NRPF Network — Written evidence (FAM0047)    

1              Background

1.1       The NRPF Network, hosted by Islington Council, provides advice and guidance to local authorities across the UK about statutory support for people who are excluded from mainstream benefits and housing assistance.

1.2       The NRPF Network operates the NRPF Connect database in partnership with the Home Office, with subscribing local authorities using the system to monitor caseloads, obtain immigration information and inform case-resolution approaches. NRPF Connect is a voluntary service and the collective data provided in this submission reflects local authority experiences and pressures.

2              Summary

2.1       Local authorities play a key role in averting destitution by providing accommodation and financial support to families with no recourse to public funds.

2.2       Families with NRPF supported under social services’ legislation usually leave support because they have been granted leave to remain on family and private life grounds, but the ‘10-year-route’ to settlement includes imposition of the NRPF condition and high renewal fees which negatively impacts on future financial stability.

2.3       A plethora of Immigration pathways for different groups of people cause delivery challenges for local government when entitlement to services vary, funding is ring-fenced for specific responses and some residents remain at greater risk of homelessness and destitution as a result.

2.4       Ensuring access to public services, supporting integration and making sure that emergency support is available to all low-income households, regardless of their immigration status, is essential to reducing poverty and helping prevent families from reaching crisis point.

3              How does immigration law define a “family” and a “relative”? How have these definitions evolved over time? Are they consistent across immigration pathways? Do they reflect contemporary societal understandings of “family” and “relative”, in the UK and overseas?

3.1       This question does not fall within the expertise of the NRPF Network.

4              Does immigration law apply to every family the same? Do different rules apply to different circumstances? Are rules applied consistently in similar circumstances? What are the justifications for discrepancies? How do “mainstream” immigration pathways compare with “bespoke” ones introduced in response to geopolitical and refugee crises and how do the bespoke pathways compare with each other?

4.1       Local authorities have a range of responsibilities to people on very different immigration pathways, including operating refugee resettlement schemes such as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP), supporting hosts and refugees through the Homes for Ukraine response and being the corporate parent for unaccompanied children who have yet to obtain immigration status in the UK.

4.2       The focus in this submission are the families who have ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) and are provided with housing and financial support by local authorities under statutory safeguarding duties to prevent homelessness and alleviate destitution[1]. For immigration purposes, ‘public funds’ are limited to most benefits and housing assistance.

4.3       The families supported by local authorities under social services’ legislation represent a diverse group in terms of their immigration status, the majority will leave social services’ support following a grant of leave to remain with recourse to public funds. 

4.4       The main applicant (parent’s) immigration status was recorded by the Home Office for 1,576 of the family households receiving support at the end of March 2022, as follows: 

4.4.1.1           41 per cent had no current immigration permission, including visa overstayers 

4.4.1.2           20 per cent had an EEA immigration status or EEA nationality

4.4.1.3           15 per cent had leave to remain with recourse to public funds and are likely to be in the process of transferring to mainstream benefits and housing services  

4.4.1.4           14 per cent had an asylum claim recorded 

4.4.1.5           9 per cent had leave to remain subject to the ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ (NRPF) condition 

4.5       Data from NRPF Connect also demonstrated that of the 1,650 family households receiving support at the end of March 2022:

4.5.1.1           593 dependants were recorded as British citizens, making up 24 per cent of the total number of dependants.

4.5.1.2           425 households had at least one British dependant in the household, representing 26 per cent of all family households financially supported.

4.6       In 2,872 of the family households that requested or were referred for support between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022:

4.6.1.1           1,148 dependants were recorded as British citizens, making up 22 per cent of the total number of dependants.

4.6.1.2           725 households had at least one British dependant in the household, representing 24 per cent of all family households referred.

4.7       Data from NRPF Connect from 69 local authorities also showed that:

4.7.1.1           the average number of days councils supported families was 619

4.7.1.2           The average annual cost in accommodation and subsistence spend per family case was £17,155.20

4.7.1.3           79 per cent for family households left council support due to a grant of leave to remain, enabling them to access mainstream benefits and housing, and/or employment.

4.7.1.4           24 per cent of ‘unresolved / non EEA’ family and adult households have been supported for over 1000 days

4.8       Families exiting social services support having made applications for leave to remain under the immigration rules on family and private live grounds[2] are placed on the 10-year route to settlement, a settlement route that includes the following conditions:

4.8.1                   Leave must be renewed every 2.5 years at the cost of £2608 per person (£1048 application fee + £1560 Immigration Health Charge) over the 10-year period, people who are unable to afford the fee can apply for a fee waiver[3].

