Concern has been mounting ever since the UK government first proposed that foreign spouses should demonstrate language conpetence before they join their partners
Under the UK's current immigration rules, foreign nationals who are in long-term relationships or are married to British citizens and who want to join their partners to live in the UK must prove that their union is genuine. From the autumn of 2010 they will also have to prove that they can speak English by taking a language test before they apply for their visas.
The Home Office, which has been developing this rule change since 2008, said that requiring spouses to demonstrate that they have a command of basic English will help them, as soon as they arrive in the country, to integrate into society quickly and get better paid jobs, while also reinforcing the government's message that all migrants to the UK must actively develop their language skills.
But language testers and teachers are concerned that the approach the government is taking relies too heavily on tests that could produce inconsistent results and will be difficult for some people to access.
One senior UK language testing expert called the proposals "very worrying" and has questioned the government's commitment to using language assessment that is fair for all.
The focus for concern is the use of more than 30 generic English language tests in the application process. This range of choice would appear to be an advantage for applicants, but very few of the tests at the required level are available outside the UK, where the new rules demand that they be taken, and many of those that are available are unsuitable because they assess specialist skills such as business or academic English.
As part of the "pre-application requirements for English language", spouses will be asked to demonstrate competence in spoken English at level A1 on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) languages scales (see page 5). This is equivalent to a basic or beginner's English and the CEFR's detailed descriptors set out what this level of competency encompasses.
According Charles Alderson, professor of applied linguistics at the University of Lancaster and a leading language test development specialist, only one internationally available and suitable test on the current list has been verified as corresponding to CEFR levels.
The Home Office explains on its website why it has chosen A1 in speaking only. "Speaking English is more important on arrival than reading and writing and would therefore provide immediate benefit for a spouse on arrival," it states, adding that spoken English is easier to demonstrate in a test than writing or reading skills.
"There are more informal ways of acquiring spoken English overseas, such as through conversation with a native speaker, which may lower the cost of learning compared to learning to read and write," it adds.
Yet Alderson is dismissive of the government's selection of tests that do not demonstrate full verification that their grades match CEFR scales. "The list is a joke. I am seriously shocked. I've never heard of most of the organisations providing them and I am reasonably well acquainted with language testing internationally," he said.
"Because visa application is a high-stakes process it is imperative that there is evidence of the validity and reliability of the tests that are recommended. I cannot believe that there is evidence for most of these tests."
Without that evidence there can be less certainty that a candidate who has passed a test will be able to function in English at the level the government says it wants, so undermining its claims for integration.
Others have concerns about the security of tests that spouses will take. Patricia Sullivan, spokeswoman for the National Association of Teachers of English and Community Languages (Natecla), the main representative of the Esol (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teaching sector in the UK, supports the decision to keep the language level low, but says that testing can be open to abuse.
Natecla is concerned that test fraud is a significant problem in the UK and that policing will be even harder to achieve internationally. "What bothers us is the level of monitoring of testing. Would candidates be doing these tests under proper exam conditions or might they be able to just get a certificate stamped to say they had done the test?" Sullivan asks.
The government estimates that between 11% and 20% of the 65,000 people expected to apply for spouses visa each year will be below A1. And many of those may find it difficult to access good quality language classes.
According to Home Office figures for 2007, spouses from South Asia were the biggest group applying for citizenship based on marriage, accounting for a quarter of the 30,000 applicants.
Partners from rural areas may lack experience of formal education, making study a daunting prospect. And in spite of the possibility of getting free language practice from passing tourists, some will find the cost of tuition and a test – up to $1,000 by Home Office estimates – an additional burden.
Nor will the new rules be cheap to implement. In an impact assessment published in July, the Home Office estimated costs over 10 years at up to $81m, with 60% of that likely to be spent processing additional appeals.
Sullivan says that money would be better spent on expanding provision of Esol in the UK. Spouses must wait 12 months after arrival before they can access subsidised language classes and the government says it does not intend to lift this bar, arguing that settled partners should fund lessons for their partners before arrival.
In its response, the Home Office said that it is satisfied that the tests it is currently accepting are sufficient to assess at A1, but that it expects English language teaching capacity to increase.
"We recognise that English language learning opportunities outside the UK might need to expand. That is why we have announced that we intend to introduce the pre-application language requirement for spouses from July 2011, to allow time for capacity overseas to grow to meet demand," a Home Office spokesman said.
The UK is not alone in introducing "pre-entry" language testing for spouses. In the Netherlands, migrants have been required to take a spoken-Dutch and knowledge-of-society test in their country of origin since 2006. Germany introduced a pre-entry language requirement in 2007 and France is in the process of rolling out an assessment and testing programme for family reunifcation visas.
Alderson says the Netherlands test is the only "respectable approach" to language testing for immigration that has been adopted internationally. "It is a specially designed test at A1, developed by respected and professional language testers," he said.
But the test, which was taken by computer at Dutch embassies by 15,300 in its first two and half years, has been branded discriminatory by Human Rights Watch. According to Massimiliano Spotti, a researcher at the Babylon centre for multicultural studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, it has created its own barriers to entry.
For the very poor the cost of the official preparation video and book can be high and some people lack basic computers skills needed to sit the test, he says. "The pass rate is very high, so most people taking the test gain entry. But we have to ask whether they pass because they have learnt Dutch, or because of their socio-cultural, socio-economic and educational background. The test itself is a pre-selection – not a selection based on language alone," said Spotti.
Alderson has no doubts about the UK government's motives for testing spouses. "A lot of tests are used for political purposes and this is a gate-keeping decision. The fact that they have selected A1 is good in one sense because it is the lowest recognised level, so it doesn't look like it's going to be a barrier. But for many people it will be.
"The government is following the popular notion that we should be keeping immigrants out."
Save this article