1-20 of 2,175 results for subject:Visas
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.275 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Visas
- We searched for
- subject_t:Visas OR subject_t:eVisas OR subject_ses:93429
Type
House
Session
More
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that visa-free travel is maintained between the UK and the EU for short visits to work in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that visa-free travel is maintained between the UK and the EU for short visits to work in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Whether the UK leaves the EU on 31 October 2019 with or without a deal, the Government has announced that EEA and Swiss citizens will be able to continue to travel to the UK until the end of 2020 without needing a visa.
From January 2021 we will introduce a new points-based immigration system. This will prioritise the skills and contributions people can make to the UK, rather than where they come from.
In a no deal scenario, there will be a transitional period before the new immigration system commences in 2021. The Government announced the details of these temporary immigration arrangements on 4 September 2019 and they are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-deal-immigration-arrangements-for-eu-citizens-moving-to-the-uk-after-brexit.
Law-abiding EEA and Swiss citizens moving to the UK after a no deal Brexit will still be able to live and work in the UK for a temporary period, but we will make it harder for serious criminals to enter the UK. Those new arrivals who wish to stay beyond the end of 2020 will need to apply for a UK immigration status. The Home Office will open a new immigration scheme – the European Temporary Leave to Remain Scheme – to provide a route to apply for this status. The online application process will be simple and free of charge. Subject to identity, security and criminality checks, successful applicants will be granted 36 months’ leave to remain in the UK. This will provide them with a bridge into the new immigration system.
EEA and Swiss citizens who are resident in the UK by exit on 31 October 2019 will remain eligible to apply for UK immigration status under the EU Settlement Scheme. They will have until at least 31 December 2020 to do so.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) lessons they have learnt, and (2) procedures they intend to change, following the reconsideration of the visa application by Dr Mu-Chun Chiang.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) lessons they have learnt, and (2) procedures they intend to change, following the reconsideration of the visa application by Dr Mu-Chun Chiang.
My Lords, I am pleased that the case of Dr Chiang was successfully resolved following the provision of new evidence by Dr Chiang and reconsideration by UK Visas and Immigration. UK Visas and Immigration continually utilises customer feedback and experiences to review processes and procedures with the aim of enhancing services.
My Lords, I am pleased that the case of Dr Chiang was successfully resolved following the provision of new evidence by Dr Chiang and reconsideration by UK Visas and Immigration. UK Visas and Immigration continually utilises customer feedback and experiences to review processes and procedures with the aim of enhancing services.
My Lords, I am pleased that the case of Dr Chiang was successfully resolved following the provision of new evidence by Dr Chiang and reconsideration by UK Visas and Immigration. UK Visas and Immigration continually utilises customer feedback and experiences to review processes and procedures with the aim of enhancing services.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) lessons they have learnt, and (2) procedures they intend to change, following the reconsideration of the visa application by Dr Mu-Chun Chiang.
My Lords, this was indeed an unusual case in that the Home Office gave in before the bitter end. About 20 years ago, I first came across immigration and nationality issues with the Home Office when a busload of asylum seekers was dumped on an industrial estate in Colne in the middle of the night. Experiences then—and, I am sorry to say, since then—have led me to believe that too much of the immigration and nationality section of the Home Office is riddled with what I would call bureaucratic incompetence tinged with institutional racism. Nothing has improved; in fact, it has got worse. Recently, the
co-chair of the Green Party suggested that the immigration and nationality functions should be separated off and made into a separate department, starting again based on a culture of efficiency and humanity. Is that something that the Minister will put forward to her colleagues for the Queen’s Speech?
