In part 1 we looked at Quila, the age-21 requirement on sponsoring foreign partners.
This part sees an analysis of the Chapti/Bibi hearing at Supreme Court, to do with the Home Office introducing a pre-entry language test.
This part sees an analysis of the Chapti/Bibi hearing at Supreme Court, to do with the Home Office introducing a pre-entry language test.
Bibi – if it ain’t
broke, why fix it?
25-26 February 2015
saw the case heard at the Supreme Court.
You can view the full webcast of the hearing online.
The case deals with
the issue of the rights of British citizens, settled persons and refugees to
make a reality of their married life with a person from abroad by living
together in the UK.
Since 1 October
2010, the Home Office has required foreign spouses pass an English language
test prior to coming to the UK. Previously language tests needed passing for permanent
residency and citizenship, which was only once the person was already in the
UK. Now the requirement is imposed on
those who simply want to enter the UK in order to live with their partner.
For some time,
there has been discussion around encouraging new arrivals to learn the local
language across Europe. The French and
Danish systems encourage learning the
language but do not imposing any prior conditions; entry is permitted so long
as the foreign partner takes lessons once in the country.
However, the UK
model resembles the Dutch and German ones, imposing a pre-entry condition,
which for the latter two are now the subject of investigation by European
Commission which considers such requirements to be contrary to the Family Reunification Directive (which UK
has opted out of). So why adopt Dutch
and German models? Encouraging is fine. But condition = barrier, which EC said
in its submission is unacceptable. Vast
majority of European countries have no such pre-entry condition – post-entry
yes!
Only since 1905 has
there been conditions on entry of foreigners and whilst the UK requirement is a
basic one, at Level 1, there were several arguments put forward by the Bibi
lawyers against such rules, main ones which I picked up as:
1) If
it ain’t broke why fix it?
Is interference
justified?
Previously, people for
the most part were passing the post-entry tests anyway – so is it reasonable to
keep out vast majority because of a tiny number who didn’t pass post-entry
tests?
Vast majority of consultation
responses were against a pre-entry requirement.
The government ignored this, citing self-selection (!) which suggests to
me that perhaps the SSHD had already decided to implement this policy, and
hence the consultation was in itself a farcical process, merely serving as a
tick-box exercise, rather than having any actual influence on the chosen policy.
The post-entry
test was found to be working, with Home Office's own Equality Impact Assessment
of October 2010 showing that in 2007 the number of spouses/partners failing the
post-entry test was 3,245; in 2008 the equivalent figure was 995, and in 2009
it fell again to 470. This suggests people
not passing a language test once in the UK has been declining sharply to a
‘miniscule’ number, thus not justifying the introduction of a pre-entry
test. Given there has also been a rise in the probationary
period from two to five years, the Bibi lawyers argued that chances of passing
the test are even higher now as entrants have even longer now to
reach the required level of English for settlement purposes.
HO claimed these
statistics – their own! - were so favourable for the appellant because the ESOL
test was a relatively easier test though this was countered by the Bibi lawyers
that then the government should have adopted another action to do something
about the simplicity of the test rather than impose a pre-entry requirement!
One of the judges
asked for statistics on how many people don’t sit the post-entry test once in
the country, instead perhaps choosing to extend their leave to remain. The Bibi lawyers pointed out that the onus
was on the government to provide this info in order to justify their departure
from the previous policy and that as the stats showed that the vast majority
are in fact passing the test after entry, how could the HO justify keeping out this
vast majority simply to guard against the possibility of a few not passing or sitting
the test? This represented a huge interference
with the rights of a large number of people when the potential problem is in
fact so small (i.e. people not sitting the test) that it hasn’t even been
quantified!
2) Level
1 is the same as that imposed on those who wish to come to the UK solely to work.
Therefore Home
Office is, in effect, equating family immigration with those who come here to
work, which is not what protecting family life is about.
