclusions, thoughtful housing planning, and building formal and informal social infrastructure; in other words, the whole plethora of policies that are linked. If trust is to be built, models of governance need to be rethought with citizens at the heart. Yes, we have turned citizens into consumers; we need to get back to the notion of citizen engagement. That means an engagement that provides a meaningful voice and agency, and that brings people together around issues that are common to all. We need greater use of citizen assemblies to build trust and cohesion on culturally contentious issues. That is a space where concerns and fears can be discussed openly with tolerance and understanding, and where legitimate democratic debate can take place and help to deepen democratic behaviour. Devolution is a good vehicle for this, with improved accountability among newly empowered leaders. Greater involvement of citizens at local level should be made mandatory. Above all, we need strong and purposeful leadership across government, joined-up responses and a long-term strategy, not just disjointed policies introduced in fits and starts, only in response to crises or when crises occur. I was interested in the Government’s Statement on 4 March on the plan for neighbourhoods; it was very encouraging. Making it a reality will require cross-government engagement, and it would be helpful to hear the plans for cross-government working. It will require perseverance, imagination and courage to think the unthinkable and challenge some of the conventional wisdom. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how this work will be measured, the lessons learned, and good practice disseminated.

15:50:00

My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Raval, on his excellent maiden speech, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rook. I thank the noble Lord for all the work he has done over the years with the churches, including the Church of England, in which he is an ordained priest, and with communities of other faiths. I commend his tireless advocacy, as a key adviser to the Government, of the important role that faith plays in the life of our country. I know that his vast experience and expertise, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Raval, will add great value to this House. We only need look at the events of last summer to see the importance of and need for cohesive communities. The riots showed how easily hostility can escalate when groups of people live alongside one another, and yet are divided by barriers of fear and mistrust. A cohesive community is not one in which every person is the same, but in which they each share a sense of belonging despite their differences. They may have different cultures, beliefs or religions, but each person feels respected and valued. I was deeply moved by the account of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, of her schooling in Leicester, a city which I love and know well, and where my children were brought up. Probably two decades after the experiences described by the noble Baroness, my son Frank was the only white child in his entire school year. Like the noble Baroness, he experienced nothing but friendship, respect and support from his schoolmates, who were almost all of south Asian heritage. It is relationships that are at the heart of bridging the social and cultural gaps that can divide our communities. While we can and must speak of policy at a national level, integration work is best done by those on a local level, who can listen to and understand the needs of their communities. Local authorities, alongside the voluntary community and faith sector, are critical to integration and to bringing people together to build trust and understanding through creating space for cross-cultural interaction, interfaith dialogue and friendships across difference. I welcome the community recovery fund that the Government have made available to local communities impacted by last summer’s riots. In our diocese of Lichfield, that fund has enabled Tamworth Borough Council to launch its “We Are Tamworth” programme this month, which empowers local groups to develop projects that strengthen bonds between people of all backgrounds and ages. The same fund has made possible, also in our diocese, the “One Stoke-on-Trent” campaign, which will administer grants to local initiatives while listening to and working with residents to explore what must be done to make the city a place where everyone feels welcome. Although this funding in response to the riots is necessary and valuable, strategic long-term approaches are crucial to ensure meaningful and lasting impacts. I am glad that the Government have launched the Communities and Recovery Steering Group to oversee a new approach to community cohesion. I recognise that its terms of reference and membership have just been announced this week, but I ask the Minister: when might we know more about the details of the work that the group will oversee? Education is also a vital part of successful integration and building community cohesion. In particular, religious education in schools plays an important role in enabling understanding of different cultures, religions and world views, equipping pupils from an early age with the knowledge and tools to understand and thrive in a multicultural society. However, RE is too often neglected as a subject, with pupils frequently being taught by teachers with no qualifications in the subject. What steps are the Government taking to increase the number of teachers who are properly trained to deliver RE? As we have heard throughout the day, we are living in a time of increasing global uncertainty and conflict. We do not want that global situation to be the case locally. Let this be an opportunity to build trust and seek understanding. Let us foster communities that are strong and resilient, where everybody can feel they belong.

15:56:00

My Lords, it is an honour to address this House today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for this debate and her inspiring introduction and personal story. In this, my maiden speech, I wish to thank those who have supported me over many years: my family, friends and colleagues. Thanks also go to my supporters: the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, with whom I have enjoyed considerable collaboration on the subject of this debate; and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I began volunteering for the noble Baroness over 12 years ago. The thought then that we might sit together on these Benches was implausible at best. Her friendship and guidance have been invaluable to me. Working at the Good Faith Partnership, I have spent much of the last decade addressing issues of community cohesion. These early weeks of induction into your Lordships’ House have served as a timely reminder of five critical lessons on social integration. The first lesson is that integration does not happen by accident; it requires a welcoming community. At the Good Faith Partnership, we work with the ChurchWorks Commission, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, to host the Warm Welcome campaign. Working with faith and community groups, charities, businesses and local authorities, Warm Welcome provides over 5,000 warm spaces for isolated and disadvantaged individuals throughout the UK. Although the House of Lords is not yet registered as a Warm Welcome centre—possibly a good thing, given the problems with the heating—Members and staff have provided the warmest of welcomes to me and other new Members in recent weeks. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark and to noble friends and noble Lords across this House for their warm welcome. I also thank Black Rod, the House of Lords staff, the police and security teams, the hospitality team and, of course, the doorkeepers. When a community works this hard to welcome newcomers, integration becomes so much easier. I come to our second lesson: integration is always a two-way street. It requires real effort from both newcomers and welcomers. As an Anglican priest, I know what it is to need regular mercy and instruction. I am thankful for grace when I have erred, and for kind and gentle correction where necessary. As a newcomer and “Rookie” Member, if noble Lords will pardon the pun, I will no doubt require both of those for some time to come. On my second day in your Lordships’ House, one of the doorkeepers asked me, “Lord Rook, what musical instrument do you play?”. At first, I wondered whether this was a question asked of every Member. However, I soon realised that the doorkeeper had read my introduction papers and noticed that my alma mater is the Royal College of Music. It turns out that both the doorkeeper and I play the trombone—a noble instrument indeed—but your Lordships have nothing to fear; I retired many years ago due to letters from music lovers everywhere. The doorkeeper’s initiative, however, serves to illustrate the third lesson. Integration happens when communities take initiative and get to know their newest members. I have twice been seconded to and served the office of the Labour leader as a faith and civil society adviser, most recently under Sir Keir Starmer and previously, during the 2015 general election campaign, under Ed Miliband. This is where I first had the pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Raval. I thank him for his kind words earlier, and I am certainly forward to working with him in this House in the future. Following the election in 2015, Europe faced the devastating fallout of the escalating conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. We were facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II. Here at Westminster, we were overwhelmed by the public response. Institutions and individuals from every corner of this country crowded in, offering help and demanding action. This leads us to the fourth lesson of integration. Integration requires the investment of many different groups and stakeholders. From 2015, the Good Faith Partnership worked with government and civil society to support the co-creation of the community sponsorship scheme for refugees. I am for ever grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, for the vital role they played in securing and establishing this initiative. As a result, local communities invested considerable time and resource, welcoming and integrating hundreds of vulnerable families. A few years later, again amid tragic circumstances, that model enabled UK citizens to welcome over 200,000 Ukrainians through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I grew up in Portsmouth, where my family were part of the Southsea Salvation Army. A Salvation Army upbringing brought certain obligations. I have already made mention of the trombone playing. Then there is the marching: parading up and down the seafront, to and from open-air church services. With the marching comes the praying—in particular, in teenage years, praying that your schoolmates do not spot you marching up and down the seafront to open-air church services. Above all, with the Salvation Army comes the relentless commitment to serving the last, the lost and the least. My fifth and final lesson on integration is the lesson I learned first of all. Communities become more cohesive when we include and integrate our most vulnerable neighbours. I have chosen to be Lord Rook of Wimbledon. In 1993, the now Lady Rook and I moved into the area to volunteer at a Salvation Army youth project working with disadvantaged teenagers in Raynes Park. The youth club grew into a community centre, that community centre became a church and, decades later, among other notable achievements, that church was privileged to welcome one of the first families of Syrian refugees through the community sponsorship scheme. On my way to your Lordships’ House, I pass the home where that family lives to this very day. I thank God for the many who worked to welcome and integrate them and, what is more, for the different ways that this one family has contributed to our community. Following violent disturbances in many towns and cities last summer, there has been much discussion about the importance of integration and cohesion. So how do we build cohesive communities and a welcoming country? In response, we would do well to heed the welcoming example of this House and relearn the lessons that lead to faster and fuller integration. We must remember that integration does not happen by accident. It is a two-way street. It requires the initiative and investment of many and relies upon our commitment to include those who are too often forgotten and ignored. I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for raising this discussion and look forward to using my seat, place and voice to contribute to this and other vital conversations in days to come.

