Home Office Brushes Aside High Court Judgement On Student Visas:
On July 8th, the UK’s language schools won what appeared – at the time – to be a momentous and decisive victory against the UK Border Agency (UKBA). Mr Justice Foskett decreed that the increase from A1 (Elementary) to B1 (Intermediate) as the minimum level of English required for overseas students wishing to follow courses in Britain (brought in by the former Labour Government shortly before the General Election in May) should have first been “ fully and properly discussed in Parliament”. MPs, he indicated, must have the opportunity to debate, scrutinize and (if they so choose) to reject “material changes to immigration policy”. His decision was received with relief and elation throughout the country’s EFL (English As a Foreign Language) profession and by their supporters in the House Of Commons. The Liberal Democratic MP for Cambridge, Julian Huppert, was “absolutely delighted”. It was ridiculous, he declared, that students coming to Britain to study English were expected to already have a good grasp of the language. Now, following the outcome of the case, millions of pounds in tuition fees and thousands of jobs would be safeguarded. The Principal of the Cambridge Academy of English, John Barnett was equally enthusiastic about “the lifeline offered to compete with the rest of the world”. The UK, he told “Cambridge News”, had lost a lot of students to the US, Canada and Australia due to the imposition of a higher level of English. The negative effect would not go away overnight: “The hard work over the rest of the year is for us to convince our overseas partners that everything is back to normal”.
He did not expect UKBA to appeal the High Court decision. In that respect, he was correct. The Home Office, however, promptly made it clear that it was not prepared to concede defeat. Instead, it neatly side-stepped the judgement. As the “Free Movement” pressure group pointed out: “Why appeal when you can simply change the rules, after all?” Which is precisely what the Home Office proceeded to do. On Thursday 22nd July, a “Statement Of Changes in Immigration Rules” was laid before Parliament, clause 17 of which specified that for points to be awarded under the PBS (Points Based system), a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) issued by the ‘Sponsor’ (School or College) must confirm “that the applicant has a knowledge of English equivalent to level B1 of the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework for Language Learning (CEFR) or above. Furthermore, that the applicant would be required “to provide documents to support the Sponsor’s assessment of his/her knowledge of English”. The effect of this was – as bluntly asserted in the accompanying “Explanatory Memorandum” – to “restore the position taken before the High Court judgement was handed down”. English UK (the association representing 440 state and private language centres) were “very disappointed that the change had been made without them having had the chance to meet the new Immigration Minister, Damian Green”, who when in Opposition had been “very supportive” of their position. The reaction of some English UK members was: “Despair, but we’ll carry on fighting”. One Principal – who anticipated that their School’s enrolments for the autumn would be down 20%-25% and 15% for the whole of 2010 – urged colleagues to write to their MPs, enlist their help and “ at least force a debate in Parliament”.
An exclusive report on the front page of the latest edition of the “EL Gazette”, the profession’s newspaper) by Managing Editor Melanie Butler, has highlighted the fact that the rules were presented to Parliament just three days before the summer recess (July 27th – 6th September) and that it coincided with the peak time for student applications for courses for the next Academic Year. The method the Government has used (“which may be unlawful”), she emphasized’, “is to make it effective first and then give Parliament forty days (while they are sitting) to ‘pray against’ (oppose) it”. If that happens, the Government will have to amend it, ”but that won’t be until at least September.” Meanwhile, as she wrote in her article, thousands of students will be refused because they do not have the right language level or one of the qualifications for entry (TOEFL, IELTS, the Pearson Test of Academic English and Cambridge ESOL Exams) stipulated on the list which comes into force on 12th August. A press release by Pennington’s, the legal firm representing English UK, reflects the widespread concern at the Government’s decision to implement the change before Parliament has had an opportunity to consider whether such “sweeping measures” are either rational or proportionate. “Thousands of genuine students could be prevented from investing in the UK. This could lead to significant financial losses until the matter is resolved by Parliament”.
On 28th July, English UK announced that a meeting had taken place two days previously, attended by the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, UKBA Chief Executive Liz Homer, language school industry experts and MPs “representing constituencies where the local economy depends upon overseas students coming to the UK to learn English” – namely Liberal Democrats Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne), Adrian Sanders (Torbay), Julian Huppert (Cambridge), the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion), Labour’s Andrew Slaughter (Hammersmith) & Andrew Smith (Oxford East) plus Conservatives Simon Kirby ( Brighton Kemptown), Conor Burns ( Bournemouth West ) and Steve Brine (Winchester). English UK suggested that “the best indicator for English language students is that they reasonably recently completed high school education in their own country, equivalent to what we have here as Year 12,usually AS level”. The current regulations, they said “were damaging a successful business sector and were not supported by any evidence that students on lower-level courses were likelier to disappear or overstay”. They welcomed the UKBA offer “ to engage constructively in considering alternatives to the B1 rule”.