1. 1 CROSS-GOVERNMENT CITIZENSHIP GROUP Sept 2008

2. 2 Why the time is right to consider a new Citizenship group The terms of reference and contracts for members of the Advisory Board on naturalisation and Integration (ABNI) expire in November. The development of earned citizenship and increasing focus on shared values and rights and responsibilities across Government provides impetus There is external interest – illustrated by the report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion and the recommendation of Lord Goldsmith for an ‘Office of Citizenship’

3. 3 A new group would provide a clear focus for citizenship activity We can identify the following broad themes as a focus for a new Citizenship group: Provision of information on rights and responsibilities for new and prospective citizens Mentoring for new citizens Promoting citizenship ceremonies Research and evaluation of citizenship issues Monitoring implementation of citizenship policies such as active citizenship and English language requirements Promoting new initiatives to further enhance citizenship

4. 4 We need a clear sense of the outputs that a new Citizenship group would produce Within the broad themes identified there are important decisions on the precise type of model that would provide most benefit. The following slides set out three models with associated pros and cons and our initial recommendation. The models are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

5. 5 Model 1: Office of Citizenship This model would be based on the US Office of Citizenship. It would focus on: Enhancing information and educational opportunities provided to citizens and prospective citizens to support integration and participation in UK life. Promoting education and training on citizenship rights, privileges and responsibilities for immigrants interested in becoming citizens Promoting citizenship ceremonies and infusing events with greater meaning and stature. Give existing UKBA responsibility for processing citizenship application and for policy development on earned citizenship the new ‘Office’ could sit within UKBA producing a holistic approach to decision-making, policy, promotion and education on citizenship

6. 6 Office of Citizenship – pros and cons ProsCons Introduces new national focus for citizenship activity Potential risk of duplication or additional bureaucracy if responsibilities are not clear and distinct from other central and local government functions Powerful statement of importance attached by Government to citizenship issues Potential for protracted discussions on remit of group. CLG resisted calls for a national body to manage integration of new migrants on the basis that functions could be provided within existing structures. CLG will have concerns about interaction with their own Migration Directorate and its responsibilities for leading on the impacts of migration. Similar to established US model and broadly in line with Lord Goldsmith’s recommendation. We would need to identify additional resources in the business planning round

7. 7 Model 2: Advisory Group This would be an independent group, albeit with officials from key departments attending. It would be based broadly on the model of the Migration Advisory Committee. It would be charged with advising on citizenship-related issues with a particular remit to: Evaluate implementation of citizenship policies Proposing improvements and new measures Act as a vehicle to pressure test new policies Alert Government to wider practical and academic thinking on citizenship

8. 8 Advisory Group – pros and cons ProsCons Introduces a new independent body of experts to inform Government policies Potential for independent group to openly criticise Government policies raising potentially difficult handling issues Enables new policies to be pressure tested with key stakeholders in advance of publication and implementation – maximising awareness of operational and handling risks Success of group heavily dependent on appointment – and retention – of the most able in this field. A new Secretariat would be needed with associated costs that would need to be identified in the business planning round Model for this type of group is well establishedNeed to ensure very clear work programme to avoid drift while having facility to adapt to new citizenship issues as they arise.

9. 9 Model 3: Cross-Government Citizenship Co-ordination Group This model would focus on co-ordination of cross-Government activity on citizenship. It would be led either by Ministers or senior officials. Its expertise would be enhanced by the inclusion of a limited number of independent experts from the citizenship field. Its particular remit would be to: Develop a clear and coherent narrative on citizenship issues Synchronise policy development and publication of new policies Identify areas of research and best practice.

10. 10 Cross-Government Citizenship Co-ordination group – pros and cons ProsCons Would provide clear direction and co-ordination across Government maximising handling and resource opportunities. Risk of members of group being deflected onto other urgent areas of work with the risk of momentum being lost. Would provide a national focus in a way most likely to be agreed quickly by all departments. Given the range of work already underway in many departments this provides a way of harnessing expertise and instilling further momentum Absence of independent chair may lead to difficulty in agreeing key areas for discussion. Could be set up quickly at limited additional cost

11. 11 Recommendation – that we establish a cross-government Citizenship Co-ordination Group (model 3) Our initial view is that a cross-Government co-ordination group offers the most immediate benefits – particularly due to the speed of set-up and limited additional cost. Due to the range of work already being undertaken there is arguably less need for an independent body to be charged with taking forward work. There would be clear advantage in identifying a limited number of experts to attend specific meetings to test new ideas and offer an external perspective.

12. 12 Next steps If you are content we will work with the key other departments – CLG, MoJ and DIUS – to confirm: The specific remit The attendees Potential independent experts to attend as required The costs We would aim for the group to then meet for the first time in December.

13. 13 Annex A – Lord Goldsmith’s recommendation In his report ‘Citizenship: Our Common Bond’ Lord Goldsmith argued for an Office of Citizenship to provide “a national focus for citizenship that would bring together the key central Government functions related to citizenship, including the acquisition of citizenship and various activities to promote civic participation. He recommended the body would also: Help to support creation of local welcome centres/packs Commission and publish research on what works and ways to promote volunteering and participation Strengthen networks to facilitate sharing of best practice Provide local people with the sense of being part of a common project