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”
Ed's Talking Balls
It’s a perversion of logic to argue that simply because we can’t do anything about immigrants within the EU, because we have surrendered sovereignty in this area, we shouldn’t do something about a situation which, thankfully, remains within our control.
Ed's Talking Balls
Privatised or not Richard, I have a simple question: do these services entail a cost to the state? Surely that’s what Anon E Mouse was driving at.
Anon E Mouse
Richard – You say: “The translations are already delivered by private companies contracted by the NHS, courts etc and carried out by privately employed translators like my partner”
That’s the point. DUH!
I can see that the vested interests are starting shrieking when THEIR financial situation may change. All they do in Spain is bill the person using the service and not the rest of us.
This is an English speaking country Richard and despite your selfish attitude in the I, Me, Mine (It’s a Beatles song btw) position you adopt, it’s the fact we do speak English that gives your partner his or her job.
The only difference is the bill isn’t paid by the NHS and that means more money can be spent on helping people’s clinical needs instead of lining your pockets to the detriment of others. You’d still get paid the same rate just from someone else.
When people are refused cancer drugs Richard to continue to pay you your mortgage I hope you sleep easily. The only difference in Spain is the people who need the service quite rightly pay for it and little children deprived of life saving operations don’t suffer so you can swan around the capital pouring out your usual selfish bile whilst sucking on the teat of the NHS.
You have a frankly disgusting attitude and thanks to selfish people like you the NHS is in the mess it’s in.
Well done Richard…
Ruth Grove-White
Thanks for your comments Anon E Mouse. My view is that the NHS was set up around the principle of helping people access healthcare at the point of need. Translation is essential for some people to make sure they get the care they need – and it is more cost-effective to treat people immediately it than to provide barriers (e.g. charge translation fees which some people may not be able to pay) and causing bigger (and more expensive) health problems later on. Plus migrants do pay taxes too…
Regarding the journalist on the radio show, we agreed that the rules have changed since her mother came here. If the mother came from Pakistan now she would have to pass an basic English test after two years which I think is reasonable. What is not reasonable would be testing her before she even arrived.
Anon E Mouse
Ruth Grove-White – We will agree to disagree I’m afraid.
I just think that it is a bonkers situation where the host country of the most widely used language in the world has to take money from it’s taxpayers to provide a benefit for others and actually takes that money from a clinical budget that is paid for to provide care for people who are ill.
It does not help cohesion when a fellow subject cannot converse without the use of a third party and I’m afraid I have to agree with this Labour Party policy from their days in government.
Thank’s for the reply anyway and you presented well yesterday…