16:04:00

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, on a wonderful introduction to today’s debate. As a Scot who prefers curry to stew and broth, I am quite happy to swap. It is a real pleasure to follow the maiden speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, and I and our families have known each other for nearly two decades now. We have lived much of that time within a mile of each other, as he touched on, in south-west London. Our children went to the same local community primary and secondary schools together. They have now gone off in their own directions, and I am sure that Joe is watching from the States if he is not here and that the rest of the noble Lord’s family are here with him. It was an excellent maiden speech. Community and integration, as noble Lords have heard, are both the noble Lord’s passion and his life’s work. If I was to pick out a few words to describe the noble Lord, Lord Rook, to those in your Lordships’ House who do not already know him, I would choose theologian, political activist and interfaith campaigner—an interesting mix. Over the last few years, as we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Rook, has served as the faith and civil society adviser to both the Labour Party and to this current leader and previous leaders. Following the recent election, he continues to advise both the party and the Labour Government. Alongside this, he has a broad portfolio of a ministry, combining new projects at the Good Faith Partnership with research, teaching and assignments. Many noble Lords will have known the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and seen him around, providing advice and support for my noble friend Lady Sherlock, but probably a little less known is his work on refugees. He touched on just one of the aspects at the end, with the local Syrian family. He founded Reset: Communities for Refugees. He is an international consultant for global refugees and founded the RAMP Project. He is an excellent addition to your Lordships’ House and will bring a wealth of experience to these Benches in his own right. Russ, welcome. I turn now to today’s debate. Community cohesion, as we have heard, is not merely a social nicety. It is one of the cornerstones of our society, fostering a sense of belonging, mutual respect and shared values among often diverse communities. Across the globe we see isolationism, protectionism and narrow self-interest leaping up the political agenda. It is through integration that we can bridge many of the gaps between different groups, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive and contribute to the rich tapestry of British life. As we navigate the complexities of modern society, it is crucial to recognise that integration is not just a one-way process, as we have already heard. It requires effort and commitment from both established communities and newcomers. The UK’s integrated communities strategy, launched in 2018, emphasised this point by calling for a whole-government approach to integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, touched on in his comments earlier, working across government with local authorities and civil society to address the specific challenges in different areas. This strategy acknowledges that successful integration depends on fostering meaningful interactions between people from different backgrounds and promoting shared values such as democracy, free speech and mutual respect. Today, we have heard many excellent examples, from the personal stories of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn. The importance of community cohesion cannot be overstated. It is a glue that holds our society together, allowing us to celebrate our differences while working towards common goals. As Ted Cantle, a leading expert in community cohesion, once noted: “Community cohesion is at the heart of all our future policies, plans and programmes”. This sentiment underscores the critical role that cohesion plays in creating a harmonious and inclusive society. However, despite these efforts, challenges persist. Socioeconomic deprivation and existing diversity are often cited as predictors of low social cohesion and integration. The 2023-24 Community Life survey found that, while 81% of adults agreed that people from different backgrounds generally got on well in their local areas, this figure was lower among certain ethnic groups and especially across the younger age population. These disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions to address the root causes of division. As Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, noted: “Building social cohesion requires a collective effort from all sectors of society, including local authorities, voluntary organisations and community groups”. This collaborative approach is essential for creating strong, integrated communities, where everyone can thrive. Community cohesion is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic and social necessity. In conclusion, by investing in integration initiatives we can unlock the full potential of our diverse communities, fostering a society that is more resilient, more prosperous and more just for all. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that every individual, regardless of their background, feels a sense of belonging and has an equal opportunity to succeed. Let us also remember that community cohesion itself is a journey, not the destination. It requires ongoing effort, dialogue and mutual understanding. But the rewards are well worth it: a society where everyone can live, work and thrive together, united by shared values and common purpose.

16:12:00

My Lords, many congratulations to my noble friend for introducing this debate—I think not for the first time, but it matters all the more. How good it is that those of us in this place continue to revisit a subject of such great importance. I also congratulate and give an enormously warm welcome to the maiden speakers: both are magnificent people. I am delighted that they have been trained and brainwashed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who is always somebody to be followed, whatever your political party or persuasion. My concern is that we might lose some of the great progress that we have achieved in this country. Life was pretty bad in the 1960s and 1970s. Many noble Lords will know that I chaired the juvenile court in Lambeth. My family and I have always been outreachers who try to welcome people. My in-laws had Hungarian refugees; we had Ugandan Asians, and now we have a Ukrainian and a Latvian. But it is relatively easy for us, because we do not live on the margins of society. I am not pretending that those on the margins of society, where jobs and money are poor, can be so generous spirited. When we look at the improvement in the number of women on boards, and the number of diverse members from different communities on boards, we see that we have done well in this country. We need to beware the wrecking ball—I am sorry—of President Trump. When the crash took place between the airliner and the helicopter, saying that it was excessive DE&I training that had resulted in the Federal Aviation Authority reducing the quality of the people they admitted was, frankly, deplorable. Trump said: “The FAA’s diversity push includes focus on hiring people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities”. It is funny, but it is appalling. We in this country must not dismiss all the DE&I approaches that we have developed. Only today, financial regulators are saying that they are going to reduce the amount of diversity reporting. Well, maybe it has gone too far. We can talk about ethnicity, but we are not allowed to talk about religion. I do not agree with that and I hope the Minister might comment on that. We are hardly allowed to talk about age any more, but we are allowed to talk about orientation; it is incredibly politically correct. However, we must not lose what we have gained. We need to have a reality check. I commend the Policy Exchange report, A Portrait of Modern Britain, with the foreword by Sir Trevor Phillips. It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, will talk about this. It is extraordinarily gratifying. Three out of four people, 72%, believe that children should be taught to be proud of British history, proud of the wars and the abolition of slavery and much else besides. Most ethnic minorities think that social class is a much greater problem in terms of employment and opportunity than ethnicity. I worry that we will create divisions by reinforcing historical prejudices, which actually we should be proud that we in this country have reduced. This is not to say that they will not come back, but we have made great progress. We can take pride in inclusive patriotism, as Sir Trevor Phillips and others talk about. I want to move on to universities, though, and young people. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate about the importance of religious education. Religion can be the elephant in the room: people are uncomfortable talking about it. If you talk to people in universities at the moment, they are really alarmed by what has happened, in terms of it simply becoming a taboo subject, a no-go area. I was delighted to see a message from both our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, at Oxford University, and Larry Kramer, the really splendid director of the London School of Economics, saying they will not tolerate no-go zones, that there must be free speech and open debate, and that the way to solve these issues is not by banning debate. I warmly commend the work of James Walters, the director of the LSE Faith Centre. Several of us were with him this week at a breakfast when he talked about the efforts he is making to bring people together from different religions: Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Christian, because at universities, people come from all around the world. Some 80% of LSE students are international, and they bring with them their different faith perspectives. LSE has always been extraordinarily secular. I was there as a governor for 20 years. My mother-in-law was there, my grandmother lectured there, and my great-grandfather was an incorporating signatory. It was a secular place, and now they are bringing in the importance of faith. Let us go younger. I welcome the English Speaking Union, founded in 1918 after the horrors of the First World War. We use the rather ugly word “oracy”. What the English Speaking Union is really working at is encouraging people to be articulate, to debate, to listen carefully but then provide critical analysis. They have got a great new programme of dialogue and debate rather than dispute and disagreement, and I commend their work warmly. I must get to my favourite subject, which is working from home—a disaster. I want the whole House to from hear Sir Simon Wessely, the regius professor of psychiatry at King’s College London. Of course when you are at home you are miserable, lonely, your prejudices are reinforced, you do not meet people, there is no creativity and there is no diversity. It really is an extraordinarily serious situation. We know that children need to go to school, but we adults like going to work. Remember how wretched we all were when the House of Lords was not meeting. So, please realise that working from home is going to reinforce stereotypes, prejudices and unhappiness. I commend my noble friend once more and the many speakers—I have a lot more to say.

