Language schools in Great Britain have traditionally provided millions of students from abroad with the opportunity to come to the United Kingdom to learn the English language. Almost invariably these students have returned home with at least a reasonable working knowledge of the language, having enriched their lives and having been able to pass on to their friends and colleagues a very positive image of Britain and its culture. How sad, therefore, that our present inept government seems hell-bent on destroying this important industry by virtually forcing all schools offering English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to become accredited through the British Council, and pay a high price for the privilege.

I suppose the government's idea was to weed out what have been colloquially called "visa factories": those schools that popped up, mainly in London, to rip off naive students by offering low cost, almost non-existent - or very limited - full-time courses in exchange for valid student visas.

However, it seems to me that the UK’s language schools, which are highly beneficial and profitable to the British economy, will gradually disappear. The reason being that in order to request accreditation from the British Council a school must have students who are already enrolled and attending classes. Yet potential students will certainly steer clear of any school that does not already have BC accreditation. Catch 22: no students; no accreditation. No accreditation; no students. Therefore, no school.

Surely the government could easily have devised a much simpler method of control that would not only have allowed but even encouraged the setting up of new schools? They could, for example, have created an advisory body where people who wished to open schools would be able to register and find useful information and practical help. In my experience, dedicated people who open language schools do have the students' best interests at heart, and although there may sometimes be teething troubles, very soon these schools progress to offering courses of a reasonable to excellent standard - even if only to survive in the tough commercial world. And as for the language schools set up by those whose only wish is to make a quick buck by offering little except cheap student visas - they could be quickly brought to heel or closed down by the introduction of inspectors, in much the same way as poor hygiene is controlled in the catering industry.

A final nail in the language schools' coffin may come through yet another piece of new legislation. The "Au Pair Scheme" has been replaced by something called the "Youth Mobility Scheme" (this title conjures up for me the image of young people sliding around town on skateboards!) The latter scheme states that people can only be au pairs if they are from the European Union, or from a very tiny selection of other countries. Young people from areas such as Latin America and Asia are no longer eligible to become au pairs and enter the UK - thus further restricting the number and range of possible students coming into the country.

All this will also have a negative effect on employment and profitable spin-offs. For example, many thousands of TEFL jobs are at risk; the lucrative sales of EFL books by British authors will slowly decline; the demand for student accommodation will decrease. Furthermore, as our EFL industry loses its shine, the teaching of English in other countries will increase at our expense.

But worst of all, the UK will lose much of the enormous goodwill now generated by students from all over the world who have enjoyed their British experience and who go back home to tell all their compatriots how great their UK sabbatical has been.

Alas, this new accreditation scheme is a particularly unwieldy sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut!

Mike Mills.