Life in the UK Test

Sitting and passing the ‘Life in the UK Test’ is mandatory for the majority those applying for British citizenship or ‘indefinite leave to remain’ in the UK (those without sufficient language skills are required to pass an ESOL course). It was introduced in 2005 to ensure that settlers in the UK were both able to communicate with others and understood key facts and concepts about modern British society. It was hoped that this would promote integration and help ease any potential friction between the many different cultures that exist today in the UK, whilst encouraging newcomers to contribute to society. At the moment, applicants are allowed to fail the test as many times as they need to, providing they wait at least week in between tests and pay the fee each time they resit.

The test is notoriously difficult, with applicants required to commit to memory a wealth of facts, figures and statistics of varying degrees of relevance to day-to-day UK life. Statistics show that in 2009 just under a third of those taking the test failed, although these failed to show how many of these were first time or repeated tests. There was no official reason given for allowing applicants to sit the test as many times as needed. Perhaps it sends out a positive, welcoming message to would-be applicants. Or by making the questions difficult and drawing all the questions from government-produced material is it a case of money-spinning? Those applying for citizenship or settlement will already have spent many hundreds of pounds in application fees, what would a few more hurt?

There is little doubting that tighter immigration controls, such as the mandatory Life in the UK Test, were introduced to alleviate the burgeoning immigration levels that the UK has experienced in recent years. There seems little point then, in introducing the requirement of passing a difficult test, peppered with statistics to be committed to memory and regurgitated if the exam then becomes little more than a memory test, one which those who fail can take over and over again. Detractors could argue that this sends out a confused message to would-be immigrants, that the government is attempting to take a bold stance on immigration, without upsetting too many people – seeming to say, ‘We want to make it tougher for you to come here, but not that tough’. Indeed at times, the guide can seem more like a brochure promoting the benefits of British political correctness and multi-culturalism than the study material for a citizenship test. Perhaps the British authorities should look to Canada, which offers those who have failed the citizenship test the chance to undertake a brief interview with a specially appointed immigration judge. A more personal approach, with oral interaction and a chance to show off understanding and intelligence might prove a more appealing option than a banal computerised test, and might giver those applying a greater incentive to study and pass first time.