16:19:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all these wonderful speeches. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this debate and telling us her history. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook, on their speeches and their entry to the House. I am sure they will make a great difference to it. This is a very diverse House. To qualify to speak in this debate, I think I ought to stress that my mother came from Poland as a teenager, between the wars. She married my father, who also came from far away—Newcastle—while my maternal grandmother and other family died in the Holocaust. There are many strands of diversity in your Lordships’ House and we have heard many of them today. I was sure that many speakers would focus on their community in relation to cohesion. I will concentrate on how the UK Jewish community fits into this essential task. We are fortunate in the UK in having numerous communal organisations, including the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council. There are many others. Sadly, external events can have a significant effect. Since Hamas killed and took hostages in Israel on 7 October 2023—as long ago as that—there has been a significant division in the UK. These divisions impact on Jewish life, resulting in tensions in the workplace, in educational institutions, on our streets and in communal spaces. There has, sadly, been a rise in anti-Semitism. Many in the UK Jewish community feel more vulnerable than before and this is surely unacceptable. There are no easy answers. Interfaith initiatives need to be supported. Education needs to be improved on what is seen as anti-Semitism and how hurtful it is in the workplace, on the streets and in education. We have to face up to the fact that news travels faster than before, no more so than if that news is false or distorted. A lie once posted online soon becomes viral. Corrections, if made, are often ignored by those willing to believe those falsehoods. It is often hard to explain to others that Israel plays an important part in the identity of the UK Jewish community due to religious, cultural, family and economic ties. It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel—after all, Jews and Israelis do it all the time—but it is an uncomfortable feeling to see the only Jewish state, comprising a population of only nine million, including non-Jews, singled out or held to higher standards than other nations. This can be seen in cases such as when a UK local authority supports the boycott and divestments campaign. We rarely hear of the 8 million Jews who fled Arab lands, mainly to settle in Israel. In the main that was because Israel, as we are trying to suggest today, integrates them into the general populace. There needs to be a stronger enforcement against extremism in the charity sector, which should be stamped on by the Charity Commission. Of course, these falsehoods do not apply only to the UK Jewish community. In reflecting on the importance of community cohesion between Jewish and Muslim communities, I am heartened by initiatives such as Mitzvah Day, the UK’s largest day of social action. It brings together over 50,000 individuals from incredibly diverse backgrounds to engage in charitable activities that strengthen our social fabric. Notably, in 2024, Mitzvah Day’s theme was “Stronger Together”, emphasising unity in challenging times. Faith leaders from various traditions collaborated on projects supporting vulnerable families, exemplifying the power of collective action in fostering interfaith harmony. As examples, there were people knitting hats for premature babies in hospitals, while my wife was involved in cases for the homeless in Camden. I acknowledge the contributions of many key figures in promoting interfaith relations. I know that the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, has been an ardent supporter of Mitzvah Day, a cross-religious and cross-cultural initiative, just for helping people. He has participated in its initiatives. The aim is to build bridges between communities. Additionally, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on women in faith has been instrumental in highlighting the vital role of women in fostering interfaith dialogue. We must all support initiatives aiming to deal with anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hate, anti-Hindu hate—hate of all sorts. I await the Minister’s reply. I will not set out specific questions as so many other questions have been raised already, except to ask: what initiatives can we expect from His Majesty’s Government?

16:25:00

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend—my good friend—the Minister, Lord Khan, who is doing a really terrific job. This is not an easy gig, particularly in these days of inflamed social tensions. He does his work with great energy, compassion and good faith. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook on their wonderful, warm maiden speeches. They are going to make some terrific contributions to this House. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate and for her very warm and personal opening speech. It made me think about my own story as a Muslim girl growing up in Coatbridge to Indian Muslim immigrant parents. I have told this story before but when my dad first got to Coatbridge as a GP, one of his patients asked him, “What are you?” He said, “I’m a Muslim”, and they said, “Aye, but what kind? A Rangers Muslim or a Celtic Muslim?” My mum and dad wanted to preserve their heritage while making sure that I integrated and learned the local culture. So, on a Saturday morning, my mum would drive me to my Koran lessons, which I then followed up with Scottish country dancing lessons. Having done the two, I am not sure which one was more dangerous, to be honest—stripping the willow is not for the faint-hearted. I think of my father, who came to this country in the late 1960s. He began his working life in Clatterbridge Hospital on the Wirral and was desperately homesick and lonely. The sister on his ward, a formidable woman called Audrey, noticed this lost soul and, in her bossy way, demanded that he came round to her house for Sunday lunch. He did what he was told and off he went. Audrey took him and his pal Aftab under her wing. My dad had never been to a British house; he did not even know how to use cutlery properly. Audrey and her family taught them all about British life. My dad had his very first pint under the tutelage of her husband Arthur. He became a more moderate Muslim at this point, it is safe to say—don’t tell the Imam. In return, my dad cooked them delicious Indian food and they learned about his life. They became the best of friends and Audrey became like a grandmother to us. She sadly passed away a few years ago, but we are still so close to her children and grandchildren. That is the essence of integration. It should be based on human qualities of kindness, curiosity and friendship. That is the fuzzy, feel-good bit out of the way—now for the other side. I got an email when I first came into this place. I had just done “Newsnight”, during the riots. I paraphrase, but this is the gist of that email: “Don’t kid yourself Hazarika. For the millions of us who can trace our heritage on these islands back many centuries—unlike you—we loathe and detest you and your kind more than life itself, because of how you have completely destroyed our country. You can fill the streets with uninvited and unwanted migrants, ethnics and left-wing Trots, but plenty of us are prepared to die to save our nation and its way of life, but we are not going to die in vain. Don’t ever, ever forget that. Long live Enoch Powell”. It is always nice to get some fan mail, isn’t it? So it is not all good. There are extremists in different communities, including my own, who spread hate and feast off division. International conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, are affecting these shores, and, as we have heard, we are seeing a shocking rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Let us be honest: our politics have not helped either. We on the left are still deeply ashamed that anti-Semitism bloomed in the Labour Party under the last leadership. I personally apologise for that. On the right, politicians today say ridiculous things such as you cannot possibly be English if you have a different skin colour or were born to immigrants. I do not share Rishi Sunak’s politics, but I was damn proud to see him become our first Hindu Prime Minister. We should be welcoming people who want to come here, work hard, contribute and be part of our community. Of course, we must allow people to have their religious and cultural differences, but we must also set clear guardrails about what is expected in our society and what we expect our values to be. We should all care about greater community cohesion and integration. It is better for everybody, as we have heard expressed so eloquently. But demanding it through humiliation, hatred and inciting violence is not the solution. To go back to my own dear dad’s story: a wee bit of kindness, humour, curiosity and friendship is the way. We should all be a bit more Audrey.

