A pre-entry test of people’s English language abilities is unfair, impractical, and potentially discriminatory, Ruth Grove-White of the Migrants’ Rights Network.
Ruth Grove-White is a policy officer at the Migrants’ Rights Network
This week the High Court is hearing a legal challenge to a new immigration rule, which requires people wanting to join their husband, wife or partner in the UK to pass an English test before they can come. The judicial review has been brought by three couples who are arguing they have been unfairly prevented from bringing their spouse here because of the rule, which came into effect on November 29th last year.
One of the appellants has reportedly told the Court the policy is deliberately aimed at keeping out people undergoing arranged marriages, and as such that it discriminates against people from the Indian subcontinent.
This case is a welcome legal challenge to this controversial new rule, and the opportunity to scrutinise whether it represents a breach of fundamental human rights.
Outside the courtroom, the judicial review has also proved to be an opportunity for a wider public debate about whether being able to speak English in the UK is a good thing or not. This is a no brainer: of course people living in the UK benefit from speaking the language.
They will find it easier to get a job, make friends and take part in their local community. People who speak English are in a better position to understand their rights and avoid exploitation. And for people coming here to join their husband, wife or partner, learning English is likely to be an important part of building a life in the UK and reducing their dependency on their other half.
But the real issue under scrutiny this week is when people coming here to join their loved one should have to prove they can speak English, and what support is given to them to do so.
Until last year, there was no English language test for people coming here on a spouse or partner visa from outside the European Union, until they applied for settlement after two years. This gave people wanting to live in the UK with their family time to learn English in an English-speaking environment, before passing a test to prove it.
But new regulations since last November follow a tougher example set by Denmark and the Netherlands. Since then the rules demand spouses and partners pass an English language test before coming to the UK.
Senior government ministers have speculated 10 per cent of visa applications would be refused as a result of the new regulation, apparently viewing this rule as making a contribution towards overall targets to reduce net migration levels. We have been arguing since last year that introducing a pre-entry test of people’s English language abilities is unfair, impractical, and potentially discriminatory.
At the most basic level, it just doesn’t make sense to demand people coming here to join their family speak a language of a country they may never have been to, rather than giving them a chance to learn it when they arrive.
Six months on, with this regulation coming under scrutiny in the courts, accounts we have heard from people indicate couples are already being split up as a result of the pre-entry language requirement. Official figures on this aren’t yet available, but people from a range of countries including Nicaragua, Ukraine and Turkey report real difficulties in taking the test, meaning they have been unnecessarily separated from their loved ones.
There is also a big argument about who this new requirement affects. The argument being put to the High Court is that this regulation disproportionately affects people wishing to bring foreign spouses here from India and Pakistan – an argument supported by figures on family migration which show the most common countries of origin for family migrants lie within the Indian subcontinent.
This sort of impact would be indefensible, whether or not it was intended by the government. But in addition, this new rule also affects plenty of other Brits with foreign partners. I spoke to a woman from Runcorn earlier this week who had experienced real problems bringing her Serbian husband here because of the language test – she was outraged the government was interfering in her ability to live with her husband.
Ultimately, the government says this new requirement is aimed at promoting integration. But what we have seen so far is it is already causing distress and resentment across Brits and migrant communities alike, and may be judged to fall foul of basic international human rights standards.
The government should think again.
41 Responses to “Pre-entry English tests are unfair, impractical and potentially discriminatory”
Jim
By the way the Tories go on citing America as an Example but under the system spouses are not restricted from living there its only when they become citizens is their both a language and constitutional knowledge test!
Anon E Mouse
Ruth Grove-White – Whilst I am certain that your motives in this matter are done for the right reasons I feel that yesterday your response to the ex-pat living in Spain was evasive and simply did not answer the valid points she raised.
For clarity would you mind explaining why the Spanish authorities are wrong when they provide translators at the individual needs cost instead of the Spanish taxpayer?
Secondly why should the NHS take much needed money from core health matters to spend on translation services for people in up to 17 different languages? Aren’t operations more important to people?
Well meaning bleeding heart liberals in this country fail to realise is that these types of issues play directly into the hands of the far right – ask John Cruddas or Tessa Jowell – because the average person here cannot understand why, or more importantly who, authorises the translations that cost our country £millions each year and by being privatised would increase employment massively.
If there is a single person reading this that believes it is better to spend money on translations in the NHS instead of treating people who are ill then I would suggest they just don’t get it. Like Leon Wolfson’s comments would indicate.
You heard that journalist who’s mother from Pakistan didn’t speak English despite being here for 30 years Ruth Grove-White and you heard the terrible effects it had had on her life and that evidence alone should have made the Migrant’s Rights Network revise it’s position.
Despite being presented with the evidence from a minority you claim to represent, you simply ignore it carry on regardless with your agenda and that arrogant position is not supported by the majority of normal people in this country. It will make people (unfairly) resent the very people you claim to represent and I would argue that if someone does not have the tenacity to learn to communicate with the population of the country in which they wish to reside, then they should be refused admission here.
If they went to Spain they would have to learn Spanish or pay for the translations themselves. Why is it that other European country isn’t breeching some stupid law formed elsewhere?
Richard
“Some inner cities in this country have become enclaves of immigrants of a particular type”
Like Knightsbridge and Mayfair.
Richard
“the translations that cost our country £millions each year and by being privatised would increase employment massively.”
Mickey Mouse’s ignorance on full display. The translations are already delivered by private companies contracted by the NHS, courts etc and carried out by privately employed translators like my partner.
Jane Ayres
Pre-entry English tests are unfair, impractical & potentially discriminatory: http://bit.ly/pgJ7XM by @Migrants_Rights' @RuthGWhite