Compulsory English tests, exams on the British way of life, and an oath of allegiance - all part of proposals to reform our immigration system. Nick Morrison asks if this will benefit our multi-cultural society.

WHEN Tahir Khan first arrived in Britain, he knew two words of English - yes and no. More than 35 years later, he knows enough to have taught English to others. But it was not easy.

Now Home Secretary David Blunkett wants new immigrants to be able to demonstrate their proficiency in English before they can become UK citizens. But, despite his own problems in the past, it is a test Mr Khan sees as unnecessary.

"I started working in a factory, and, for the first two years, it was a great struggle," he says. "I had to communicate through my countrymen who had learned English.

"It was very difficult to learn English because I didn't have a basic understanding of the language. I had to get my own dictionary and I studied, because I didn't want to do a labouring job all my life. I learned up to a high standard and I have taught English in schools and colleges."

While immigrants coming to work in some professions, such as doctors, need to speak English, this does not apply to everyone, says Mr Khan, chairman of the Unity Multicultural Centre in Sunderland.

"If somebody is going to be working in a restaurant, washing dishes, it is not as important to learn English, because there may be less association with people who are English speakers," he says. "I can't see the point of it, and I think there is no need for it."

The English test will disadvantage immigrants who may be illiterate, after having little education in their home country, and stands in contrast to enthusiasm for learning languages displayed by British expatriates.

"If British people go to live in Spain, and they just want to live their luxury life and not get involved in running a business, it is up to them if they learn Spanish," he says. But he is in favour of another of Mr Blunkett's proposals - for new citizens to take an oath of allegiance to their adoptive country. "Any person must obey the rules and regulations of the land, I agree with that. I was born in Pakistan, but Britain feeds me and keeps me, and I must respect that."

But, for Surinder Dale, director of the Darlington and Durham County Racial Equality Council, Mr Blunkett's proposals are putting the blame for problems in helping immigrants to settle in Britain on the wrong shoulders.

'The first thing that any asylum seeker or refugee asks for is English classes. They are very keen, but there are not enough classes for them," she says. "It is very unfair, because this is blaming the victim.

"When people come here, they will see these tests as barriers between them being accepted by the community. We need to look at the problems a lot more, instead of blaming the victims."

And an attempt to shoehorn everyone into conforming to a narrow view of what being British is all about, runs the risk of destroying the way our society has been enriched by immigration, she says.

"The beauty of a multi-cultural society is the richness that every diverse community brings. What troubles me is that, despite Britain's history of being involved all over the world, this has not given the British public an understanding or an awareness of other cultures.

"I'm sure no asylum seeker would have a problem swearing allegiance to Britain, but to impose something is quite different. You can't sign a piece of paper and enforce something like this."

The debate over whether an integrated society is more harmonious than one where different cultures exist alongside each other has been gathering momentum in recent months. Reports following last summer's riots in Bradford suggested that single faith schools were part of the problem, in keeping apart youngsters from different backgrounds.

"David Blunkett has come down on the liberal view, saying that he wants to integrate, and saying if people want to work in this country they ought to speak a reasonable amount of English," says Professor Howard Elcock, honorary research fellow at the Social Sciences Research Centre at Northumbria University.

"But there is a question over whether that is the way a multi-cultural society works best. There might be all sorts of reasons why we want people to speak English, but we don't want them to stop speaking their own languages as well."

He says Mr Blunkett's proposals may be partly driven by the need to encourage well-qualified immigrants to come to Britain, to make up for our low birth rates. But the experience of the United States in the 1920s in trying to make immigrants conform was not a happy one.

"It took generations for it to work. The original immigrants didn't feel American, although their descendants did," Prof Elcock says. "In the short-term, I think this will create as many problems as it solves, if the American experience is anything to go by. It is a very long-term policy."

But new immigrants should have nothing to fear from a language test, according to Daoud Zaaroura, chief executive of the North of England Refugee Service. It is the oath of allegiance and exams on British culture which he feels are missing the point.

"I believe that learning English is essential. We're talking about people who would like to live in this country, and we need them to feel integrated and part of our wider community," he says. "If they want to feel that they can contribute and compete, they have to achieve a level of command of English, otherwise we would be living in segregated societies.

'It can't be a multi-cultural society if people aren't able to communicate in the same language. As far as the language is concerned, I think this is a positive step, that the Government is going to put some resources into helping people improve their English.

"Sometimes, there are people living and working here for 15-20 years without being able to speak English, and I don't believe that is helpful for their future. And their children will be coming home from school and looking for some support with their work, and the parents won't be able to give them support."

The problem with having an exam in British culture, and taking an oath of allegiance, is that this seems to assume you can feel British by learning about Britain, when this is clearly not the case, he says. "The best oath is for people to believe they are part of this country and feel they have duties. That won't be achieved through an exam, it will be only through a way of life, and feeling they are full citizens, and not second-class citizens.

"It is better to strengthen our race relations and community relations. Tests and exams are not the way forward. There are many people who pass their driving test, but still drink and drive.

"We need to look at what resources and support are provided to new arrivals, and what sort of help those at the stage of applying for British citizenship need to help them unlock their potential. If they feel they have something to give to this country, they feel they have duties as well."

Unless more help is provided for immigrants, there is a danger of widening the divisions, and creating a segregated, instead of a multi-cultural, society, he says. "At the moment, people are left to sink or swim. It is left up to their initiative as to how long it will take them to reach that level where they feel equal, regardless of the colour of their skin.

"We need to put something into the communities that are supporting them to be able to prevent segregation. I believe that is vital, but if it is just developing tests and exams, that is not the way forward at all."