Written evidence from Professor Thom Brooks, Durham University [CCI0006]

1. What assessments have been made of community cohesion in the UK in a local and national context?

2. My research relating to this topic has focused on the integration of immigrants to the UK both locally and nationally. I have conducted extensive interviews with immigrants about their experiences and many of these have appeared in publications or media comment op-eds, including Becoming British and The Trust Factor.[1] My comments submitted for this enquiry on community cohesion are restricted to immigrants and their integration in the UK.

3. I note that I am an immigrant originally from the United States. I arrived in the UK as a student in 2001 obtaining a work visa in 2004, Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2009 and British citizenship in 2011. Community cohesion from the perspective of an immigrant is a longstanding personal and professional interest which I have experienced first-hand. I am highly supportive of enabling and supporting strong, inclusive, cohesive communities.

4. What are the primary barriers and threats to community cohesion? 

5. There are several key barriers and threats to community cohesion, especially among immigrants and those, like me, that I have chosen to become naturalised British.

6. A primary barrier is that community cohesion and integration is experienced for most as a one-way street. The onus is immigrants to become integrated. The challenge is that it is difficult for immigrants to access the appropriate resources, including relevant information, in order to do so. If improved integration and stronger community cohesion is desired, these barriers need to be re-examined to ensure they are not counterproductive to policy aims and goals.

7. There are many examples. One example is where the government of the day makes some policy change that impacts community cohesion without putting in place sufficient nor satisfactory mitigations to appropriately support those that might be impacted. An illustration might include failing to foresee what became known as the Windrush scandal when moving towards residency requirements that many people did not have but were entitled to have. While there impact assessments of likely economic costs relating to any policy changes, there is too rarely substantive impact assessments of likely social costs that might befall community cohesion. Social impacts matter to communities large and small. We should have a better understanding of the non-economic costs – and, of course, such costs can have real impact on the economy over time, too.

1. As a further illustration, I have for many years advocated for a Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) that is further empowered with expanded expertise to, in part, account for social and legal impacts of policy changes beyond the labour market.[2] I support the work the government has done in reforming MAC.

2. This is partly to make up for the important work of what was the Migration Impacts Forum (MIF), which focused on the ‘wider, more qualitative social implications of immigration in local communities’, including ‘social benefits’, ‘any transitional impacts and/or adjustment requirements’, ‘bringing together existing evidence about impacts of immigration’ and suggested areas for further government research.[3]

3. MIF’s work led to a 2009 joint report of Local Communities and the Home Office, entitled Managing the Impacts of Migration, recommended that while migration brought benefits it also created transitional pressures on local communities. It led to £35m funding to help local areas manage impact (Migration Impacts Fund), an Exceptional Circumstances Grant for schools experiencing rapid growth, providing over £50m over three years to support community cohesion (incl. residential camps for youth), piloting Specialist Cohesion Teams and developing a new approach to delivering English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programmes.[4] MIF was disbanded in 2010 under the coalition government. The Migration Impacts Fund was ended at that time.

8. A second example is the Life in the UK citizenship test. The first time that those I interviewed had become aware of the existence of the Life in the UK test was usually only when working through the relevant application form to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain – perhaps five or more years after they had first moved to the UK. Passing the test is part of the normal requirements for obtaining Indefinite Leave to Remain. This is a test for British citizenship that few British citizens seem able to pass. One reason for a public consultation is it seems important for the test to align more closely with public expectations about the test’s uses. It is difficult to see the test improving public confidence with some effort at engaging with the public.

9. With about 3,000 facts with a number unknown to many citizens and inessential to active citizenship, I have previously described it as ‘like a bad pub quiz’.[5] This includes concerns the test is impractical (e.g., lacks information about how to report a crime, register with a GP or contact emergency services), it is inconsistent (e.g., applicants do not need to know how many MPs in the House of Commons, but must know the number of representatives across all devolved governments even if not living in relevant areas), much information appears purely trivial (e.g., height of the London Eye, the nationality of the wife of the founder of the UK’s first curry restaurant), significant gender imbalance in some areas in the arts, culture and sports, some information is false (e.g., claims Cnut I was first Danish king of present England when it was his father)[6] and significant gaps.

10. One gap worth highlighting is that the current test is the only citizenship test that I know of that does not currently require anyone to know who is the head of state. According to the official TSO website dated from 2022: ‘Sections of the handbook, Life in the United Kingdom: A Guide for New Residents 3rd edition, which refer to Queen Elizabeth II and the Monarchy, are out of date and have been removed from subsequent prints of the handbook. You will not be asked any questions on this as part of the Home Office approved test based on the current (3rd) edition of the Life in the UK handbook’.[7] This is an extraordinary gap. While no one seeking permanent residency or UK citizenship need not know who is the head of state, anyone who passes and successfully applies to become a citizen need take an oath to the head of state. It would seem essential that new citizens are expected to know such information when applying for naturalisation and this should be urgently addressed by the government.

