When Reform UK say they want migrants to integrate, but at the same time propose slashing English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) funding, they undermine their own stated goal. You cannot have integration without communication.
Integration is more than assimilation. It is a two-way process – a relationship between newcomers and the communities they join. It is about language, yes, but also about building trust, participating in civic life and contributing to the economy.
If we remove the single most important tool for this – language education – we risk creating isolated communities, mistrust, and greater division, exactly the opposite of what Reform say they want.
The Home Office’s own 2019 Indicators of Integration Framework identifies language and communication as key facilitators of integration. People who learn English are more likely to find work, volunteer, and build relationships outside their immediate community.
The 2011 Census shows that 89 per cent of the UK’s foreign-born population already speak English well or very well – proof that most migrants are willing and able to learn. The real barrier is access.
Integration is not about one group changing while the other stands still – it is a mutual process. When we provide language education, we equip migrants to participate and at the same time strengthen communities by enabling real dialogue, reducing tensions, and fostering shared understanding.
And yet, ESOL provision in England is already stretched thin. Funding dropped from £247 million in 2010/11 to £186 million in 2023/24 – a 25 per cent reduction in real terms – despite sustained demand.
In 2022/23, 150,000 places were funded, the highest in a decade, but concentrated in just a few large cities and nowhere near enough to meet need. Cutting further will simply lock more people out of the system.
Further cuts would mean classes shut down at colleges such as WM College, waiting lists getting longer, and people who desperately want to learn English being told there is no space for them.
It would mean skilled professionals – nurses, engineers, care workers – being unable to retrain and fill labour market shortages because their English is not strong enough. It would mean parents being unable to support their children’s education because they cannot read school letters or talk to teachers.
It would mean neighbours who cannot talk to one another, breeding misunderstanding and fear.
The economic cost would also be significant. ESOL is not just a social good – it is an economic investment. People who speak English are more likely to work, earn more, and pay more tax. They are less likely to rely on benefits. Cutting ESOL may save money on paper, but it will create greater demand for welfare, health services and housing support down the line.
Research from the Learning and Work Institute shows that every£1 invested in ESOL returns multiple pounds to the economy through higher productivity and tax contributions. Cutting ESOL is therefore a false economy that undermines growth at a time when the UK needs skilled, work-ready people more than ever.
Reform’s proposals also assume local authorities could simply “opt out” of providing ESOL. In reality, ESOL funding comes largely through the adult education budget, commissioned nationally by the government (or by combined authorities where powers are devolved).
Councils can influence provision, but removing it altogether would create huge service gaps and put them in breach of statutory duties to support community cohesion. It would also risk tension with employers who depend on skilled migrant labour but need workers who can speak English.
Integration policy in England is already patchy compared with Scotland, which has had a national ESOL strategy since 2007. The current fragmented approach is failing to deliver for learners or for society.
The European Commission has long emphasised that language programmes are central to successful integration, and countries like Sweden offer comprehensive packages including language, civic education, and job preparation as standard. England should be looking to strengthen its offer – not dismantle it.
Language learning is not a luxury.It is not something people can simply pick up on an app like Duolingo. It is a human right, a civic necessity, and a key to unlocking social mobility. As the author Khaled Hosseini wrote, “If culture was a house, then language was the key to the front door, [and] to all the rooms inside.”
The message is simple: integration cannot happen without language. And language cannot be learned without access to culturally supported education. Integration done well benefits all.
Your thoughts