Tougher English Requirement?

[bangkockney]

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions:

"If you look at the figures for the number of people who are brought over as husbands and wives, particularly from the Indian sub-continent, we should be putting in place - and we will be putting in place - tougher rules to make sure they do learn English and so when they come, if they come, they can be more integrated into our country."

Here is the full BBC article.

Wouldn't be surprised if a raise in the English requirement was on the way. The Coalition has a lot to do if they are to achieve their pledge of cutting net migration to the tens of thousands. The description of level A2 does seem to fit Cameron's "integration".

How would you feel if the requirement went up by one difficulty level, to CEFR A2?

I doubt any kind of defence be mounted given a minimum requirement has already been introduced.

More to the point, the Coalition could well keep raising the minimum English requirement, like it has the cost of visa applications.

Perhaps the family route will be targeted in this way to cut numbers.

What do you think?

CEFR A1

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

CEFR A2

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

[7by7]

More to the point, the Coalition could well keep raising the minimum English requirement, like it has the cost of visa applications.

For reasons of political fairness it should be pointed out that this new language requirement was an idea of the previous Labour government, it would have happened whoever won the election. Also, Labour introduced new application fees and regularly imposed above inflation increases in all fees.

The Coalition is merely carrying on where Labour left off.

Having had time to reflect on this new language requirement, I have concluded that it can only be of benefit to the immigrant partner for them to be able to communicate effectively in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic, depending on where they live).

However, I feel that the KOL requirement for ILR covers this and that this new requirement is unnecessary.

I appreciate that there could well have been people continuously applying for FLR in order to evade having to satisfy KOL, but changing the rules so that anyone making a second FLR application would need to have satisfied KOL would eliminate this problem. I understand that Labour were looking at this, but dropped it in favour of the new requirement at the initial visa application stage.

[MAJIC]

It looks like slightly tougher Immigration Policies are on the way,from this Present UK Coalition Government .

Although we all have Wives or GFs,who may be already be in the UK,or will be one day,and no doubt I will be called a Hypocrite, or worse.

But the fact is the UK Immigration Policy needs a drastic overhaul. (which probably won't happen)You can get by in Thailand not speaking English, but not in England only speaking Thai. And we have the advantage of finances overcoming the language barrier.

The UK is only a small Island,and as an analogy,can be likened to a Ship, which can only cater for a set number of passengers,and must eventually, reach overcrowding limits.

The ridiculous part is there has never been any check (head count) on those leaving the UK,and those entering permanently,that is due to be changed in the near future,at the last count there was nigh on 500,000 stowaways,(illegal Immigrants)

The Immigration problem has needed to be addressed for many decades,and now with our extreme financial situation,is the time to be more like Thailand, and this Government has decided to put some small restrictive measures in place,before its too late (if not already)

Before the Ship Sinks.

But probably in reality, it will not be too harsh for genuine migrants.

Edited February 2, 2011 by MAJIC

[Eff1n2ret]

Having had time to reflect on this new language requirement, I have concluded that it can only be of benefit to the immigrant partner for them to be able to communicate effectively in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic, depending on where they live).

I agree with that. Whilst I hold no brief for UKBA or the politicians who put in place the new requirement, my impression is that the rationale behind it was to enable new immigrant partners to communicate and act independently of their sponsors. This was not necessarily favoured by sponsors in certain communities who used their partners' inability to exist independent of them as a means of control.

I have knowledge and experience of the so-called 'A1 Test'. My observation is that the majority of the candidates whose partners' first language is English can make a reasonable shot at the test. However, a few whose sponsors are Thais settled in the UK, and who presumably converse mainly in Thai, have a dreadful struggle even with the simpler parts of the test. Logic suggests that would-be applicants from, say, the Indian sub-continent, many of whom marry into the same ethnic communities in the UK, probably use very little English in speaking to their partners and are unlikely to be able to pass the test without a formal course of tuition. One wonders what effect that has already had on the level of applications from those countries.

There was talk before the test was implemented of a judicial challenge. The requirement for a test at the current level might be argued on the grounds outlined in my first para. However, if they raised the bar it would surely be seen as an overt attempt to reduce settlement applications, and I doubt that the courts would wear that. For that reason I would have thought that the imposition of a more difficult test is unlikely. However, these days who knows?

[7by7]

Eff1n2ret, you have hit the metal fastening directly upon its peak!

I think most people are aware that the (unstated) main reason for this measure, and the raising of the age for spouse, partner etc. applicants, was to try and protect the victims of forced marriage from being brought to the UK and kept under the complete control of their spouse and their (usually his) family. Most of these victims came from the subcontinent.

However, were these measures to be restricted to just applicants from one region they would, of course, fall at the first challenge; so they have to be applied to all applicants, no matter their nationality or where they apply. (Although applicants whose first language is English can obviously be exempt from the language requirement; and the UK government cannot impose these restrictions on those applying under the EEA regulations.)

Though as I said, I think that making it compulsory for those applying for FLR for a second time to have satisfied KOL would be a better way.

As for increasing the level required from A1 to A2, it needs to be remembered that the Prime Minister saying something in PMQs does not mean it will happen. As you say, we will have to wait and see.

