Immigrants must learn English, says David Cameron – while cutting funding for lessons

The Prime Minister’s speech indicates that he cares less about integration than about reaching out t

Hot on the heels of his controversial address on multiculturalism in Munich in February, David Cameron is set to deliver another hard-hitting speech, this one specifically on immigration.

He will criticise the "largest influx" ever of immigrants in British history and emphasise the need for immigrants to speak English:

Real integration takes time. That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.

There is rather a cruel irony in this, given that the government will be drastically cutting funding for English as a Second Language (Esol) courses from September this year.

Under new rules, free places will be limited to students who are on jobseeker's allowance or employment support allowance – benefits paid to those actively seeking work.

At present, people who receive other benefits, such as housing benefit, income support or tax credits are also eligible for free lessons. From September, this will no longer be the case. State funding for Esol courses within the workplace will also end, leaving employers to pay.

The Institute of Race Relations noted in December:

There is concern that these changes are being introduced with no evidence of prior consultation, and without any assessment of their impact on people from migrant communities.

It is widely acknowledged that English language proficiency is crucial to participation in the labour market, for accessing services, and to functioning independently in everyday life. In consequence, the effects of cutting language provision will be widely felt. Early local impact assessments indicate cuts in core provision of up to 50 per cent.

Newspaper reports of Cameron's speech have focused on a widening gulf in the language used by the two coalition parties on this subject (a senior Lib Dem has described the tone of the speech as "appalling"). However, this basic contradiction indicates that Cameron cares less about encouraging integration than reaching out to the core Conservative vote with hardline rhetoric ahead of the local elections.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The Fire Brigades Union reaffiliates to Labour - what does it mean?

Any union rejoining Labour will be welcomed by most in the party - but the impact on the party's internal politics will be smaller than you think.

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has voted to reaffiliate to the Labour party, in what is seen as a boost to Jeremy Corbyn. What does it mean for Labour’s internal politics?

Firstly, technically, the FBU has never affliated before as they are notionally part of the civil service - however, following the firefighters' strike in 2004, they decisively broke with Labour.

The main impact will be felt on the floor of Labour party conference. Although the FBU’s membership – at around 38,000 – is too small to have a material effect on the outcome of votes themselves, it will change the tenor of the motions put before party conference.

The FBU’s leadership is not only to the left of most unions in the Trades Union Congress (TUC), it is more inclined to bring motions relating to foreign affairs than other unions with similar politics (it is more internationalist in focus than, say, the PCS, another union that may affiliate due to Corbyn’s leadership). Motions on Israel/Palestine, the nuclear deterrent, and other issues, will find more support from FBU delegates than it has from other affiliated trade unions.

In terms of the balance of power between the affiliated unions themselves, the FBU’s re-entry into Labour politics is unlikely to be much of a gamechanger. Trade union positions, elected by trade union delegates at conference, are unlikely to be moved leftwards by the reaffiliation of the FBU. Unite, the GMB, Unison and Usdaw are all large enough to all-but-guarantee themselves a seat around the NEC. Community, a small centrist union, has already lost its place on the NEC in favour of the bakers’ union, which is more aligned to Tom Watson than Jeremy Corbyn.

Matt Wrack, the FBU’s General Secretary, will be a genuine ally to Corbyn and John McDonnell. Len McCluskey and Dave Prentis were both bounced into endorsing Corbyn by their executives and did so less than wholeheartedly. Tim Roache, the newly-elected General Secretary of the GMB, has publicly supported Corbyn but is seen as a more moderate voice at the TUC. Only Dave Ward of the Communication Workers’ Union, who lent staff and resources to both Corbyn’s campaign team and to the parliamentary staff of Corbyn and McDonnell, is truly on side.

The impact of reaffiliation may be felt more keenly in local parties. The FBU’s membership looks small in real terms compared Unite and Unison have memberships of over a million, while the GMB and Usdaw are around the half-a-million mark, but is much more impressive when you consider that there are just 48,000 firefighters in Britain. This may make them more likely to participate in internal elections than other affiliated trade unionists, just 60,000 of whom voted in the Labour leadership election in 2015. However, it is worth noting that it is statistically unlikely most firefighters are Corbynites - those that are will mostly have already joined themselves. The affiliation, while a morale boost for many in the Labour party, is unlikely to prove as significant to the direction of the party as the outcome of Unison’s general secretary election or the struggle for power at the top of Unite in 2018. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.