What is really going on in politics?  Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A test that forces new migrants to speak English before coming to Britain has been deemed lawful by the Supreme Court. 

The government faced attacks over the Home Office language test after it was launched in 2010. 

It applies to all husbands, wives and civil partners of people already settled in the UK.  Previous rules said they could take the test two years after arriving. 

Two British wives said it would not be feasible for their foreign husbands to take the exam - which would involve them learning computer skills and travelling more than 70 miles. 

So they brought a human rights challenge which reached Britain's highest court. 

But yesterday judges said the test is right - despite being concerned a "significant" number of immigrants could have their human rights breached. 

(Image: PA)

The women's husbands, who cannot speak English, are foreign nationals and wish to join them in the UK, the court heard. 

Saiqa Bibi, who was born in Coventry and lives with her family in the West Midlands, and Saffana Ali both claimed the pre-entry measure breached their right to a private and family life. 

Mr Ali, a national of Yemen who lives in that country, has been described as having no formal education and there is no approved test centre in his country which provides English lessons to the required level. 

Mr Bibi is a resident of Pakistan and it was said the nearest approved test centres are 71 miles and 88 miles away. 

Both men would have to learn computer skills. 

Five justices in London announced the test itself is not “disproportionate”. 

(Image: PA)

But they said current guidance to entry clearance staff on how it should be operated could, in some cases, lead to the infringement of the right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

The court’s president, Lord Neuberger said: “It does appear virtually certain that there will be a significant number of cases where application of the guidance will lead to infringement of Article 8 rights .” 

Deputy president Lady Hale said the operation of the rule, in light of the present guidance, is “likely to be incompatible with the convention rights of a significant number of sponsors”. 

Lord Hodge said the guidance, “because of the narrowness of the exceptional circumstances for which it allows, may result in a significant number of cases in which people’s Article 8 rights will be breached”. 

He added: “To avoid that unfortunate outcome, the Government may need to take further steps toward providing opportunities for spouses and partners to meet the requirement, or may need to amend its guidance.”