11. These problems make a mockery of what should be an important and valuable exercise: if such information is not known by many citizens nor essential for their contributing substantially to the UK, it is unclear why prospective citizens should be required to pass a test on such information in order to help successfully integrate. Instead of helping support successful integration, the test and its contents have contributed to feelings of separateness – as applicants soon learn much of the required information is not known by many citizens – and contrary to the test’s original aims and purposes. The test can play a valuable role, which I strongly support, and it requires an urgent refresh in a new and fit for purpose fourth edition as a matter of urgency.

12. Under the last government, it was admitted that it had made ‘no specific assessment of the long-term effect of the Life in the UK test has on promoting British values or improving integration’.[8] To date, there has not been any public consultation reviewing the use of the Life in the UK test since its launch in 2005.

13. Several committees have recommended the test is revised and a new test published, including the House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Participation, the House of Lords Liaison Committee and the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee.[9]

14. For example, the House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Participation said: ‘Professor Brooks was scathing in his criticism of the [Life in the UK citizenship test] book, stating: “The test is regularly seen as the test for British citizenship that few British citizens can pass, with many migrants seeing it as an opportunity by the Home Office to extract increasingly more expensive fees through a test of random trivia meant to make more fail.” We agree. The current test seems to be, and to be regarded as, a barrier to acquiring citizenship rather than a means of creating better citizens’.[10] This finding was supported by the two subsequent House of Lords committees afterwards. It is important that these recommendations, which had been accepted, are acted upon with a new test and test handbook produced.

15. A further related barrier is cost. The test is based on a test handbook. There is also an official study guide and an official practice test book. All three are available for purchase. This is unlike test materials in other countries, including Australia and the United States, where all relevant materials are freely available.[11] If information is important for citizens old and new to access, its accessibility should be reconsidered.

16. It is especially odd for the Home Office to produce an Official Study Guide to the Life in the UK test that, on its website, admits that it both ‘the perfect support’ for the test and ‘this book does not contain study material for the test’.[12] There should only be an ‘official’ study guide that is an official source for studying. If it is not a complete resource for prospective applicants, this should either be corrected or the guide re-examined.

17. A second primary barrier is what I have described as the post code lottery of English language support. Instruction is not easily available everywhere. I have found evidence of wide variation in waiting times to secure a place.[13] Not all available places are easily accessible for those who require them, especially in order to satisfy English language proficiency requirements for immigration purposes.

18. It should be noted that improving services benefits more than migrants, but the wider community as well. This is a worrying rate of functional illiteracy in the non-immigrant population that could benefit from improved services.[14] While it has been estimated that 1% of the UK population is fully illiterate, this rises to 16% who are functionally illiterate with literacy levels of five-year olds or less.[15] If literacy is good for all, it should not only be required or supported for some. The government should promote greater efforts to tackle illiteracy for citizens and residents old and new.

19. In general, the threat to maintaining an integration system that is not a two-way street is that allowing unnecessary barriers to fostering cohesion does not aid healthy, strong connected communities. Where the government rightfully expects relevant requirements to apply and be satisfied, immigrants should in return receive guidance on how these expectation are to be met with appropriate opportunities to do so. There is a dual responsibility on citizens old and new to enable the integration of all.
     
20. What can be done at a local and national level to improve community cohesion?

21. There are several actions that might be done to improve community cohesion arising from points made above, including:

22. There should be social impact assessments accompanying relevant policy changes to highlight impacts and consider whether mitigations are appropriate.

23. The government should launch an advisory review group with the task of creating a new, more inclusive and purposeful Life in the UK test following some form of public consultation.

24. The government should review the uses of citizenship ceremonies.[16] This has been recommended by the House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Participation.[17] Citizenship ceremonies are memorable and important events for new citizens, as I experienced first-hand. However, their profile can and should be raised to celebrate becoming British.

25. It is recommended that there is a review of how citizenship ceremonies are conducted in local communities so that best practice is identified, stakeholders consulted, any lessons are learned and recommendations made for a new approach to how the government champions citizenship and celebrates naturalisation. 

26. Finally, the government should expand provision of English language proficiency support. This should include support for tackling functional illiteracy and made available for all.

27. It may be worthwhile to reflect on provisions of Cornish, Welsh and Scots Gaelic language support. These all equally share in having protected minority status.
     
28. How should community cohesion be best approached in schools?

29. The curriculum relating to citizenship should be re-examined, revised and incorporated into all schools. [18] If information in the Life in the UK test is deemed essential for new citizens to know, then it is information available to schoolchildren as well.

January 2025