1-20 of 720 results for subject:Immigration
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.262 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Immigration
- We searched for
- subject_t:Immigration OR subject_t:"Indefinite leave to remain" OR subject_ses:91610
Type
House
Session
More
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what level of net migration was assumed in his Department's 2012-based household projections for England.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what level of net migration was assumed in his Department's 2012-based household projections for England.
The 2012-based household projections were based on the population projections published by the Office for National Statistics, which can be found at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/index.html
These are not a forecast of immigration, nor are they a target. They are derived from broad assumptions, based on previous trends. They do not take into account the impact of the Government’s clear and intended policies to ensure controlled immigration.
These include the reforms we have made to strengthen our border and improve the enforcement of our immigration laws. Since 2010, this Government has stripped more than 850 bogus colleges of their rights to sponsor foreign students; cracked down on illegal working and sham marriages; made it harder for people to live in the UK illegally by restricting their access to bank accounts, driving licences, and private housing; and reduced the number of appeal routes to stop people clogging up our courts with spurious attempts to remain in the country.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what arrangements her Department plans to put in place to deal after Dissolution with (a) deportation orders and (b) other immigration cases raised by hon. Members.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what arrangements her Department plans to put in place to deal after Dissolution with (a) deportation orders and (b) other immigration cases raised by hon. Members.
Following the dissolution of Parliament, the Government retains its responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge of their Departments. Deportation orders will therefore continue to be signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Correspondence relating to individual immigration cases will be accepted by the Home Office from all parliamentary candidates with written authorisation from the constituent. Candidates should submit their enquiries in writing.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the change in United Kingdom per capita gross domestic product that they would expect over the next five-year forecast period if net migration was at 165,000 a year.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the change in United Kingdom per capita gross domestic product that they would expect over the next five-year forecast period if net migration was at 165,000 a year.
The government does not forecast either UK GDP or GDP per capita. The independent OBR in the March 2015 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) used the central ONS migration population projection. The ONS central migration projection is for net migration of 165,000 a year in 2018/19 and 2019/20. In the March 2015 EFO the OBR forecast that UK GDP per capita for those aged 16 and over will increase by 9.2% total between 2014 and 2019.
In order to inform policy making, the government reviews and notes the wider evidence on the economic and productivity impacts of immigration on an ongoing basis. This evidence base includes the wider academic literature, and a range of reports commissioned or produced by the government looking at specific impacts, for example those produced by the independent Migration Advisory Committee. In addition, policies that influence migration are assessed using the government's impact assessment process which models the economic impact of the policy change using assumptions based on a range of evidence and the academic literature. Home Office Impact Assessments are published on gov.uk.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the practical impact on United Kingdom productivity of net migration of 165,000 per year over the next five years.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the practical impact on United Kingdom productivity of net migration of 165,000 per year over the next five years.
The government does not forecast either UK GDP or GDP per capita. The independent OBR in the March 2015 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) used the central ONS migration population projection. The ONS central migration projection is for net migration of 165,000 a year in 2018/19 and 2019/20. In the March 2015 EFO the OBR forecast that UK GDP per capita for those aged 16 and over will increase by 9.2% total between 2014 and 2019.
In order to inform policy making, the government reviews and notes the wider evidence on the economic and productivity impacts of immigration on an ongoing basis. This evidence base includes the wider academic literature, and a range of reports commissioned or produced by the government looking at specific impacts, for example those produced by the independent Migration Advisory Committee. In addition, policies that influence migration are assessed using the government's impact assessment process which models the economic impact of the policy change using assumptions based on a range of evidence and the academic literature. Home Office Impact Assessments are published on gov.uk.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what would be the percentage increase in the population of the United Kingdom if net migration were 165,000 per year over the next five years; and what is their estimate of the cost to additional public services and associated infrastructure required to meet the needs...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what would be the percentage increase in the population of the United Kingdom if net migration were 165,000 per year over the next five years; and what is their estimate of the cost to additional public services and associated infrastructure required to meet the needs...
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.
The Prime Minister will have plenty of time to ask questions after 7 May—and I am afraid to say that his own Office for Budget Responsibility has referred to
“a much sharper squeeze on real spending…than anything seen over the past five years”.
Next question, and this should be an easier one. Five years ago, the Prime Minister promised to cut net migration to tens of thousands. Straight answer to a straight question: is that a broken promise? Yes or no?
The Prime Minister will have plenty of time to ask questions after 7 May—and I am afraid to say that his own Office for Budget Responsibility has referred to
“a much sharper squeeze on real spending…than anything seen over the past five years”.
Next question, and this should be an easier one. Five years ago, the Prime Minister promised to cut net migration to tens of thousands. Straight answer to a straight question: is that a broken promise? Yes or no?
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a second chance. I answered a very simple question about VAT. I ruled out an increase. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again: will he rule out an increase in national insurance contributions?