My Lords, this was indeed an unusual case in that the Home Office gave in before the bitter end. About 20 years ago, I first came across immigration and nationality issues with the Home Office when a busload of asylum seekers was dumped on an industrial estate in Colne in the middle of the night. Experiences then—and, I am sorry to say, since then—have led me to believe that too much of the immigration and nationality section of the Home Office is riddled with what I would call bureaucratic incompetence tinged with institutional racism. Nothing has improved; in fact, it has got worse. Recently, the
co-chair of the Green Party suggested that the immigration and nationality functions should be separated off and made into a separate department, starting again based on a culture of efficiency and humanity. Is that something that the Minister will put forward to her colleagues for the Queen’s Speech?
On the noble Lord’s last point, about a culture that is far more humane, I would certainly totally subscribe to that, as would the Home Secretary. Regarding the balance between bureaucracy and subjectivity, it was the criticism of subjectivity that led to a much more objective way of determining applications. The noble Lord referred to a coach-load of asylum seekers 18 years ago; I am afraid that neither I nor the Conservative Party can answer for what happened 18 years ago. He also talked about the Home Office giving in before the bitter end; actually, the case was resolved quickly—not that I am in any way trying to defend the fact that it could have been resolved more quickly.
On the noble Lord’s last point, about a culture that is far more humane, I would certainly totally subscribe to that, as would the Home Secretary. Regarding the balance between bureaucracy and subjectivity, it was the criticism of subjectivity that led to a much more objective way of determining applications. The noble Lord referred to a coach-load of asylum seekers 18 years ago; I am afraid that neither I nor the Conservative Party can answer for what happened 18 years ago. He also talked about the Home Office giving in before the bitter end; actually, the case was resolved quickly—not that I am in any way trying to defend the fact that it could have been resolved more quickly.
On the noble Lord’s last point, about a culture that is far more humane, I would certainly totally subscribe to that, as would the Home Secretary. Regarding the balance between bureaucracy and subjectivity, it was the criticism of subjectivity that led to a much more objective way of determining applications. The noble Lord referred to a coach-load of asylum seekers 18 years ago; I am afraid that neither I nor the Conservative Party can answer for what happened 18 years ago. He also talked about the Home Office giving in before the bitter end; actually, the case was resolved quickly—not that I am in any way trying to defend the fact that it could have been resolved more quickly.
My Lords, this was indeed an unusual case in that the Home Office gave in before the bitter end. About 20 years ago, I first came across immigration and nationality issues with the Home Office when a busload of asylum seekers was dumped on an industrial estate in Colne in the middle of the night. Experiences then—and, I am sorry to say, since then—have led me to believe that too much of the immigration and nationality section of the Home Office is riddled with what I would call bureaucratic incompetence tinged with institutional racism. Nothing has improved; in fact, it has got worse. Recently, the
co-chair of the Green Party suggested that the immigration and nationality functions should be separated off and made into a separate department, starting again based on a culture of efficiency and humanity. Is that something that the Minister will put forward to her colleagues for the Queen’s Speech?
For a Government who think there is far too much red tape and what they describe as bureaucracy, it is revealing that, when it comes to dealing with work visa applications, rigid application of the very strict rules seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that the decision on Dr Chiang only got changed because there was a lot of adverse publicity about the actions of the Home Office and influential people took up the case. How many other decisions, of a similar kind to Dr Chiang’s, have already been taken and enforced by the Home Office under its now renamed hostile environment policy because the individuals adversely and unfairly affected were not able to get the necessary publicity and support of influential people to get the Home Office ruling changed? Do the Government know the answer to that question? Do they care about it?
For a Government who think there is far too much red tape and what they describe as bureaucracy, it is revealing that, when it comes to dealing with work visa applications, rigid application of the very strict rules seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that the decision on Dr Chiang only got changed because there was a lot of adverse publicity about the actions of the Home Office and influential people took up the case. How many other decisions, of a similar kind to Dr Chiang’s, have already been taken and enforced by the Home Office under its now renamed hostile environment policy because the individuals adversely and unfairly affected were not able to get the necessary publicity and support of influential people to get the Home Office ruling changed? Do the Government know the answer to that question? Do they care about it?
