The government’s new White Paper, “Restoring Control over the Immigration System”, is the latest offering in attempts to reduce the scale of immigration. As with all other offerings, it talks a good game, but is unacceptably vague especially on details of the proposals or the target number of annual net migration.
Only the Technical Annex is prepared to put a number on this issue, but recognises the impacts will be seriously limited, conceding that it will reduce annual inflows by roughly 100,000. As has been pointed out, the vast majority of the British public thinks this should be the average net migration figure.
The only point at which the paper is clear on some detail is the revisions to language requirements, but these are piecemeal, and do little more than modify the existing rules.
What are the current requirements?
At the moment, visas are supposed to be issued with the expectation that the recipient can speak English to a certain level, depending on the visa route. Using what’s called the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR), most visas – the primary routes of which are the work, study, and family visas – require a B1 Level.
This is roughly equivalent to a GCSE in a language other than a native language. I’m sure if you think back to your O Level, GCE or GCSE days, you’ll remember how poor the typical fluency of GCSE passers can be.
For most work visas, considered Skilled Work Visas, this is the required standard; but for those on Temporary Work Visas, there are no language requirements. For comparison, in 2024, there were 613,627 visas issued for skilled workers, while there were 80,706 temporary workers, nearly double the 44,003 issued in 2014. Notably, compared to 2023, there was an increase in temporary workers visas and a decrease in skilled work visas.
Likewise, there is no language proficiency expectation for dependants. The neglect is shocking.
For Study Visas, there are two tiers: below degree level, which requires B1; and degree level or higher, which requires B2, apparently the same standard as an A Level in a language. However, the caveat is that the institution at which the visa holder is studying can conduct their own assessment.
For Family Visas, the requirement is remarkably low, at A1 Level. This is the lowest possible level, considered to be a “basic” grasp of the language, amounting to little more than being able to introduce yourself, and understand simple prompts. Given the rapid increase in family visas being granted – 86,049 in 2024, compared to 34,852 a decade earlier – this is a serious point of concern.
What changes are being proposed?
You would expect, given the low proficiency required and the importance of speaking the language of the native population, that the reforms proposed would be substantial. Not so. The key changes amount to raising the requirements for skilled work visas (but not temporary workers) from B1 to B2; requiring that dependants have an A1 level of skill, the same as family visas, with an expectation to “increase this requirement over time”; and to extend visas, at least an A2 skill level must be proved.
If anyone who holds a visa – for what it’s worth – wants to settle permanently, they will need to prove a B2 skill level.
There is no mention of any attempt to assess the proficiency level of study visa holders. This may seem logical, given that to hold a study visa at all the recipient needs to prove they can converse at A Level. At least, in theory. In reality, as the Technical Annex to the paper proves, there is no attempt to currently audit the actual proficiency of international students, only the proficiency of dependants, which is shockingly low: a majority of Chinese students, who are the largest cohort of foreign students, cannot speak English “very well”.
What is the likely impact of these changes?
These changes are not going to result in any real changes to our immigration numbers.
Given there is an extensive list of 18 countries already who do not need to prove any English proficiency (see the appendix), and these changes are intended to apply to routes that only have a pre-existing requirement, that hamstrings attempts at the outset. Granted, these nations are primarily Anglosphere nations, but this exemption is a hangover from an era when annual net migration was a quarter of its current scale.
When it comes to the work visa, the scale of applications and the pressure to process them clearly means the assessment of their language skills will fall by the wayside, and, if the increase in temporary workers becomes a trend that continues, then the language requirements for workers is clearly not going to be enforced to the extent it currently is, as poorly as that might be.
Similarly, the absence of any attempt to audit the proficiency of study visa holders or impose central government tests on that proficiency shows how lacklustre these proposals are. Study visas are the largest source of immigration in recent years, buoyed by the government setting an artificial goal of at least 600,000 foreign students a year.
Most importantly, however, is the total absence of any net migration target. As Lord Green put it, putting a goal in place is the only way to prove to the public that the government is serious about tackling immigration.
Appendix – list of countries
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Australia
- the Bahamas
- Barbados
- Belize
- the British overseas territories
- Canada
- Dominica
- Grenada
- Guyana
- Jamaica
- Malta
- New Zealand
- St Kitts and Nevis
- St Lucia
- St Vincent and the Grenadines
- Trinidad and Tobago
- USA