Communities and Integration

Baroness Ludford: I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine for instigating this useful debate. I do not know how many noble Lords have been to 19 Princelet Street in Spitalfields, where a diverse team of unpaid enthusiasts is trying to create Europe's first museum of immigration. It is an inspiring antidote to discouragement about the challenge of diversity. Built in 1719 by one rather English-sounding Samuel Worrall, it later became the home of a Huguenot silk weaving family who had escaped persecution in France. The family prospered, became rich and moved on. The elegant house was subdivided and tenanted by a variety of craftsmen. The Irish moved through the district, to be followed by Jewish immigrants. In 1869 a synagogue was erected at the back of the house, and 100 years later it became empty and derelict. Meanwhile, the Spitalfields Brick Lane area became predominantly Bangladeshi and Muslim. Eventually the Spitalfields Centre was formed to acquire 19 Princelet Street. Emergency repairs were made and the team now opens the house when it can to display the "Suitcases and Sanctuary" exhibition, visited by local schoolchildren.

It is something of a reproach to London that while New York has Ellis Island and the Tenement Museum, and both Toronto and Melbourne have museums of immigration, we cannot manage to fund a similar celebration of the richness and economic contribution that newcomers over the centuries have brought. So far as I know, there is no museum of immigration in Europe. So step forward generous donors, whether public or private, and help to establish the first European museum of immigration here in London. The only interest I need to declare is that I am a Friend of 19 Princelet Street and a Member of the European Parliament for London.

Recalling the history of Spitalfields is a useful reminder that there is nothing wrong with concentrations of people in a particular community. If you think of the Irish community historically in north London, of Caribbeans in Brixton, of Chinatown, of Indians and spices in Southall, of Cypriots in Green Lanes, of the Jewish community and kosher food in Golders Green, of the Korean community in Kingston, it is quite natural for people to congregate where their language, culture and food first gained a toehold, and then businesses and shops that serve their needs open. It is a great asset to a city to have particular "quartiers" or villages where you know you will find a critical mass of goods and cuisine of a particular kind. To look at things from a reverse perspective, as it were, just think of the Brits flocking together in the Dordogne or the Costa del Sol.

The problem comes when concentration turns into segregation; when clusters are closed and inward-looking rather than open and permeable. Let us be even-handed: there are problems of exclusion and a refusal to integrate from the gated communities of the rich as well as the modest terraces or tower blocks of the poor.

I read in this week's New Statesman magazine about the discouraging situation in Northern Ireland. The author labelled the situation as "apartheid", which is a strong term. Eighty per cent of people apparently will not use the nearest shops or swimming pool because they are located on the other side of the Catholic-Protestant divide. Nine out of 10 children attend segregated schools, and there are separate bus stops either side of a gate in the so-called peace line-that is, a high brick wall-which divides a Catholic from a Protestant community. This is so that no one has to stand waiting among people of a different religion. Think about that. Imagine if it was a gender or a racial divide-or, indeed, a religious one-in England, Scotland or Wales. How on earth can such behaviour be tolerated within the United Kingdom?

The challenge we face is to give people enough respect and room to feel confident in their distinctive racial, religious, cultural or other identity while encouraging them to share it with the rest of us and contribute to forging a common bond of civic identity as Britons and Europeans, guaranteed the same human rights and obeying the same laws. I am not among those people who have rejected multiculturalism, even if such rejection seems to be the fashion. I am convinced that we all-white people included-have multi or multiple identities and interests.

But to me "multicultural" has never meant a fragmentation of society into myriad unconnected pieces. It is certainly a jigsaw, but one which can and must be assembled into a coherent whole. We are seeking integration not assimilation, which is where, in my opinion, the French go wrong. I have been involved in efforts in the European Parliament to suggest that the banning of the hijab is not terribly helpful in France or continental countries.

In ensuring the respect and self-confidence I spoke of, there is a very important role for laws and policies to combat discrimination and social and economic inequality. Although EU anti-discrimination law from 2000 did not oblige major changes in our own race relations Acts, it was for some member states-and I include the 10 which came in last year-a new and major step forward. Some member states are overdue in their implementation and are being taken to the European Court of Justice for infringement of these EU laws. At a time when there are worrying developments in some member states on attitudes to equality-most notably in Poland-it is crucial that a strong signal is sent by the whole EU that anti-discrimination provisions are among the most important of EU values. I strongly believe that the United Kingdom has a major part to contribute to that exercise.

