I see that the Daily Wail has taken quotes out of context yet again. What the report
actually says is this:
"We consider a high estimate of the proportion of workers who are potentially insufficiently fluent as 0.4%. This is based on 2011 Census data for people over 16 and in employment within public administration, education and healthcare sectors, who report that English is not their main language
and they do not speak it well, or at all. This higher rate assumption would mean that ~7,400 employees (0.4% of 1.8m employees) in scope may not be able to meet the necessary levels of fluent English"
Someone who works as a cleaner in a school, council office or hospital could be classified by the 2011 census as working in education, public administration or healthcare. They've got no 'customer-facing' role (and don't need first-rate language skills) but they're still included in that figure of 7400 people (which the report acknowledges is at the upper end of the likely number of such people, with 5,500 being a preferred estimate).
The report recognises that:
"about 1.3 million in scope workers (in England only) are already subject to English language regulations; these include doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians"
and that:
"a large number of respondents across different professions informed us that they routinely assess candidates for customer-facing roles against oral and written communication skills, or similar, and although they did not set a specific language standard the majority expected few or none of their customer-facing staff would not be fluent to the necessary standard for their role"
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539780/final_impact_assessment_part_7_immigration_act_english_language_Requirements_for_Public_Sector_WorkersFinalversion.pdf