16:30:00

That was a rather sobering speech from the noble Baroness, which I listened to carefully. It was a more uplifting speech from my noble friend about her personal journey. There were uplifting speeches from the two maiden speakers, which I also enjoyed hearing very much. The vital nature of what my noble friend has introduced today can be contained in one statistic: last year in this country, 31% of all children born were born to mothers who were not born in this country. That is the scale of social change that is going on and which the noble Baroness’s speech and the other speeches today have to address. That is not a criticism; it is just noting the rate of change. About five years ago, I chaired a cross-party Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on citizenship and civic engagement. We had a fairly powerful group, including two previous Labour Secretaries of State for Education—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Many of our findings, I am afraid, have not found favour. I hope the Minister might dust them down and see whether any have particular application. I offer just three for our debate this afternoon. First, as a committee, we felt there was a need to distinguish between what you might call integration and assimilation; in other words, if you come to this country, what do you have to give up to be a full member of our society—which you might call your civic identity? What can you keep, and by keeping, enrich our society as a whole—which you might call your sociocultural identity? This country does not exist in a moral vacuum. There are essential values that have to be respected. However uncomfortable it may be, there are red lines that have to be enforced. We have heard some of them from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, gave evidence to our committee, and she said: “The laws that protect religious minorities are the same laws that say I am equal to a man. You do not pick which ones you want. It is not a chocolate box of choice; it is something you have to embrace. If you are uncomfortable with that, I now say that is tough”. Secondly, tackling these very difficult issues will not happen by osmosis. This needs to be taught and taught well. That is why citizenship education is so vital. I am afraid my party did not do well in government in introducing this and maintaining it. But I am also afraid, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I am not sure that this present Labour Government are doing much better. There is a persistent conflation between PSHE and citizenship education. In reality, they have completely different focuses. PSHE—personal, social, health and economic education—is about “me”. However, citizenship education is about “we”: the society in which we live. It is really important that we maintain that distinction and have a proper understanding and proper teaching of how our society operates and how people live within it. Thirdly—I will say only two words about this, because both the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, referred to it—there is an absence of any co-ordination at all. To make this thing happen, you need a Secretary of State—someone with power and influence. We found initiatives all over the place that, frankly, just ran into the sand. Some were good and others were bad, but nobody picked up the good ones and developed them; no institutional memory was developed at all. That is our report. For my last minute and a half, I will talk about scale. In the last year for which records are available, we gave entry rights to 1.259 million people and about half a million left, so our population increased by about three-quarters of a million. I have some doubts as to whether we can integrate that number successfully—not just whether we can integrate them socially but whether we can provide them with an adequate supply of housing and access to health and other social services, not to mention avoiding damaging our environment, ecology and achievement of net zero. Moreover—this is the point made by my noble friend Lady Bottomley—we need to do so without selling short our existing settled population, 20% of whom are now from minority communities; they have rights that need protecting. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, may think that I will start attacking asylum seekers and refugees—absolutely not. Of the figure I gave, just 100,000—7.5%—were asylum seekers. Obviously, particular issues are raised, but in terms of the numbers, they are virtually irrelevant. The big challenge comes from British industry and commerce, which simply cannot wean itself off recruiting overseas as a “default option”—the phrase of the Migration Advisory Committee. It also comes from British higher education, which has built a business model around recruiting ever-increasing numbers of overseas students, sometimes, as some people say, at the expense of the education of our settled population. To conclude, of course everything we are discussing today is absolutely critical, but we need to be prepared to think about the central challenge of how many people we can take in every year. With all the different moral, economic and other objectives, how can we take them in? If we do not settle that, all that my noble friend said and all the speeches we have heard today are like trying to empty the bath without first turning down the taps.

16:37:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and to hear such excellent maiden speeches from my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook. I am proud to be their fellow newbie—or perhaps I should say rookie—and both their contributions show how much they have to offer the House. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this debate. It is particularly timely as, this evening, observant Jews begin observing the very happy holiday of Purim, which commemorates a perfect story for this debate on community cohesion and integration. It sees a young Jewish woman, Esther, integrating into the Persian court by virtue of becoming queen, and, in doing so, standing up for her own community against the forces of hatred that seek to rip apart an otherwise cohesive community. I will pick up and expand on themes raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lady Hazarika. While this has been a broadly well-intentioned debate, I am afraid that the figures are stark: they suggest that, at least for some, community cohesion is in crisis. Just last month, the Community Security Trust said that 2024 was the second-worst year for anti-Semitism that it had seen, with more than half as many incidents as the next highest year, which was only 2021. Meanwhile, Tell MAMA, which does equivalent work for the Muslim community, as we heard in Questions earlier today, said that 2024 was the worst year in its history for recorded anti-Muslim hate cases—driven in no small part, no doubt, by the riots we have heard about, following the terrible events in Southport last summer. Those riots were instigated and fuelled by far-right anti-Muslim hatred. We know this is nothing new: the far right will always seek to scapegoat the immigrant and the minority group for being different. However, the far left is also not blameless. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, touched on intolerance on campus, and we have seen the hatred against Jews on regular protests in central London and elsewhere since 7 October 2023. This is undeniable, indefensible and a direct attack on community cohesion. Of course, many who march are there solely, and rightly, to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause. However, they are joined by those who simply cannot or will not do this without invoking naked anti-Jewish racism. The organisers of these demonstrations allow this to continue in seemingly blissful ignorance, with little or no effort made to warn those attending or stewarding those marches that, for instance, placards bearing swastikas intertwined with the Star of David or which equate Zionism with Nazism are simply unacceptable. Protestors may believe, wrongly, that chanting “From the river to the sea” is not anti-Semitic, but it should simply be enough to know that Jews find it at the very least objectionable and hurtful to persuade them to desist. Community cohesion is damaged when one of the country’s smallest minority groups, the Jewish community, is targeted in this way. The right to free speech should surely be balanced by a care for social cohesion. It should not be solely up to the police to deter racist behaviour on demonstrations, but up to those organising them too. As many noble Lords have already observed, integration and cohesion are really just two sides of the same coin. I was struck by polling by the excellent HOPE not hate in their Fear & HOPE 2024 report, which found that in 2011, only 12% of British people polled had never had any contact with Jews, but that last year this figure had risen to nearly a third. For Muslims the equivalent figure had grown from just 8% in 2011 to 18% in 2024. The same trend is true for Hindus and Sikhs. For all our interfaith efforts to promote understanding between religious minorities, it seems we are working in a vacuum when it comes to the wider population. I worry that trends in education have exacerbated the problem. This is not an attack on faith schools. My daughters attend an excellent Jewish comprehensive, having attended a very mixed community primary, but the increasing proportion of Jewish kids going to Jewish schools not only risks isolating them; it means that kids from other backgrounds do not get to meet a Jewish person and in so doing perhaps dispel some of the awful myths and tropes they may pick up on the internet. This cannot be healthy for our society; nor is it in any of our religious minority groups’ interest. We should all—communities, schools, government—mitigate against it. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on the difference between religious education and civic education, and PSHE. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this matter. This goes to the nub of the problem. When hate rises, it is only natural for communities to hide away, creating a vicious circle which harms community cohesion. My own community has a proud history of integrating into British life in all its facets, including in this House. At the risk of sounding trite, did we flee ghettos 80 years ago merely to have to recreate them here? The Local Government Association correctly asserted in evidence to the Commons Women and Equalities Committee that cohesion happens locally or not at all, and councils have a vital role to play in promoting and maintaining it. This requires strong political leadership in town halls—and I say this as much to my party as others. Councillors have responsibility for community cohesion, not foreign policy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said, as political leaders our words matter, whether in town halls or in this House. Just as much as this means councillors not grandstanding to local groups on foreign policy, it means avoiding a rhetorical rush to the gutter on immigration here in Westminster. That approach plays into the worst of hands and only aids those who wish to divide, not unite, society.

