- Immigrant Times
- Oct 16
- 4 min read
Updated: Oct 26
New immigrants face stricter English requirements than the UK-born workforce
Employers lobby for job-based language criteria rather than a one-size-fits-all rule
By The Immigrant Times
New UK immigration rules require Higher English proficiency than that of most native workers (Photo: Refugee and Migrant Centre, West Midlands)
October 2025: From January 2026, anyone applying for a UK Skilled Worker visa will need to prove English ability at B2 level, equivalent to an A-level standard (*). The move, the government says, will ‘strengthen integration’ and ‘ensure migrants can fully participate in British society’. But as employers brace for the consequences, one question hangs over the policy: why are immigrants now expected to demonstrate a higher command of English than many native speakers ever need to prove?
A higher bar for newcomers
Until now, applicants for most work visas had to show English at B1 level, roughly the equivalent of GCSE competence (*). B2, by contrast, demands fluency across all four skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. It is the level at which a person should be able to write clear essays, understand complex texts, and hold detailed discussions on abstract or technical topics. In other words, this is not ‘getting-by English, it is academic and professional. The new requirement places formal testing at a higher linguistic tier than is routinely demanded of many UK-born workers.
The impact on employers
For employers who sponsor overseas talent, the change brings significant new responsibilities. Recruiters will now have to verify that candidates can achieve B2 before issuing a Certificate of Sponsorship, effectively making English tests part of the hiring process.
Knock-on effects:
• Narrower talent pools – particularly in industries like health and social care, hospitality, and construction, where communication may be practical rather than academic.
• Longer timelines – visa applications could stall while candidates book Secure English Language Tests (SELTs) and await results.
• Higher costs – employers may face pressure to fund test fees or provide preparatory language support.
• More paperwork – verifying certificates and navigating transitional rules adds new layers of compliance.
For sectors already struggling to fill vacancies, the prospect of losing qualified candidates over language formality is worrying. “It’s not that our recruits can’t communicate,” one care-home operator told the Financial Times. “It’s that they might fail a test written for university students.”
Integration or exclusion?
The official rationale is clear enough: ensuring newcomers can integrate, participate in society, and communicate effectively in the workplace. Those are legitimate goals. Yet critics question whether a blanket B2 threshold is the best route to those outcomes. The policy makes no distinction between roles that require high-level written English (for instance, legal or managerial positions) and those that depend on practical interaction, such as nursing assistants, chefs, or technicians.
If the aim is integration, some ask, might support and training work better than restriction?
The comparison nobody talks about
Perhaps the most provocative question is one of fairness. Would every British worker pass a B2 test today? Evidence suggests not. Research by the National Literacy Trust shows that one in six adults in England struggles with literacy to the point of finding unfamiliar written material challenging. Under formal CEFR criteria, those individuals would likely fall below B2 in reading and writing.
In other words, a significant slice of the UK-educated population might not meet the same standard the government now demands from immigrants simply to enter the workforce. The result is a curious double standard: fluency is assumed for the native-born, but rigorously tested for the foreign-born.
One size fits all
The timing of the measure, amid heated debate over immigration levels, has led some analysts to see it less as a skills reform than as a political signal. Raising the bar on language makes for attractive headlines about ‘control’ and ‘quality’, even if its practical benefits are unproven.
Meanwhile, the change may deepen shortages in vital sectors and exclude precisely the kind of motivated, capable workers the economy needs. Employers are already considering responses: providing in-house English support, budgeting for test preparation, and lobbying for role-based language criteria rather than a one-size-fits-all rule.
Fazit
No one doubts that communication matters. But policies designed to promote clarity risk crossing into exclusion if they set thresholds detached from real-world need. Language proficiency is a spectrum, not a gate. The UK’s new requirement risks turning it into a wall — one that keeps out not the unqualified, but the merely untested. As one HR director put it: “It’s ironic. We’re telling the world they must speak better English than most of us ever learned.”
* GCSEs are a UK standard, but the equivalent qualification available globally is the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) or High School Diploma in the US. The UK A-levels correspond to Level 4 in the European Qualifications Framework. The US equivalent would be Advanced Placement (AP) courses.
Further reading: Teaching and training refugees in Europe || German employers discriminate against foreign-sounding names || Challenged by Reform UK, Labour moves to the right on immigration || Britain's political leaders deeply divided over immigration ||
COMMENTS
FOLLOW