[bangkockney]

Interesting replies so far.

First, no objection to the reasoning behind the introduction of the requirement. However, even native English speakers in abusive relationships can't or won't get help, so language really isn't the key factor.

More importantly, being of A1 standard does not allow one to communicate independently. It is the B levels that are defined as "independent".

One should also not forget that where there is the political will, anything can happen. Case in point is prisoners' right to vote, where the Coalition is giving serious credence to disobeying the EU Directive, at significant cost to the public purse.

There is also a lot of political noise about primary aged children entering school and not being able to speak English. There is a drive to make sure parents teach their children English. Tell me how someone of A1 standard can achieve this goal?

Given the Conservatives are in power (please no one say that the Lib Dems are a balancing force in the Coalition - one just needs to look at how quickly they agreed to reversing their pledge on tuition fee rises to know what influence they have - they could have negotiated much harder) one can expect new policies to tackle these kinds of issues.

I also do not think that a step change in the required English level could be argued as a cap: a cap would require a finite number to be declared, whereas raising the requirements does not put a ceiling on the number of visas granted.

Further, many lawyers said they would challenge the original introduction of the English requirement on human rights and grounds of discrimination. This has not happened. Neither has the continued rise in fees been challenged as an overt way to reduce settlement numbers. I'm doubtful that action in either scenario would be successful.

I also think they will increase the probation period before ILR and bring citizenship under the Points Based System.

[Basil B]

Bangkockney,

My GF can converse with me over the phone yet she says "My English is no good", she would be scared of taking the test whether it was A1 or A2, if you really want my view keep it at A1 for entry and introduce A2 into the KOL for ILR.

As stated these were remarks by David Cameron in PMQ, it was two weeks ago, has there been any other official statement on this?

Quote "Given the Conservatives are in power (please no one say that the Lib Dems are a balancing force in the Coalition - one just needs to look at how quickly they agreed to reversing their pledge on tuition fee rises to know what influence they have - they could have negotiated much harder) one can expect new policies to tackle these kinds of issues", this is just political propaganda and I do not think this is the right forum for political point scoring on British politics.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Basil B

[Thongkorn]

Maybe the Government should start concentrating on the people who are all ready here in the UK. Some have been here 10s of years and yet cannot speak English , and do not intend to live the British way of life, they converse through there children and only keep to there own community. But saying that there are English born children who's parents have lived in England all there lives and down through there generations, And still cannot read or write at all.Let alone speak the Queens English.

[Basil B]

England, I am sure you mean UK or Great Britain.

I do agree with you but where do we start, sure you want to take on Plaid Cymru.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Basil B

[7by7]

Given the Conservatives are in power (please no one say that the Lib Dems are a balancing force in the Coalition - one just needs to look at how quickly they agreed to reversing their pledge on tuition fee rises to know what influence they have - they could have negotiated much harder) one can expect new policies to tackle these kinds of issues.

this is just political propaganda and I do not think this is the right forum for political point scoring on British politics.

Well, one could argue that it is a political issue.

If bringing politics into it then it should be remembered that:-

It was Labour that introduced fees for ILR (and FLR) applications; the cost of which was previously included in the original settlement visa fee. Did they reduce that visa fee? No.

It was Labour that started to regularly increased fees for visas and LTR and citizenship way above inflation.

It was Labour that increased the probationary period for ILR from 12 months to 24.

It was Labour who introduced KOL, first for citizenship and then for ILR. I have nothing against this, it will eventually eliminate the problem Thongkorn mentions. However, they gave so little notice of it that thousands of people were forced to apply, and pay, for FLR instead of ILR because their current leave was due to expire and they simply did not have time to complete a course or even book a LitUK test.

It was Labour who devised the new A1 requirement and would have introduced it had they won the election.

Etc., etc.

Cameron and Clegg are merely carrying on where Blair and Brown left off.

[ELCata]

David Cameron has said too many children from immigrant families are not able to speak English when they start at school. The UK must go further to ensure those settling learn English "so they can be more integrated into our country".

Perhaps they should start by abolishing 'faith schools' that encourage isolation, are allowed to actively discriminate in their hiring & selection policies & are allowed to teach drivel such as creation 'science'.

This just smacks of yet another PR exercise to convince us that they are tough on 'immigration'.

They can't do anything about asylum seekers 'getters'. They can't do anything about EU accession country migrants. The key visa control to limit numbers to those that are needed has been abolished. We need the the strawberry & cockle pickers because we are too 'lazy' to do those jobs, or expend the effort lifting the huge coinage from our wallets to pay a fair price food. We need professionals such as nurses, although god only knows why, as these are highly(ish) paid jobs which can be secured with free education?

Illegal immigrants, strangely, don't fill out forms as they enter the country so can't be counted. Although Blunkett (who fast tracked his nanny's visa application / abused his position) once stated that there were 75 million NI numbers at a time when the UK population was 60 million. Any method to combat the problem would cost so much that the words 'false economy' would never be able to be used again.

That just leaves the little brown bunnies & their ilk, most of whom I know do work & integrate well. Those who don't work are supported by their docile little falang husbands anyway.