16:43:00

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Verma for bringing this very important and timely debate before your Lordships’ House. Her own personal testimony got us off to a very strong start and set the tone for an excellent debate. It has also been my great privilege to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook. I am sure everyone in the Chamber looks forward to the tremendous contribution they will make to your Lordships’ House in the coming days, weeks and years—decades, hopefully. On Saturday I happened to be in Glasgow, when the first council-organised St Patrick’s Day parade was being held in the city centre. It seemed to be a well-supported and joyful event. Why is that relevant to today’s debate? The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, has already alluded to this. It is relevant because of what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, referred to as Scotland’s shame: the sectarian and divided society in the west of Scotland that has taken almost 150 years to get to a stage where suspicion and division between communities is still being overcome. It serves as a warning as to how difficult it is and long it takes to fix these issues. The subject is sensitive and thought-provoking and, particularly given that I describe myself as a liberal Conservative, needs to be wrestled with. As a liberal and a Conservative, I celebrate difference, and I also respect faith and tradition. I believe in faith schools and the celebration of cultural diversity. There are many people in this country who do not belong to any community, and nor do they have any sense of national identity. That is a great sadness. I apply that equally to people whose families have been here for many generations and to those who have been here for one generation. As someone who wants the UK to be a confident, free society, I also believe there are five important principles that would ensure that we aspire to be a fully functioning nation state. First, to succeed in this country, all people, from every community, should be encouraged and supported to speak English, to avoid the very exclusion that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned. Secondly, the law of the land should be applied equally, irrespective of race, sex, religion or any other characteristic. Thirdly, rights that protect individuals—whether women’s rights, children’s rights, rights to free speech, or rights to property and to free elections—should apply to every UK citizen. Fourthly, there should be a national narrative that we can all engage with, just as every other successful country has. That is the inclusive patriotism that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned. Living in the UK has to be about more than just being domiciled here and being able to make money here. Finally, the state has a responsibility to ensure that its population—from every community—has the opportunity to excel. Importantly, life cannot be isolated within particular communities, especially as young people grow. Suspicion and distrust so often come from a lack of mixing of young children. I am sad to say that a major obstacle to some of these five principles being implemented has been an excess of cultural cringe among many who would consider themselves strong supporters of integration and cohesion. They believe that it is easier to spend huge amounts on translation rather than English classes, and that it is outdated and cringeworthy to try to celebrate what makes the UK a great and distinct country. In the area of law, that political correctness has crossed the line from ensuring that all are equal to some being more equal than others. I commend the Government on their recent stance on sentencing. It has also become fashionable to believe that it is wrong for to children mix through national voluntary programmes, because it is somehow coercive or old-fashioned. I am not saying that we want to apply a beige, monochrome, old-fashioned sense of Britishness, and that the diversity that makes us so strong should be ignored. But we live in a country called the United Kingdom for a reason. It is a nation state made up of four nations, and in the 21st century the four nations contain numerous, strong, healthy and diverse communities. As I have already said, it is actually a greater threat to our country that so many people in the UK have no sense of community, whether that be cultural, religious, familial or national. I was appalled when commentators began to discuss whether prominent politicians from a non-white background could be English, British, Welsh or Scottish. We cannot enter into a reductive argument about individual race or religion. It is far more important that people from every background feel that they are accepted as British, irrespective of the community, or non-community, they come from. There is no simple route to integration. It is about a delicate balance underlined by principles of equality and the contract between the citizen and the state while recognising and celebrating difference. How will that balance and equilibrium be supported through policy? The west of Scotland is an example of how long that community integration can take.

16:50:00

My Lords, I am almost speechless at the quality of some of the contributions to this debate. As to the two maiden speakers, what fun we are going to have in the future—fun even in your Lordships’ House. I commend them on the quality of their wisdom and the manner of their delivery, to say nothing of a former stand-up comic sitting beside them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma—I want to call her my noble friend—for giving us the opportunity to share these experiences and ideas. The day before yesterday, I was in Paris attending the migration committee of the Council of Europe, where I was charged to be the rapporteur for a study of diasporas across the continent and their agency in shaping coherent societies. I rose to accept that on the grounds that this is an opportunity to build a counternarrative to the toxic debates that we have been having about migration, for those who were migrants not so long ago are now pillars of British society. I am looking forward to that, though it will take some time; I may be in the grave before I finish it. I wanted the major part of my contribution to be somewhere quite different, in a university in London. Four teacher training colleges, one run by Methodists, another by Anglicans, another by Roman Catholics and another by a humanist organisation, had to face the fact that teacher training institutions were no longer the fashion of the day, so they formed the Roehampton Institute of Higher Education and eventually were given by the Privy Council degree-awarding abilities and research degree facilities. We saw coming on to one campus four bodies representing traditions that had been at one another’s throats for so much of British history and, where they had a common objective, finding a common will and a readiness to be open and generous with one another. Although they have religious backgrounds, they accept students from all over, now as the University of Roehampton. I was privileged to be part of the engine that brought it into being and have benefited from one of its awards more recently—I do not think it was in direct payment; I have to say that in case it gets into the newspapers. Here we have evidence that integration, coherence and social cohesion can happen when, instead of looking at each other as opposites or different, people collaborate around an agreed goal and work towards it together. Of course, I am not going to take my six minutes—I always count it when I do not; I keep an account of the minutes that I have in credit for future possible use. What I have tried to explain by way of the creation of the University of Roehampton reached its summit point when it appointed as its new chancellor the person who introduced this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. Methodist plus Anglican plus Roman Catholic plus humanist now have the coherent head of a Hindu who is helping us all to see even more than we saw before.

