UK border control. Photo: Wikimedia
Show Hide image

Scale of English language test fraud by migrants revealed

Today the government revealed the scale of fraud in English language certificates for migrants seeking student visas. The issue is likely to stoke further tensions over immigration.

More than 45,000 immigrants may have fraudulently obtained English language certificates despite being unable to speak the language, it emerged today.

The government admitted that evidence of criminal activity had been discovered during a probe into the student visa system. Almost 30,000 language certificates were found to be invalid, while a further 19,000 were deemed “questionable”.

Conservative immigration minister James Brokenshire announced in an urgent statement to the Commons today that the true sum could be even higher. 

David Hanson, Labour’s shadow Home Office minister, said the “systematic abuse on this government’s watch” was “astounding”.

Brokenshire said: "The government is not prepared to tolerate this abuse. Since the start of February immigration enforcement officers, with the support of the National Crime Agency, together with officials from UK Visas and Immigration, have been conducting a detailed and wide-ranging investigation into actions by organised criminals to falsify English language tests for student visa applicants.

"They've also investigated a number of colleges and universities for their failure to ensure that their students meet the criteria set out in immigration rules."

Each year, around 100,000 non-EU students get their visas to stay in the UK extended. 

The Coalition introduced English language tests for non-EU citizens who want to settle in Britain. The system has been undermined, however, by fraudsters selling fake English language certificates for £500.

The Home Office suspended the language tests used to award student visas run by examination firm ETS in February and launched an investigation into criminal activity.

The ability of migrants to the UK to speak the English language has become a hotly contested issue under the current government, as tensions around the scale of immigration to the UK have grown. Last month, the Conservative Culture Secretary Sajid Javid, who is the UK’s most senior Asian politician, waded into the debate by saying that migrants to Britain should be able to speak English.

He said: “I think it's perfectly reasonable for British people to say, ‘Look, if you're going to settle in Britain and make it your home you should learn the language of the country and you should respect its laws and its culture’.”

His remarks follow a controversial statement from Ukip leader Nigel Farage earlier this year, in which he said he had felt “awkward” and “uncomfortable” on a commuter train from London to Kent in which he could hear no passengers speaking English for several stops.

Lucy Fisher writes about politics and is the winner of the Anthony Howard Award 2013. She tweets @LOS_Fisher.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

The Women's March against Trump matters – but only if we keep fighting

We won’t win the battle for progressive ideas if we don’t battle in the first place.

Arron Banks, UKIP-funder, Brexit cheerleader and Gibraltar-based insurance salesman, took time out from Trump's inauguration to tweet me about my role in tomorrow's Women’s March Conservative values are in the ascendancy worldwide. Thankfully your values are finished. . . good”.

Just what about the idea of women and men marching for human rights causes such ill will? The sense it is somehow cheeky to say we will champion equality whoever is in office in America or around the world. After all, if progressives like me have lost the battle of ideas, what difference does it make whether we are marching, holding meetings or just moaning on the internet?

The only anti-democratic perspective is to argue that when someone has lost the argument they have to stop making one. When political parties lose elections they reflect, they listen, they learn but if they stand for something, they don’t disband. The same is true, now, for the broader context. We should not dismiss the necessity to learn, to listen, to reflect on the rise of Trump – or indeed reflect on the rise of the right in the UK  but reject the idea that we have to take a vow of silence if we want to win power again.

To march is not to ignore the challenges progressives face. It is to start to ask what are we prepared to do about it.

Historically, conservatives have had no such qualms about regrouping and remaining steadfast in the confidence they have something worth saying. In contrast, the left has always been good at absolving itself of the need to renew.

We spend our time seeking the perfect candidates, the perfect policy, the perfect campaign, as a precondition for action. It justifies doing nothing except sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the state of society.

We also seem to think that changing the world should be easier than reality suggests. The backlash we are now seeing against progressive policies was inevitable once we appeared to take these gains for granted and became arrogant and exclusive about the inevitability of our worldview. Our values demand the rebalancing of power, whether economic, social or cultural, and that means challenging those who currently have it. We may believe that a more equal world is one in which more will thrive, but that doesn’t mean those with entrenched privilege will give up their favoured status without a fight or that the public should express perpetual gratitude for our efforts via the ballot box either.  

Amongst the conferences, tweets and general rumblings there seem three schools of thought about what to do next. The first is Marxist  as in Groucho revisionism: to rise again we must water down our principles to accommodate where we believe the centre ground of politics to now be. Tone down our ideals in the hope that by such acquiescence we can eventually win back public support for our brand – if not our purpose. The very essence of a hollow victory.

The second is to stick to our guns and stick our heads in the sand, believing that eventually, when World War Three breaks out, the public will come grovelling back to us. To luxuriate in an unwillingness to see we are losing not just elected offices but the fight for our shared future.

But what if there really was a third way? It's not going to be easy, and it requires more than a hashtag or funny t-shirt. It’s about picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves down and starting to renew our call to arms in a way that makes sense for the modern world.

For the avoidance of doubt, if we march tomorrow and then go home satisfied we have made our point then we may as well not have marched at all. But if we march and continue to organise out of the networks we make, well, then that’s worth a Saturday in the cold. After all, we won’t win the battle of ideas, if we don’t battle.

We do have to change the way we work. We do have to have the courage not to live in our echo chambers alone. To go with respect and humility to debate and discuss the future of our communities and of our country.

And we have to come together to show there is a willingness not to ask a few brave souls to do that on their own. Not just at election times, but every day and in every corner of Britain, no matter how difficult it may feel.

Saturday is one part of that process of finding others willing not just to walk a mile with a placard, but to put in the hard yards to win the argument again for progressive values and vision. Maybe no one will show up. Maybe not many will keep going. But whilst there are folk with faith in each other, and in that alternative future, they’ll find a friend in me ready to work with them and will them on  and then Mr Banks really should be worried.