Managing Migration: Points-Based System - Home Affairs Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by the Ministry Division of the Archbishop's Council of the Church of England

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  The points based system requires migrants who are ministers of religion and members of religious communities to prove they speak English more proficiently than any other migrants.

The churches entirely support the principle that all UK citizens and inhabitants must accept the constraints imposed by laws properly made. But it is hard to see that this rule is an effective or proportionate way to achieve any objective except to make it harder for many Christians and other perfectly benign ministers of religion to come here, and making it more difficult for the churches to maintain their ministry to indigenous congregations and to migrant communities.

On 14 January 2009 in a delegated legislation committee Labour and Conservative Members spoke strongly in favour of the requirement being changed.[61] The shadow Home Secretary said:

    "As (the Minister) knows, we are in favour of English language tests for those who come to this country permanently, so we do not want such tests brought into disrepute. It seems that with this part of the regulation, the Government are in danger of doing so".

1.  How exactly does the PBS impact on the churches?

  The new system requires all religious workers in Tier 2 to demonstrate a higher level of English language proficiency than any one else coming here has to. The Government's policy guidance says this is "because of the need to communicate with worshippers".[62] We are not entirely sure what this means in practical terms, but we will put difficulties of definition aside.

As well as setting the unwelcome precedent that the Borders Agency may decide what skills are needed for particular occupations, this rule threatens the churches' ability to provide effective ministry both to indigenous congregations and to communities originating from overseas; and it prevents members of religious orders (who do not generally need to `communicate with worshippers' in the sense we think is meant) living and working with their brothers and sisters in the UK.

2.  Is this a new rule?

  The Minister's position is that the higher language requirement is a legacy from the old system; an assertion we contend. The policy he refers to was only adopted in April 2007, following a perfunctory consultation, and reasoned protest from the churches. It was effected by introducing a basic requirement in 2004, then ratcheting up to a much higher level.

Nor was the policy broadly applied. It applied just to ministers of religion, at a time when there were several other routes available to religious workers. Furthermore, there was a caveat that `discretion could be applied where there was evidence that an individual spoke competent English'. Indeed, UKBA have been unable to provide us with evidence that the 2007 policy was ever applied in practice. On this wobbly pedestal the Agency has placed a sweeping rule for all religious workers, even members of contemplative religious communities—a rule that does not apply to doctors or nurses, engineers or teachers.

  We contend that there have been two changes in policy. Firstly, to apply a regulation that was not previously applied in practice. Secondly, to apply it to groups—such as members of religious orders—to whom it has not applied before.

3.  Difficulties with the language test

  We offer the particular example of a Korean novitiate. This young man speaks English fluently and is able to articulate fully his experience of university life in the United States, where he achieved an MSc in Psychology and Counselling, and a Masters in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Nevertheless, having taken the test last month, he failed to achieve the Agency's minimum score for religious workers, despite comfortably reaching the score that would qualify any other Tier 2 migrant. But because he wants to live in a religious order this is not good enough (in this case, he admits a reason for this may have been his struggle to understand some of the regional accents in the listening comprehension).

We suspect that there are many indigenous skilled workers who also might not pass this test.

4.  Is it right for UKBA to determine the level of English needed by religious workers?

  In January's debate in the Delegated Legislation Committee, addressing the anomaly of hovercraft engineers needing a lower standard of English than religious workers, Mr Woolas said:

    "The skills required for a position such as that of a hovercraft engineer would also be subject to test alongside the English language test. Someone who could not perform the task in that particular example of the hovercraft engineer would not be eligible under the points-based system, because of the skill requirement, and indirectly as a result of the language".

      We think the Minister's argument is sound, and that it holds too for ministers of religion. Any vocational language requirement, over and above that generally required of migrants to this country, ought to be a matter for the sponsor. If the Agency doubts a sponsor's ability to responsibly determine any appropriate additional language requirement it is open to the Agency not to issue that sponsor a licence.

      It has long been the tradition that the State does not interfere in the licensing of ministers or the conduct of worship, as long as there is no conflict with the general law. Even in the special case of the Church of England, there has been no attempt by the Government to interfere with worship since the rejection of the revised Prayer Book in 1928. This immigration policy, with its unfortunate impact on the churches, appears to mark a departure from that traditional relationship, and is an additional cause for concern on the part of the churches.

5.  The need for foreign-language ministry

  As Mr Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) (Lab) and Mr Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con) affirmed in the Commons Delegated Legislation Committee debate, ministry in languages other than English can be crucially important for churches whose membership is largely made up of migrants from non-EEA countries. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox community needs to be served by a priest who speaks Amharic and can officiate in Ge'ez, the liturgical language of the Church. Fluent English is no doubt desirable—but fluent Amharic is essential.

6.  What will the impact be on community cohesion?

  International exchange has always been a significant aspect of church life. Cross-cultural exchanges enable the churches to look outwards and meet their commitment to providing support for the integration of migrant groups, which in turn helps to foster cohesive communities. The Government rightly attaches enormous importance to the promotion of social cohesion; but a policy that makes it more difficult to minister to immigrant groups can only run counter to that objective.

8.  What have the churches done to make the Minister aware?

  Both Lord Avebury and the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds raised the question of the extremely high English language level when the House of Lords debated the immigration rules on 25 November 2008.[63] There was no adequate answer given at the time.

On the 11 December 2008 the Bishop, along with the Moderator of the Free Churches and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Southwark wrote to the Home Secretary raising their serious concerns and requesting an urgent meeting with the Minister for Borders and Immigration and the Minister for Communities and Local Government. To date they have had no reply. A copy of that letter is attached for your information.

  On 14 January 2009 in the Delegated Legislation Committee both Labour and Conservative Members spoke strongly in favour of the English Language requirement being changed.[64] The Minister assured the Committee that, "Reported problems, if they turn out to be real, are a result of implementation, not of policy, so it is incumbent upon me to give to the Committee the commitment that the issues will be addressed". Problems with implementation are real, but we have had no indication that they are being addressed.

RECOMMENDATION

  We recommend that the language requirement for Tier 2 religious workers be brought into line with the requirement for any other workers in that tier.

March 2009









61   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmgeneral/deleg5/090114/90114s01.htm Back

62   UKBA Tier 2 Policy Guidance //170 Back

63   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81125-0011.htm Back

64   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmgeneral/deleg5/090114/90114s01.htm Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 1 August 2009