16:54:00

My Lords, I declare my interest as a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook, on their two very engaging maiden speeches, and wish them every joy in the House. I also commend my noble friend Lady Verma on securing this important debate. Each of us will have our own idea of what integration looks like. Mine took place two years ago: namely, the King’s Coronation. The Coronation was what has been described, in a very different context, as a demonstration of traditional values in a modern setting. I want to examine both of those themes in turn. First, the modern setting. As other speakers have pointed out, the Britain of the future will be less white, older and less Christian. Other faiths will grow, especially Islam, which by 2050 is likely to be followed by some 15% of the population. Therefore, when we talk of integration, we must not assume that others, who are neither white nor culturally Christian, must somehow integrate into the rest of the country that is, because the country is changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Rook, said in his maiden speech, integration is a two-way street. However, though Britain is changing, much of it is unchanged—which brings me to the traditional values. Although many of us are neither white nor culturally Christian, more of us still are. Our country has been shaped not by so-called British values—I have always been perplexed as to what these are—but by British institutions that, in turn, were shaped by enlightenment values which, in turn, were shaped—as Tom Holland argues in his brilliant book, Dominion—by Christianity. What did all this produce? I answer: constitutional monarchy, democratic government, freedom under the law, an independent judiciary, strong civic institutions and a free press. All of these are explicitly western in origin, although now global in application, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are the foundations of our culture and I have no hesitation in asserting that some cultures are better than others. It is these things we must integrate into if we are to be as great in the future as we have sometimes been in the past. In the very brief time available to me, I will sketch how these foundations can be strengthened. In a nutshell, we have the balance wrong. There must be some policing of private space in relation to, for example, support for terror, child abuse or incitement to violence. Integration is not enhanced, and nor are the police well served, by the thinking behind or the recording of non-crime hate incidents, as too often happens. Similarly, there must be free expression in public space in relation to, for example, events in the Middle East. However, liberty is not licence, and there can be no room in the public square for support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, or for anti-Semitism or anti-Muslim hatred. On that score, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said earlier in the debate. In that context, organisations that use criminal action to force change should face a fundraising and communication ban—as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I see is in his place—and the criteria under which protests are permitted should be tightened, as recommended by Policy Exchange. Finally, we need to radically reform the practice of equality, diversity and inclusion which, at their best, are all about fairness. In the words of Dr Raghib Ali, who advised the last Government on ethnicity and Covid, “the primary factor in health and educational inequalities is deprivation, not race” and “there is now no overall ‘White privilege’ in health or education (and especially not for deprived Whites)—or overall ‘BAME disadvantage’—and these categories are now outdated and unhelpful”. Just as we need to rethink equality, so we need to think very carefully about diversity and inclusion. It is said that diversity is a strength: this is usually true, but it is not always true that inclusion is a strength. For example, no one in this Chamber would think it would be a strength to integrate the grooming and rape gangs into the Britain of the future. Andrew Norfolk, the journalist who led the reporting for the Times, has said the root causes of the abuse have not been properly examined, which is why many of us on this side of the House have argued that a full national inquiry is essential. Some believe in equality of outcome, some in equality of opportunity, but the equality that all of us can and do sign up to is equality before the law, the primacy of which should once again be established in public policy if the practice of integration is to be realised, and the promise of the Coronation is to be fulfilled.

16:59:00

My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this important debate in your Lordships’ Chamber. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook on their moving and illuminating maiden speeches, which I enjoyed very much. The UK is now a truly diverse multicultural and multifaith society, with all minority communities fully protected by various pieces of legislation. However, legislation can do only so much. It cannot always change deeply entrenched views, beliefs, attitudes and values. When immigrants from the Commonwealth began to arrive in the UK after the Second World War, they faced widespread discrimination in their daily lives, whether in housing, employment or public spaces. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, this discrimination was, more often than not, overt. For example, in 1970, a pub landlord threw my father out of his premises simply because he did not speak English. Although his rights were protected by law, the prejudice of the time persisted. However, as time passed, values and attitudes evolved. Today, I believe the UK stands as one of the most tolerant and inclusive societies in the world—yet we must not let our guard down. We need only to look at what happened last summer in Southport, when three young girls were tragically murdered. A rumour spread on social media falsely claiming that a Muslim asylum seeker was responsible. This must never happen again. Community cohesion is undermined by inequality, poverty, misinformation and barriers to essential services. It is further threatened by low social mobility, a lack of respect for ethnic differences, negative attitudes towards migrants, low levels of local pride, fear of crime, and a lack of trust between different ethnic groups. Today I will focus on one area: access to consumer credit. It is clear that some minority communities, particularly black African and Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, face far greater barriers when trying to access consumer credit. These groups often find themselves on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, experiencing more significant financial exclusion than others. They are more likely to be denied loans for purchasing homes or starting businesses due to their lower levels of savings and assets. Despite accounting for only 10% of fraud victims, they are far less likely to have their money returned. They were disproportionately impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, suffering sharper declines in income and financial stability. To address these disadvantages, we must first recognise and acknowledge them. Improving community cohesion requires a collective effort from the Government, local authorities, police, fire and rescue services, health and social care providers, and third-sector organisations. They must work towards a common vision that promotes equality and inclusion. This can be achieved only through open dialogue and mutual understanding, social interaction between different cultures and faiths, and stronger engagement between public institutions and diverse communities. Only through genuine integration can we break down barriers and ensure that every individual, regardless of their background, feels a true sense of belonging in our society.

17:05:00

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Raval and Lord Rook, on excellent—and very funny at times, which is always lovely in this House—maiden speeches. I welcome them to your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to working with them on these issues in the future. I thank my noble friend Lady Verma for bringing this important debate to us today. I particularly thank her for sharing her story and for her long-standing and passionate service to, and love for, the city of Leicester and its communities. I am proud of our diverse country. A recent study by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory found that Britain is one of the most successful ethnically diverse countries in the world. Some of our greatest achievements as a nation have been by people who have chosen to come to Britain and contribute fully to our country. I think of Mo Farah and his Olympic excellence, Freddie Mercury, who was born and raised in Zanzibar to Parsi-Indian parents, and Dame Zaha Hadid, the first woman to win the Pritzker prize in architecture, who was born in Iraq. Indeed, many Members of your Lordships’ House were born in other countries and have committed their lives to public service in this country. It is important that people who come here abide by our laws. We embrace people who integrate, but we know that when immigration is too high, it sometimes presents challenges to effective integration. Nearly 1 million people in England have little or no English proficiency. Specifically, 8.6%—approximately 794,000—of our residents born overseas struggle with the English language, and 1.4%—about 138,000—cannot speak English at all. This language barrier poses significant challenges to migrants’ integration. I echo the question from my noble friend Lady Verma to the Minister and ask him to set out the Government’s plans to improve English language skills for all as a part of work to foster greater cohesion. We have a rich culture in this country which we should be proud of, but there have been too many examples of UK public bodies apologising for our national traditions. Let me give just a few examples. Stoke-on-Trent City Council referred to its Christmas celebrations without explicitly mentioning Christmas, aiming to be considerate to all community members. Newcastle University advised staff to use terms such as “winter break” instead of “Christmas break” and “spring break” instead of “Easter break”, supposedly fostering inclusivity among a diverse student population. We are, however, culturally a Christian country, and people from all faiths and backgrounds can enjoy the Christmas and Easter breaks even though they may not be Christians themselves. I would be interested to hear from the Minister his thoughts on the role that public institutions have to play in fostering inclusivity without seeking to undermine our traditional cultural values. As a Minister, I spent a lot of time going around the country visiting many of our fantastic faith communities that were encouraging and supporting integration. I visited Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and London, and there were groups of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus—mainly women, I have to say, which is interesting —using Christian church halls, in particular, just to chat between themselves, have a cup of tea and share skills and their cultural heritages. That is local integration. I even saw them running wonderful community food banks, helping all their communities. These projects still need some local and, I suggest, national support to keep them going because it is from the bottom up that real community cohesion happens, with support from the top—so government, both local and national, is critical in this. I want to talk briefly about British laws. I am very proud of our laws and our way of life. One area where we need to see more action on integration is women’s rights. We have a responsibility in your Lordships’ House to protect women in all communities, across all faiths and all cultures. We cannot allow the progress that we have made to be hindered by groups that have refused to accept our support for women’s rights. It is a fundamental principle in English law that we are all equal before the law, and I believe that every woman should have the same equal protection under the law regardless of her faith, culture, background or ethnicity. It is the same in policing. We must ensure that policing is fair throughout our country. Where there are failures, whether they be heavy-handed policing in certain communities or failure to act in other areas, we must call them out and correct them. The Government are right to look again at the grooming gangs. Although we were disappointed that they did not launch a national inquiry, it is important that that work continues at pace. In the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill—noble Lords are probably asking why I am talking about that—there is a requirement for strategic planning bodies to create spatial development plans. In that, there is a gold-plated plan on consultation requirements. It claims that there must be consultation of bodies that “represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the strategy area”. We cannot support this; it is where we perhaps go wrong. We believe that on policies of this kind we need to consult the public, not pull out different ethnicities or religions. I believe that it potentially creates division when we go too far. Broadly, we need a clearer approach to an integration strategy from the Labour Government. Integration is about uniting communities across class, ethnicity and creed, celebrating shared local and national identities that bring people together rather than atomising them into protected characteristics. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how Labour intend to achieve that.

