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”
Pegaz
I don’t think that it is unreasonable to provide a service that is needed to people who pay taxes. If we start looking how to make people pay for things that only a certain group needs why stop there, plenty of things that a welfare state offers are not essential or could be avoided…
Anon E Mouse
Pegaz – Those people aren’t British though. If I went to another country I wouldn’t expect them to pander to my minority status. Who would?
Why is it OK everywhere else in Europe that people who aren’t native to that country are accommodated?
I’m with the Labour Party who brought this in I’m afraid…
Leon Wolfson
@Mouse – Of course, I know your view: you can’t provide proper information to those dirty foreigners, who shouldn’t be in this country in the first place.
BNP party line.
It would cost a LOT more if someone was treated for the wrong thing and sued the NHS, quite apart from it being a typical right-wing attack on the principle of core NHS services being free.
@17 – Except the people are either taxpayers OR paying OR getting emergency care. Unless you think it’s fine for people to die rather than get care…even America doesn’t go that far.
Mouse is fine with that, of course, since they’re not the “right” nationality, but really? (Yes, they DO check if you need to pay for non-emergency care, and have for years – and you don’t get it until you’ve been paying taxes for some time as well)
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – Considering the pack of lies you constantly pour out on this site even I find myself surprised that you show such lack of understanding of how things function in this country yet still feel you need to comment here.
I never mentioned “dirty foreigners” you did. In fact your whole approach on this fine blog is to show your obsession with different races – you are inherently racist Wolfy and the likelihood of you being “ambushed” twice for being white by marauding gangs of the BNP is so improbable to be nonsensical. It is just a pack of lies Wolfy and you know it.
Onto your points Wolfster.
Are you now saying that the NHS is so useless that it can’t perform medical interventions without being able to converse with the individual? If someone has a broken leg then its obvious that is what’s wrong. Do the ambulance services refuse to treat someone is a road accident because they can’t speak to them? No of course they don’t. Grow up Wolfy.
Is Spain the person would simply take a relative or friend who could translate for them. Are you now saying this country is so helpless we couldn’t organise something that simple?
If it’s an illness that requires description, then the individual SHOULD SPEAK ENGLISH. If they are foreign they should be paying for the treatment anyway and so the translator should be paid for in that cost – not the taxpayers.
The only person here who seems content that they shouldn’t speak English is you Wolfster – the author isn’t. She just questions when it should be done and gives her reasons for that.
As for the NHS being free it isn’t. It has to be paid for taxpayers. DUH!
Still from someone like yourself who believes the Incredible Hulk is real did you imagine Jack dropped gold coins from his magic beanstalk into the government’s piggy bank?
Tell me why you think it’s acceptable for a medical budget to be diverted into providing free translations instead of treating people who are ill?
The clue is in the name Wolfy. The National HEALTH Service. Pay particular attention to the word HEALTH please 006 (or whichever secret agent you think you are this week) and stop commenting on this blog unless you have something valid to contribute to the discussion…
Leon Wolfson
Mouse – Yes, I’m pointing out the consequences of your BNP-party-line views. If you don’t want them held up to view, don’t support them. It’s really that simple. You have supported attacks on myself for being Jewish, for you to then claim that others are racist is a typically poor farce.
And of course you need to be able to communicate with people before they’re treated, even in most emergency situations. Calling for anything else is calling not to treat those people, of course. You have no concept of how medical treatment works, and are again simply following the BNP party line blindly.
And the NHS isn’t free? Okay, where’s the credit card you paid with NHS service last time you went to a GP or a hospital? Ideological attacks and bigotry from you, rather than engaging in even the slightest way on any issue.
Proving acceptable medical treatment means understanding what they’re saying. Period. You’re just calling for NHS treatments to be withheld from non-English speakers. Of course that’s unacceptable to you as a BNP member, who can’t even understand the very concept of equality and decency as constructive.