We all know that this is Labour’s jobs tax. This is Labour’s tax of choice. This is what Labour clobbers working people, families and enterprises with. So let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again—straight question, straight answer—will he rule it out?
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a second chance. I answered a very simple question about VAT. I ruled out an increase. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again: will he rule out an increase in national insurance contributions?
We all know that this is Labour’s jobs tax. This is Labour’s tax of choice. This is what Labour clobbers working people, families and enterprises with. So let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again—straight question, straight answer—will he rule it out?
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a second chance. I answered a very simple question about VAT. I ruled out an increase. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again: will he rule out an increase in national insurance contributions?
We all know that this is Labour’s jobs tax. This is Labour’s tax of choice. This is what Labour clobbers working people, families and enterprises with. So let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again—straight question, straight answer—will he rule it out?
The Prime Minister will have plenty of time to ask questions after 7 May—and I am afraid to say that his own Office for Budget Responsibility has referred to
“a much sharper squeeze on real spending…than anything seen over the past five years”.
Next question, and this should be an easier one. Five years ago, the Prime Minister promised to cut net migration to tens of thousands. Straight answer to a straight question: is that a broken promise? Yes or no?
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many applications for (1) entry, and (2) asylum, the United Kingdom has granted on grounds of religious persecution in each of the last five years.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many applications for (1) entry, and (2) asylum, the United Kingdom has granted on grounds of religious persecution in each of the last five years.
There is no visa route available to apply to enter the UK on grounds of religious persecution, so no UK visas have been issued on these grounds. It is not possible to provide information regarding the number of people who have claimed asylum on the grounds of religious persecution, as information on the basis of a claim for asylum is not readily accessible.
The information requested in the noble Lord's question could only be obtained through a manual search of individual case files, which would only be achievable at a disproportionate cost.
What her policy is on the net migration target; and if she will make a statement.
What her policy is on the net migration target; and if she will make a statement.
Uncontrolled mass immigration increases pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes. That is why we are committed to reducing net migration. Where we can control immigration, our policies are working; we have reduced non-EU immigration, raised the standards required to come here and clamped down on abuse. Without our efforts, met migration would have been far higher.
What her policy is on the net migration target; and if she will make a statement.
What her policy is on the net migration target; and if she will make a statement.
Uncontrolled mass immigration increases pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes. That is why we are committed to reducing net migration. Where we can control immigration, our policies are working; we have reduced non-EU immigration, raised the standards required to come here and clamped down on abuse. Without our efforts, met migration would have been far higher.
Uncontrolled mass immigration increases pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes. That is why we are committed to reducing net migration. Where we can control immigration, our policies are working; we have reduced non-EU immigration, raised the standards required to come here and clamped down on abuse. Without our efforts, met migration would have been far higher.
Uncontrolled mass immigration increases pressure on public services and can drive down wages for people on low incomes. That is why we are committed to reducing net migration. Where we can control immigration, our policies are working; we have reduced non-EU immigration, raised the standards required to come here and clamped down on abuse. Without our efforts, met migration would have been far higher.
What her policy is on the net migration target; and if she will make a statement.
But net migration is much higher now than it was when the Conservatives came to power—54,000 higher. It now stands at more than 300,000, which is more than double their target. Is the Home Secretary trying to take the public for fools by suggesting that her party will repeat its broken promise to cut migration drastically?
But net migration is much higher now than it was when the Conservatives came to power—54,000 higher. It now stands at more than 300,000, which is more than double their target. Is the Home Secretary trying to take the public for fools by suggesting that her party will repeat its broken promise to cut migration drastically?
I have been very clear that of course we have not met the net migration target we set, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government have clamped down on abuse—860 bogus colleges can no longer bring in overseas students—and tightened every route into the UK from outside the EU, and we have set out clear plans for what a Conservative Government would do to deal with free movement. We on the Government Benches will take no lessons from a Labour party that allowed uncontrolled mass immigration.
I have been very clear that of course we have not met the net migration target we set, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government have clamped down on abuse—860 bogus colleges can no longer bring in overseas students—and tightened every route into the UK from outside the EU, and we have set out clear plans for what a Conservative Government would do to deal with free movement. We on the Government Benches will take no lessons from a Labour party that allowed uncontrolled mass immigration.
I have been very clear that of course we have not met the net migration target we set, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government have clamped down on abuse—860 bogus colleges can no longer bring in overseas students—and tightened every route into the UK from outside the EU, and we have set out clear plans for what a Conservative Government would do to deal with free movement. We on the Government Benches will take no lessons from a Labour party that allowed uncontrolled mass immigration.
But net migration is much higher now than it was when the Conservatives came to power—54,000 higher. It now stands at more than 300,000, which is more than double their target. Is the Home Secretary trying to take the public for fools by suggesting that her party will repeat its broken promise to cut migration drastically?