My Lords, we certainly do care. The issue was resolved very quickly, and it is not correct that it only got changed because people intervened. It got changed because new evidence that had been asked for was produced. The fact that we have a 98% grant rate for such applications is evidence of how many people successfully apply.
My Lords, we certainly do care. The issue was resolved very quickly, and it is not correct that it only got changed because people intervened. It got changed because new evidence that had been asked for was produced. The fact that we have a 98% grant rate for such applications is evidence of how many people successfully apply.
My Lords, we certainly do care. The issue was resolved very quickly, and it is not correct that it only got changed because people intervened. It got changed because new evidence that had been asked for was produced. The fact that we have a 98% grant rate for such applications is evidence of how many people successfully apply.
For a Government who think there is far too much red tape and what they describe as bureaucracy, it is revealing that, when it comes to dealing with work visa applications, rigid application of the very strict rules seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that the decision on Dr Chiang only got changed because there was a lot of adverse publicity about the actions of the Home Office and influential people took up the case. How many other decisions, of a similar kind to Dr Chiang’s, have already been taken and enforced by the Home Office under its now renamed hostile environment policy because the individuals adversely and unfairly affected were not able to get the necessary publicity and support of influential people to get the Home Office ruling changed? Do the Government know the answer to that question? Do they care about it?
My Lords, the Minister may recall that I wrote to her regarding a young Indian girl who wanted to come and spend Christmas with her relatives in Liverpool. She applied twice for a tourist visa and twice was turned down. The Minister kindly put me in touch with the relevant Home Office official, and it was found out that she had been turned down because there was an unexplained sum of money in her bank account—she was fully employed in India. The unexplained money was from her father to pay for her trip. I refer to what my noble friend Lord Greaves said: should officials not deal with these applications with a more sensitive and humanitarian touch?
My Lords, the Minister may recall that I wrote to her regarding a young Indian girl who wanted to come and spend Christmas with her relatives in Liverpool. She applied twice for a tourist visa and twice was turned down. The Minister kindly put me in touch with the relevant Home Office official, and it was found out that she had been turned down because there was an unexplained sum of money in her bank account—she was fully employed in India. The unexplained money was from her father to pay for her trip. I refer to what my noble friend Lord Greaves said: should officials not deal with these applications with a more sensitive and humanitarian touch?
I do; I agree. The case was resolved, which is good. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, 98% of these types of visas are granted.
I do; I agree. The case was resolved, which is good. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, 98% of these types of visas are granted.
I do; I agree. The case was resolved, which is good. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, 98% of these types of visas are granted.
My Lords, the Minister may recall that I wrote to her regarding a young Indian girl who wanted to come and spend Christmas with her relatives in Liverpool. She applied twice for a tourist visa and twice was turned down. The Minister kindly put me in touch with the relevant Home Office official, and it was found out that she had been turned down because there was an unexplained sum of money in her bank account—she was fully employed in India. The unexplained money was from her father to pay for her trip. I refer to what my noble friend Lord Greaves said: should officials not deal with these applications with a more sensitive and humanitarian touch?
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reason there was a delay in Omar Barghouti being informed of the approval of his visa to travel to the UK from the Occupied Palestinian Territories in September 2019 after that visa was approved.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reason there was a delay in Omar Barghouti being informed of the approval of his visa to travel to the UK from the Occupied Palestinian Territories in September 2019 after that visa was approved.
We do not routinely comment on individual cases.
Our service standard is to decide straightforward applications within 15 working days, although more complex cases take longer.
We routinely contact customers once it becomes apparent that we may not be able to resolve their application within the service standard.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will publish a response to EDM 2723 on Joint All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Visa Problems for African visitors to the UK.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will publish a response to EDM 2723 on Joint All Party Parliamentary Group Report on Visa Problems for African visitors to the UK.
The then Immigration Minister attended the launch of the report and agreed to respond to the APPG. A response is being prepared by officials and will be sent in due course.
