Expecting immigrants to speak English is hypocritical
Britain has an appalling track record on languages, and new legislation will simply punish some of the world's poorest people
Daniel Trilling
Thursday 10 June 2010
A
nyone who hoped that the Lib Dems' presence in government would lead to a softening of the official rhetoric on immigration should give up just about now. Today, the Home Office announced that it is bringing forward to the autumn a piece of Labour legislation that will deny entry to people from outside the EU who marry British citizens but don't speak English. At first glance, this seems like an uncontroversial proposal: for immigrants to speak the UK's official language would, indeed, in the words of the home secretary, Theresa May, "help promote integration". But this new law, which requires a command of English to the level "of a five- to seven-year-old", will discriminate against some of the world's poorest people.
The law won't apply to EU citizens, so the people most likely to be affected – as the Home Office has acknowledged – are those coming from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. In these countries, the people least likely to know English, which is widely spoken among the countries' urban elites, are those who live in impoverished rural areas. The right to marry and establish a family is protected by the European convention on human rights, but the government is effectively telling Britons: you can marry who you like, as long as they're not poor and uneducated.
In any case, a new law is unnecessary because we already require immigrants to speak English. Those who marry UK citizens are given spousal visas, which are only valid for two years. After that they must pass a test on life and language in the UK before being given indefinite leave to remain.
If the coalition wants to ensure that new arrivals quickly integrate into British society then it should do something about the sharp decline in provision of adult education that took place under the last government. In 2007, free English (ESOL) lessons were abolished for those not on benefits, meaning that everyone, from cleaners on minimum wage to doctors and lawyers, now has to pay upwards of £900 for a full-time English course.
But the law, which the Home Office anticipates will lead to a drop of around 10% in visa applications, is less about "integration" than fulfilling the Conservative party's pre-election pledge to cap immigration. It is a particularly hypocritical way of achieving it, given Britain's appalling track record where learning other languages is concerned. Of the 900,000 Britons who live in Spain, how many speak reasonable Spanish? Do all of the 500,000 British people living in France speak French to "the level of a five- to seven-year-old"? Perhaps many of them simply follow the time-honoured tradition of Brits abroad by going red-faced in the sun as they slowly repeat "WHERE-IS-THE-NEAREST-TOILET" in increasingly loud and exasperated tones.
Again, this is a problem exacerbated by the previous government, which removed compulsory language GCSEs in 2004. Since then, the number of teenagers taking a modern language has plummeted, according to research published last month. The CBI has said that more than a third of British businesses recruit people with languages, but that they are forced to look abroad to meet this need.
This, and the immigration issue, raises questions about the role Britain wants to play in the world to come. In the face of economic uncertainty, does it pull up the drawbridge and flick two fingers at the foreigners, condemning itself to an isolated future? Or do we learn how to integrate with the majority of the planet, which does not speak English, and extend our solidarity to those caught up in the whirlwind of globalisation?
Daniel Trilling is the author of Lights in the Distance: Exile and Refuge at the Borders of Europe and Bloody Nasty People: the Rise of Britain’s Far Right
THE GUARDIAN