17:13:00

My Lords, I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this important debate and for such a passionate and eloquent speech detailing her personal journey and that of her family. Successful integration and social cohesion are the pillars of a strong and resilient society. I also thank my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook for their valuable and thoughtful maiden speeches in this House. On the evidence of their excellent contributions, the House will be richer and enhanced by their presence. I think today is the first time that a Minister can say that he supported at their introduction all those who have made their maiden speeches. I also thank my noble friends for their work on faith and for advising and supporting me in my work as a Minister with responsibility for faith. Integration is the foundation on which social cohesion is built. Effective integration ensures equitable access to resources, opportunities and support, while social cohesion fosters trust, shared values and collaboration among different groups. Together, they strengthen social stability, reduce inequalities and promote a sense of belonging, which is essential for a thriving and harmonious society. Integration is not about assimilation: we do not want individuals to feel that they have to give up their identity and heritage. Instead, it is about ensuring that every individual can succeed and feel represented, accepted and at home in the community they live in, so long as they respect the UK’s fundamental values—which I believe is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was alluding to. For generations, people from across the world have come here to start new lives. In the past decade alone, the UK has provided safe and legal routes for over 600,000 people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. My noble friend Lord Rook mentioned the Syrian refugee scheme, which he was involved in. In August, I met Rola, who arrived in the UK in 2017 with her husband and two children through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. Rola and her husband Emad now both speak excellent English and have settled into life in Newark. Rola works as an employment adviser, providing support with interview skills, CV writing, job searches and applications, while Emad has opened his own mobile phone and computer repair shop, which is doing really well. Like Rola, the majority of people who come here are welcomed into communities and settle well into life in the UK. Over the years, their presence has made the UK an immeasurably richer and more diverse place. Successful integration has led to cohesive communities. Backed by research, we know that the UK is one of the most open and tolerant places to live in the world. For example, in a recent survey, 98% of people stated that they are comfortable living next door to people of a different race. Yet integration in the UK can also come with challenges. Adjusting to a new language, finding stable employment and navigating public services is not always easy. Cultural differences and social isolation can also take time to overcome. When people do not feel connected to their communities, we see hatred and divisions form. Seeing the disturbances in my hometown, Burnley, the unrest in Leicester and, more recently, the violent disorder across the UK following the events in Southport last summer, I know just how much effort it takes to rebuild communities. The Government are supporting Leicester as it seeks to address its challenges, build on its strengths and work through the difficult events that took place in 2022. The independent review, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, will establish what happened, the factors that contributed to those events and what could be done differently in future. I have had great conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about that. This Government are determined to strengthen the structures that promote integration and, by extension, social cohesion. I will now address some of the specific issues raised today. I know that I have limited time, and I do not have the luxury of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who has earned many credits over the years. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about ensuring that English is available to everyone. The Government remain committed to the manifesto commitment to boost English language teaching. We know that language skills are crucial to help people integrate into life in the UK as well as to break down barriers to work and career progression. That is why we want to support all adults in England, including refugees, to secure the English language skills they need. The Department for Education also funds ESOL provision for adults aged 19 and over in England through the adult skills fund, supporting 168,000 learners in 2023-24. The Government recognise that the ability to speak English is key to helping people integrate into life in the UK, as well as supporting people to access education, employment and other opportunities. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, also asked what we are doing in relation to digital skills. In February, the Government published their digital inclusion action plan, setting out our first steps, including a definition and principles that will guide our work to address it. This includes partnering with the Digital Poverty Alliance and launching a new digital inclusion innovation fund and a digital inclusion action committee—an expert advisory group—to monitor our progress. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned the plan for neighbourhoods and our recent £1.5 billion announcement, which will deliver £20 million of funding and support over the next decade for 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundations to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. The programme is developed to work across the UK Government as well as devolved Governments and will demonstrate the breadth of interventions possible. My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, in his excellent speech, talked about Dame Sara Khan’s review. To reassure my noble friend, I have reached out to Dame Sara Khan and hope to meet her soon to discuss in detail the recommendations in her report. I understand there are some valuable lessons to be learned from that piece of work. Britain is an open, tolerant and compassionate country. We have welcomed people from all over the world to be part of our British society, whether coming to work or study or fleeing conflict and persecution. Schemes such as Homes for Ukraine, the Afghan resettlement scheme, and the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visa have provided important routes for those seeking sanctuary. People come to the UK for a variety of reasons, and this requires a tailored approach. The Government are committed to working in partnership with local authorities to understand the integration needs of new arrivals and how we can work together to ensure positive integration outcomes in local communities—which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lord McNicol mentioned in their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about the high levels of immigration. The Government are clear that net migration must come down and are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK. They have set out a new approach to end overreliance on international recruitment and boost economic growth by linking the UK’s immigration, labour market and skills systems and training up our domestic workforce. Building on the Prime Minister’s statement on 28 November, the Government will publish a White Paper later this year that will set out their approach to reduce net migration. My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, talked about social cohesion. We have increasing diversity in the UK—I recognise the stat that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about—with 18% of the population being from an ethnic-minority background. We are proud to be a country that embraces difference and encourages people to celebrate their individual identity, but we are not complacent and must do more to build a stronger and more united country. This Government are committed to taking a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, and my department is leading cross-government efforts on this—this is important, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said. It is not just for MHCLG; we have to work across government, and in partnership with local communities and stakeholders, to rebuild, renew and address the deep-seated issues. I extend my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for talking about the recovery fund and some of the local initiatives that it was being used for. That is the start of our progress, and of course we have added 75 areas since the announcement of the plan for neighbourhoods. I hope that we can expand that, subject to the spending review. The Government support recruitment to teacher training in religious education by offering a bursary of £10,000, but I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords about making sure that PSHE, citizenship classes or religious education classes are not taught by people who do not have the skills and expertise. I am having conversations with the Department for Education, including recently with Minister Morgan, on this issue. In relation to the Communities and Recovery Steering Group, I sit on that alongside many Secretaries of State. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, its terms of reference are on the public record. It is a cross-government group led by the Deputy Prime Minister and includes representation from the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Cabinet Office and many others, working together to support all communities and places to thrive, grow and be resilient to face future threats that could divide them. The Government have set a long-term ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, aiming to reverse a trend of inactivity, raising productivity and improving living standards while enhancing the quality of work. Backed by £240 million of funding announced in the Budget, the Government’s Get Britain Working White Paper sets out our ambitious reforms, outlined in three interconnected parts, including a new jobs and careers service, a new youth guarantee for all 18 to 21 year-olds and up to £15 million to support the development of local Get Britain Working plans for areas across England. New arrivals to the UK can access various employment support services, including Jobcentre Plus, local council programmes, refugee employment schemes, ESOL courses and sector-specific initiatives. Many noble Lords touched on the summer disorder. I set out our cross-governmental approach earlier. We launched a £15 million community recovery fund to support the 20 areas affected. That, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, is being utilised now by local communities, but more needs to be done The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned deprivation. There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing, low civil participation and poor community cohesion leave communities more at risk of cohesion issues—a point very eloquently made by the noble Baroness. For instance, seven of the 10 most deprived areas of England witnessed disorder over the summer—Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Hull, Manchester and Blackburn all experienced violent disorder and are ranked in the top 10 most deprived local authorities in England. My department is undertaking work to understand how social and economic factors may play a role in harming social cohesion and is developing a more strategic approach to supporting communities and developing societal resilience more broadly. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Katz mentioned the high levels of anti-Semitism and religious hate crime. Of course, this is unacceptable and the Government will ensure that this is a priority. We continue to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, our anti-Semitism adviser, and on anti-Muslim hatred we have just announced a working group chaired by the former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve. According to the Home Office, 71% of all religious hate crime is aimed at Jews and Muslims. We should ensure that we work across all religions to tackle this scourge in our country and we will continue to focus on this issue. I thought my noble friend Lady Hazarika was very brave in outing her father as attending pubs. I just hope that the local imam does not read Hansard tonight. She raised a very interesting point about tackling the issue of political language. When you are the Minister for Communities as well and get the opportunity to go round the country, especially after the violent disorder, communities tell you exactly how it is. One issue that came through was the language of politicians and that needs to be dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, made a very important point about working from home and loneliness. That can affect us all at any time of our lives, with a negative impact on community and individual well-being. The Government’s current work to tackle loneliness includes supporting a range of organisations through the Tackling Loneliness Hub, an online platform for professionals that is working to reduce loneliness. It will work to improve the evidence base around loneliness and provide evidence through the Better Health Every Mind Matters campaign advice pages. I will spend a few moments on education, which was a theme of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. We know that socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils are more likely to fall behind and face barriers which hold them back from the opportunities and life chances they deserve. We are focused on driving high and rising standards in every school, delivered through excellent teaching, a high-quality curriculum and a school system which removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back. The opportunity mission will break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their success by helping all children achieve and thrive, wherever they are in the country. High and rising standards across education are at the heart of this mission and a key to unlocking stronger outcomes and a better future for children and young people. I will finish on two points. One is women’s equality, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised. From making work pay to keeping our streets safe, women are central to all our missions. We are making the changes needed to make sure that women’s equality becomes a reality. It is an ambitious agenda and we are putting women’s voices at the heart of it. There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing and low participation leave communities at greater risk of cohesion issues. We continue to work on that in particular. We recognise that integration and cohesion do not happen in isolation; they must be embedded in the policies that shape our towns and cities, in our education system and in our public services. We are preparing to launch a competitive process to continue our support for Ukrainians and Hong Kong British nationals overseas, providing intensive English language lessons and employment support for up to 4,000 individuals. Following that competitive process, we anticipate that the programme will begin later this summer. Furthermore, we have recently renewed a contract with the International Organization for Migration, which is responsible for delivering pre-departure cultural orientation for people coming to the UK under the Afghan resettlement scheme. We have been working with the IOM to deliver enhanced messaging on self-sufficiency, with a view to improving integration and behaviours. A new curriculum started on 10 March, aiming to support on average 500 people per month. We have also placed a renewed focus on fostering social cohesion, ensuring that we are reinforcing this work through strategic and collaborative initiatives, through the recently established cross-government communities and recovery steering group led by the Deputy Prime Minister. We continue to engage actively with local people and partners up and down the country in order to understand how best to support local integration and cohesion efforts. I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, when she was a Minister. On her point about having meetings up and down the country, I have already had over 80 engagements with faith and belief communities in the UK. I have had dozens of other engagements on resettlement and cohesion more broadly since taking up my post as Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. As my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned, it has been a very busy period. My focus is to reset the relationship with the faith communities, rather than seeing them in a transactional way as a fourth emergency service and going to them whenever there is a crisis. It is also important to say that we will support our communities holistically. We launched a £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods, which will provide funding into the next decade. Cohesion measures will form a key part of our offering, bringing people together so they can feel proud of their area, and restoring a collective sense of belonging. If I can steal a phrase my from noble friend Lord McNicol, the journey is important. It is all about the journey, and the destination may not always be the important point. We need to ensure that we get to the destination and celebrate the journey. As colleagues have said in their wonderful contributions, we are one of the most amazing multi-ethnic countries in the world, but there is much work to do. Based on my experience of living in Burnley, and having seen what happened in 2001, it takes time; there are no quick fixes. There is a long-term approach, and it will take time to get there. But debates like this are helpful in raising awareness of the key issues and challenges that we face as a country. I am confident that, in the work we are embarking on, we will be able to bring our country together, fix our systems and public services and ensure that people can take pride in their local communities. I pay tribute again to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for bringing this debate forward today and for all she does in promoting community cohesion across our country.

17:33:00

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today, particularly the two maiden speeches. They were incredibly informative but humorous as well. At a time when there is so much misery around, a bit of humour goes a long way. I am pretty certain that we will hear much more from the noble Lords in future debates. Each contribution today has brought a different lens. I feel it demonstrates that we can have an intelligent debate where we can raise the issues without raising the temperature. The difficulty we have is that we raise the temperature so that the mouth and brain do not always work together. If we were to just stop and think that all our words have outcomes and actions, we might speak more wisely. We should all collectively call it out when we see something that is not right and is causing problems. We should collectively say that this is unacceptable in our country. Whatever faith you come from, if your faith is doing something wrong, we should collectively come out and call it out. That is the strength of a good, strong democracy. If we undermine it, the vacuums are then filled by people who generate hate. I hope that we can continue working and learning from today’s debate. I hope the other House takes note of it and introduces the policies that we in this House all want to see, but there are many more discussions to be had on this. Unfortunately, we have often allowed ourselves to sleepwalk into crisis. We do that because we do not want to be called out as being politically incorrect. It is time we started to realise that, for the value of others, we have to speak out. I say to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that it is a great joy to be at a university which is so multicultural and actually shares all the values of this country.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 5.36 pm.