Reclassification of Ministers of Religion under Immigration Rules
I rise to present a petition entitled, “Call to revoke the decision to reclassify Ministers of Religion under immigration rules” on behalf of the residents of Glasgow North East at St Augustine’s parish church, Milton, Glasgow.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of...
Reclassification of Ministers of Religion under Immigration Rules
I rise to present a petition entitled, “Call to revoke the decision to reclassify Ministers of Religion under immigration rules” on behalf of the residents of Glasgow North East at St Augustine’s parish church, Milton, Glasgow.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 2 July 2019 to Question 268421, if she will publish details of the Service Levels relating to the Next Generation Visa (NGOV) Services contract delivered by VFS Global.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 2 July 2019 to Question 268421, if she will publish details of the Service Levels relating to the Next Generation Visa (NGOV) Services contract delivered by VFS Global.
In line with the Government’s commitment to transparency, the Home Office has published the VFS Global Next Generation Visa (NGOV) contract schedules on Contracts Finder (part of gov.uk).
The Service Levels can be found in Schedule 7 of the contract. These Service Levels set out the criteria Home Office uses to assess the performance of VFS Global in handling visa and settlement applications
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will reconsider the £30,000 salary threshold for immigrant workers.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will reconsider the £30,000 salary threshold for immigrant workers.
On 24 June 2019, the Government asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to consider the operation of salary thresholds in the future immigration system, including the impact of exemptions from minimum salary thresholds.
The MAC is due to report by January 2020.
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what assessment he has made of the merits of visa-free travel between the UK and the EU for short work visits after the UK leaves the EU.
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what assessment he has made of the merits of visa-free travel between the UK and the EU for short work visits after the UK leaves the EU.
In a deal scenario, UK nationals and EU citizens will be able to travel to each others’ countries as now for the duration of an implementation period. We have said that we want to see visa-free arrangements for short term business visits as part of the future relationship, and will discuss how to facilitate the temporary mobility of self-employed professionals and employees providing services. The detail of this will be discussed in the next phase of negotiations.
The EU has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals visa-free travel to the EU for short stays after exit, even in a no deal scenario. This includes travel for purposes such as attending business meetings. Member States may require a visa if UK nationals intend to work and so UK nationals planning to undertake paid work in the EU should check with the Embassy of the countries they plan to travel to for what kind of visa or permit, if any, they will need. Further information can also be found on the FCO’s country-specific travel pages and on our advice pages for UK businesses on gov.uk.
On 5 September 2019, to provide certainty to businesses, HMG announced in a policy paper that in the event of a no deal exit, EU citizens coming to the UK will be able to visit and work as they do now (meaning they will not require a visa in advance of their arrival in the UK). The policy paper can be accessed at GOV.UK via this link.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-deal-immigration-arrangements-for-eu-citizens-moving-to-the-uk-after-brexit#future-immigration-system
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reasons non-dependent family members of people with Tier 1 (exceptional talent) visas can only apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years, given that the main applicant can apply on an accelerated route after three years.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reasons non-dependent family members of people with Tier 1 (exceptional talent) visas can only apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years, given that the main applicant can apply on an accelerated route after three years.
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what plans the Government has to negotiate visa free travel between the UK and EU for short leisure and business visits after the UK leaves the EU.
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what plans the Government has to negotiate visa free travel between the UK and EU for short leisure and business visits after the UK leaves the EU.
The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals visa-free travel for short stays of up to 90 days in any 180 day period - subject to reciprocity.
The Government has also said that we do not intend to require visas for tourists or short term business visitors from the European Union.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) spousal visas were issued and (b) individual family members were granted entry to the UK from Afghanistan to be reunited with a family member that served as an interpreter with the British Armed Forces (i) from 2012...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) spousal visas were issued and (b) individual family members were granted entry to the UK from Afghanistan to be reunited with a family member that served as an interpreter with the British Armed Forces (i) from 2012...