Contrary to that reply, is not the reality that the Home Secretary is leaving office with net migration higher than when she arrived, because it now stands at 298,000? She claims she has cut migration from outside the EU, and that is true: it is down from 196,000 to
190,000. Rather than all this waffle, why will she not finally admit that her record at the Home Office is one of complete failure in that area and a series of broken promises?
Contrary to that reply, is not the reality that the Home Secretary is leaving office with net migration higher than when she arrived, because it now stands at 298,000? She claims she has cut migration from outside the EU, and that is true: it is down from 196,000 to
190,000. Rather than all this waffle, why will she not finally admit that her record at the Home Office is one of complete failure in that area and a series of broken promises?
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), I fully accept that we have not met the net migration target that we set, but we have tightened every route into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union, and we have said clearly what a Conservative Government would do to deal with free movement from the European Union. I say once again that it ill behoves the Labour party to make such comments, because in government it presided over uncontrolled mass immigration that had the impact of keeping incomes at the lower end of the scale down and was identified by its own policy guru as a 21st century wages and incomes policy.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), I fully accept that we have not met the net migration target that we set, but we have tightened every route into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union, and we have said clearly what a Conservative Government would do to deal with free movement from the European Union. I say once again that it ill behoves the Labour party to make such comments, because in government it presided over uncontrolled mass immigration that had the impact of keeping incomes at the lower end of the scale down and was identified by its own policy guru as a 21st century wages and incomes policy.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), I fully accept that we have not met the net migration target that we set, but we have tightened every route into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union, and we have said clearly what a Conservative Government would do to deal with free movement from the European Union. I say once again that it ill behoves the Labour party to make such comments, because in government it presided over uncontrolled mass immigration that had the impact of keeping incomes at the lower end of the scale down and was identified by its own policy guru as a 21st century wages and incomes policy.
Contrary to that reply, is not the reality that the Home Secretary is leaving office with net migration higher than when she arrived, because it now stands at 298,000? She claims she has cut migration from outside the EU, and that is true: it is down from 196,000 to
190,000. Rather than all this waffle, why will she not finally admit that her record at the Home Office is one of complete failure in that area and a series of broken promises?
The public certainly want immigration to be properly controlled, and far better controlled than it is at the moment, but they also want some honestly about immigration. Is not the fact of the matter that while we remain in the EU with free movement of people we cannot guarantee how many people will come to this country, so we should not be making promises that we are in no position to keep? Is not the fact of the matter that we cannot control the number of people coming to this country while we remain in the EU?
The public certainly want immigration to be properly controlled, and far better controlled than it is at the moment, but they also want some honestly about immigration. Is not the fact of the matter that while we remain in the EU with free movement of people we cannot guarantee how many people will come to this country, so we should not be making promises that we are in no position to keep? Is not the fact of the matter that we cannot control the number of people coming to this country while we remain in the EU?
My hon. Friend is right to identify the significant increase in the number of people coming to this country from inside the European Union as the key reason we have failed to meet our net migration target. However, crucially, not only has the coalition already taken steps to tighten up on movement from inside the European Union—for example, by reducing access to benefits—but the Conservative party has clearly set out what we would do in government after the election to deal with free movement and tighten up further to reduce migration from inside the European Union.
My hon. Friend is right to identify the significant increase in the number of people coming to this country from inside the European Union as the key reason we have failed to meet our net migration target. However, crucially, not only has the coalition already taken steps to tighten up on movement from inside the European Union—for example, by reducing access to benefits—but the Conservative party has clearly set out what we would do in government after the election to deal with free movement and tighten up further to reduce migration from inside the European Union.
My hon. Friend is right to identify the significant increase in the number of people coming to this country from inside the European Union as the key reason we have failed to meet our net migration target. However, crucially, not only has the coalition already taken steps to tighten up on movement from inside the European Union—for example, by reducing access to benefits—but the Conservative party has clearly set out what we would do in government after the election to deal with free movement and tighten up further to reduce migration from inside the European Union.
The public certainly want immigration to be properly controlled, and far better controlled than it is at the moment, but they also want some honestly about immigration. Is not the fact of the matter that while we remain in the EU with free movement of people we cannot guarantee how many people will come to this country, so we should not be making promises that we are in no position to keep? Is not the fact of the matter that we cannot control the number of people coming to this country while we remain in the EU?
Does the Home Secretary recognise the sense of grievance felt by citizens of Commonwealth countries who for years have abided by the rules when trying to get into this country as immigrants, only to see EU citizens being able simply to walk in and out of the country at will?
Does the Home Secretary recognise the sense of grievance felt by citizens of Commonwealth countries who for years have abided by the rules when trying to get into this country as immigrants, only to see EU citizens being able simply to walk in and out of the country at will?
My hon. Friend makes a point about Commonwealth citizens, many of whom have come to the United Kingdom and contributed greatly. We are clear that we want to tighten the rules on people coming from inside the European Union, particularly in relation to the ability to claim benefits, which I believe will have an impact on the number of people coming here, but in order to do that we need a Conservative Government to be elected on 7 May.