Over one million citizenship tests have been sat in the United Kingdom since its introduction in 2005 under a Labour government. About 180,000 people take the test each year and this number is likely to grow as it has become an integral part of British immigration policy supported by all three major parties.

The citizenship test matters for tens of thousands of people. I should know. As an American in the UK since 2001, I sat and passed the test in 2009 and earned citizenship in 2011. Unlike many other commentators on immigration and the test, I have taken the real thing and successfully immigrated first-hand.

The test was introduced by a Labour government and its origins can be found in early 2001. In the Denham Report, John Denham argues: ‘It is … essential to establish a greater sense of citizenship based on common principles that are shared by all sections of the community.’

This commitment to the idea of the citizen as sharing principles led to the creation of a special ‘Life in the UK Advisory Group’ established by David Blunkett the following year and chaired by his former university tutor, Bernard Crick. The group brought academics together with practitioners in a diverse assembly of experts that publicly consulted on how a new citizenship test should be forged. The first test appeared in 2005 followed by a second edition in 2007 and a third edition only last year.

The current test aimed to address a gap in the test’s coverage: British history. The criticism was somewhat unfair. The earlier test handbooks contained a brief narrative about British history, but much of this was left out of the test.

Instead, the test focused on demographic changes, such as knowing when different groups migrated to the UK, or government programmes. I agree with the government that the tests should have had a broader coverage of British history and culture – indeed, this is what I recommended they do when interviewed by BBC Radio 4 (from 23 minutes) as far back as October 2011.

The problem now is the coalition government took my advice too seriously. A few days after my interview was taped, David Cameron confirmed that the test would be reformed to include British history and culture the day Radio 4 aired it.

There’s certainly nothing wrong and everything right about including important elements of our shared narrative as British citizens on a citizenship test. The problem is the test has now become a bad pub quiz and unfit for purpose – as I argue in my report about the citizenship test, the only comprehensive report on the subject published. The test handbook has grown to 180 pages of about 3,000 facts and over 250 dates. The test itself is 24 questions taken over 45 minutes – applicants must correctly answer 18 or more questions to pass.

The earlier tests ran into some serious problems, largely because they quickly became outdated after publication. When I sat the test in 2009, one of my questions was about the number of MPs in Westminster. The correct answer for the test (646) was factually untrue (650): this was because 646 was accurate when the test was published, but not corrected when this changed to 650. This problem persists with the current test: it claims Margaret Thatcher is still alive. (For some Tories her haunting presence still looms large so maybe this is not a mistake in their view).

But these mistakes can be easily corrected. Not so with the many changes the coalition government made to the current test. One example is Sake Dean Mahomet, an important figure that few people I have met have heard of. The test requires applicants name his date of birth (1759), childhood home (Bengal), early career (Bengal army), first entry to the UK (1782), when he eloped (1786), who eloped to (Jane Daly), her nationality (Irish), when established Britain’s first curry house (1810), its name (Hindoostane Coffee House), on which street (George Street, London) and so on. The problem is not his inclusion which I welcome, but the amount of detail and how information is selected: Mahomet is the only non-royal in the 180 page citizenship handbook whose spouse is named. Why not for others, too?

The problems are more deep rooted. While the earlier tests might have tested people about practical trivia concerning migration changes and government programmes, the current test concerns the purely trivial. Gone is the requirement to know how to contact emergency services, report a crime or register with a GP.

Instead, new migrants are expected to know the approximate age of Big Ben’s clock and height of the London Eye. It is no wonder the test is regularly mocked as something most Britons would fail and not a true test of British citizenship in any reasonable sense.

The solution is not to scrap the test, but to design and deliver it much better. The Life in the UK test is a Labour reform embedded in immigration policy today. It is a battle won over one potentially useful restriction on migration that Labour should not walk away from. Nor is the answer to redesign the test to remove any mention of Shakespeare, Nelson or Henry VIII. The problem is not the inclusion of any history, but the selection and overabundanceof facts included.

It is clear that a new citizenship test is needed urgently. Something so important that affects tens of thousands of lives should not remain the mockery the Tories have created. The test is a Labour initiative that it should take ownership of again. Let us continue to commit ourselves to a test, but to a fair one.

It has been 10 years since the Life in the UK Advisory Group produced the first citizenship test handbook. Much has happened since from new migration patterns and greater public concern. Crucially, we have also now gained experience from administering a citizenship test over three editions. And yet there has not been any consultation with new British citizens to see how useful and effective the test was as a citizenship test.

Perhaps on the tenth anniversary of the group’s report it is now time to consider seriously a new endeavour bringing together experts with experience in this area to consult the evidence and the public about how immigration restrictions can and should be reformed – and how the test can better serve its current role in immigration policy.

——————————–

Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University and a candidate for the Progress strategy board. He runs his own website and tweets @thom_brooks

——————————–

Photo: Garry Knight