The EU package obliged for the first time that religious discrimination at work should be outlawed. It is important that the ability to track progress in eradicating discrimination in employment should be bolstered by the keeping of statistics. Unfortunately, in many countries of the European Union that is a very hot potato. There is a great deal of debate going on, but if you use the term "ethnic monitoring" in the European Parliament the balloon goes up. Among the French, Germans and Swedish-for different reasons-the idea that you should keep data on the ethnic or religious identity of people is strongly resisted.

Another initiative put forward at the EU level is the introduction of an EU law banning race hate crime. The proposal would also criminalise incitement to religious hatred but only if it was a pretext for expressions of racial hatred. It is similar to the suggestions made in this House in relation to our domestic law. As the British Government proposed the formulation of the European law, it is rather surprising that they were not consistent on the UK front and took a different route for domestic law.

It is a great shame that EU governments and the Council of Ministers have been unable to reach agreement on the law as formulated. I understand there were difficulties over condoning or trivialising historical events, especially concerning the Holocaust-perhaps the mirror image, one could say, of problems over the glorification of terrorist acts. I regret that an effort for compromise could not have been made to provide a common definition of racist crimes in Europe. It is a gap in the catalogue of European law.

Establishing a solid legal framework of non-discrimination is essential to the achievement of integration. It demonstrates clearly that integration is a two-way street, not a one-way effort. I firmly believe that more could be done to inform local communities about the language, culture and origins of the immigrant and ethnic minority groups living locally to them, even if some of those pen sketches might be a little simplistic. Some knowledge is surely better than none. Sometimes we are a little too precious and assume that people know things that they do not.

The recent report of the European Union's racism monitoring centre highlighted the schizophrenic attitudes widely held in Europe-towards immigrant workers in particular-where some are happy for them to fill gaps in the labour market, especially in the jobs that the host society is not keen to do, but also demand strict controls on immigration and are not sufficiently alert to race discrimination. There is a need for much greater clarity, including in the rights and obligations of all parties. Of course, an obligation not to discriminate on grounds of gender or sexual orientation is as important as the eradication of racial and religious inequality. The EU should also impress on partner countries such as Pakistan that we expect religious minorities to be protected from prosecution and attack.

EU Ministers are addressing the question of how to stop radicalisation and extremism, especially among Muslims. They refer to a problem of perception in the policies of European and other western countries, but as long as we are prepared to practise, tolerate or be complicit in abduction, illegal imprisonment without charge, rendition and torture, the problem is more than one of perception. The EU has to be a lot more determined and vigorous in practising the highest standards of human rights, not hand a propaganda victory to terrorists.

The European Union has been working for several years on how best to develop policies for integration, which is a useful exercise at EU level to share knowledge and best practice. It produced a Green Paper in September containing various proposals. No doubt the Minister will know all about that. In my view, it is essential that we should see this as a dynamic process. There is not one static society into which newcomers integrate-the "furnished apartment", as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh described it-and we should all change as we adjust to diversity, the "shared freehold", while not lowering our standards of law, democracy and equality. I welcome the proposal for a European integration fund of about £1 billion-1.7 billion euros-over the seven year period 2007-13, the next budgetary period, which has yet to be agreed. This has very much been championed by the European Parliament.

I have considerable reservations about how suggestions for temporary work permits, whether put forward by our own or other European Governments, or by the UN Global Commission on International Migration, can advance the cause of integration. It can undermine the motivation to commit and participate if the intention from the beginning is that a person will not stay. Life often does not work out in accordance with bureaucrats' intentions, as experience of Turkish "Gastarbeiter" in Germany-still there after 30 or 40 years-has shown.

Facility in the local language is crucial and more effort needs to be made throughout Europe on the issue. The provision of free language lessons is a good investment. There was much comment, even mirth, about the citizenship test here recently. I will not dwell on it, and I did not have the courage to test myself. I am not convinced that a test is the best way forward but we do need to spruce up our citizenship credentials all round, including knowledge of how the EU works.

Lastly, I believe that although we do have problems, the opinion polls show, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, suggests, a lot of promise and a lot of good sense. I conclude by saying that I do not have entirely the same reservations about the term "Britishness" as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. To me, Britishness is a sense of unity in diversity-of mutual respect and belonging, not uniformity. I think that we can convey that understanding to the rest of Europe.