Additionally, what
is the point of a requirement that is considered too basic to actually help
someone get a job; a level that would far more easily and quickly be reached in
the UK, with the support of the UK spouse and surrounded by the language.
The
expert witness, Dr Helena Wray, indicated that the pre-entry test is at such a
level that it is of very little value as a means of communicating with English
people in the United Kingdom: and that English is much more quickly and fully
mastered once a person is within the community where that language is in
everyday use.
However not all
those coming here will seek to settle here; they may well leave in a couple of
years.
3) What
drove the Home Office to impose a pre-entry requirement? The reason given by the Home Office is
integration, to help make lives of immigrations better – to help them speak to
neighbours, be part of civic society, get a job….
The Bibi lawyers
spent some time labouring this point, and I think it’s because it’s important
that the government is not saying (unlike their reasoning for the £18,600
financial requirement) that its justification for a pre-entry requirement is
because it has the right to control immigration or meet a net migration target etc.,
because then if such things are consequences of the requirement, then it’s
unintended and thus more scope for courts to intervene.
Lawyers insisted
that family life is not about coming here to work, especially when the family
migration rules also require the sponsor to be earning a level of money which
means the foreign spouse may not in fact even need to work! Bibi lawyers argued rules changed by stealth
given the pre-entry requirement, the £18,600 income requirement as well as the
increase in probationary period to ILR from two to five years.
Whilst the Court of
Appeal deemed the pre-entry requirement lawful, one judge did dissent, and
indicated that it did not seem sensible to make people from abroad go to the trouble
of learning English at centres which may be far away, representing obstacles to
obtaining the necessary tuition and testing, combined with a society where
there may be cultural and financial pressures, and when the UK sponsor would
need to be send money outside Britain to help their spouse learn English.
The lawyers
conceded that this action may see intelligible as a step against forced/sham
marriages or where someone comes here to work or study to we ensure they can
speak the language before coming in; but it is less acceptable in genuine cases
where the goal is supposedly to make the incoming partner’s life better.
However if the true
motive was integration, then as European parliament said, take in-country measures
to encourage people to take part in society.
4) Rules
result in discrimination: direct and indirect.
The pre-entry
requirement is not imposed on all foreign partners. There are exemptions for those who:
·
pass
an approved English language test with at
least CEFR level A1 in speaking and listening
·
having
an academic qualification that was taught in English and is recognised by UK
NARIC as being equivalent to a UK bachelor’s degree i.e. a degree
with no allowance for professional or vocational qualifications.
·
Are
a national of Antigua
and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica,
Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, New Zealand, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, USA
In court arguments were made to
the effect that the rules assumed all nationals from the exempted countries speak
English to a certain standard, with no allowance for the fact that some won’t
in fact speak any English at all e.g. those from the French speaking part of
Canada, or that % of people passing the post-entry test from India (not exempt)
is higher than the % of people passing the post-entry test from Jamaica (which
is exempt!).
The judges:
The judges asked
what the Bibi lawyers thought should happen to those who either don’t sit a
post-entry test or overstay their visa.
It was agreed that
applicants who choose not to sit the post-entry have the option to re-apply for
leave to remain as an extension of their existing visa, however this would mean
the applicant could not avail themselves of the benefits that come with ILR and
indeed, subsequent citizenship. What the
lawyers didn’t point out was however is that renewing the visa is very
expensive! I believe the judge here was
trying to ascertain that someone with three kids in the UK who after 5 years on
his/her spouse visa doesn’t pass the post-entry test is unlikely to be deported
because they will be able to just extend their leave to remain.
Bibi lawyers also
agreed that that those who overstayed their visa should be removed, but
prodding further on what-if scenarios of what should happen if overstayers had
children, agreed that the starting point should be removal but then cases
should be considered on their individual merits for discretionary leave.
Watch this space
for the arguments put forward by the Home Office in its attempt to justify the pre-entry
requirement.
