Integration and Community Cohesion

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

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.