4.8.2                   Imposition of the NRPF condition, but with a Change of Condition process[4] available to allow recourse to public funds if people’s circumstances change and they are destitute or at risk of destitution.

4.9       Despite fee waivers and Change of Conditions processes being available, the 10-year route remains a very challenging pathway to settlement and one that compares less favourably to the 5-year route (e.g. for skilled workers or Hong Kong BN (O) visa holders) or to other bespoke schemes such as the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) which provides, for example, settled status on arrival and the right to apply for British Citizenship after 5 years.

4.10  The negative impact of the 10-year route to settlement on a child’s welfare has been well documented in the recent House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee ‘Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds’ Inquiry. Recommendation 4 of the Work and Pensions Committee’s report was for the government to significantly reduce the period for which children may be subjected to the NRPF condition. It was recommended that parents of children on settlement routes should be given access to public funds after a maximum period of five years. Despite the evidence provided, the government does not intend to make any changes to the 10-year route, as explained in the formal response to the committee:

‘…As stated in our response to your letter dated 26 January, there are no plans to shorten the maximum period of time spent subject to NRPF for families with children. Those migrating to the UK are generally expected to maintain and support themselves and any accompanying family without reliance on the UK’s welfare system. The requirement to be self-sufficient at the point of entry is a way of ensuring they are prepared for life in the UK, so that their own welfare is catered for, and finite taxpayer funded benefits are protected. The majority of those seeking permanent residence accept and adhere to these requirements and qualify for settlement after five years. Overall, the Government thinks it is right to distinguish them from those who require the additional support of public funds. This keeps the fundamental aims in sight and maintains fairness and confidence in our immigration system.’[5]

4.11  A similar response was also provided to the NRPF Network’s 2020/2021 data report and recommendations which included a call for an end to the imposition of the NRPF condition:

‘The Government has no plans to end the imposition of the NRPF condition.

It is a well-established principle that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without reliance on the welfare system. Successive governments have taken the view that access to benefits and other publicly funded services should reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, only become available to migrants when they have become settled here with indefinite leave to remain (ILR).

These restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy designed to avoid excessive demands upon the UK’s finite resources, protect public funds for long-term residents with a strong connection to UK, and reassure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK. Applying the NRPF condition to those with a temporary immigration status is a standard means of pursuing these legitimate objectives.’ [6]

4.12  It is evident from past dialogue with government that there are purposeful discrepancies between different immigration pathways, with routes to settlement delayed and more costly for some groups compared to others. Bespoke re-settlement or visa schemes for specific crises tend to allow immediate settlement rights in the UK, or at least full access to employment and public funds for a limited period, whilst other routes do not.

5              Does the financial requirement for spouses and partners (also known as “minimum income requirement”) achieve its objectives? How could the requirement, and the process of demonstrating it is met, achieve them better? How could it be adapted to reflect changes in the economy and the labour market? Are there any unintended consequences for individuals and families?

5.1       Families supported by social services’ departments typically make applications for leave to remain on family and private life grounds, the majority are then successful in obtaining leave and are placed on a 10-year route to settlement[7]. Even when the 10-year period is completed and the advantages of settlement can be enjoyed, families on this route will be at a considerable financial disadvantage having either paid the high fees to achieve settlement[8] or because they have remained on low income and have relied instead on fee waivers. Payment of fees and minimum earnings / savings thresholds place greatest emphasis on proving self-sufficiency at time of application and entry to the UK which may inhibit, or underestimate, the future earning attainment of families over the longer-term. Income and savings thresholds certainly do not stop local authorities and community organisations from having to assist people who are at greater risk of destitution and homelessness as a consequence of immigration policies.

5.2       The rise in proportion of families with European Economic Area (EEA) nationality or European residence rights who were provided with support to 20 per cent of all family households supported may be attributed to changes following the end of free movement in the UK.  Local authorities are concerned that EEA nationals entering the UK from the 1 January 2021 onwards will be at risk of becoming unlawfully present if they enter the UK without the correct permission, fail to comply with certain visa conditions, or do not leave the UK after entry when 6-months deemed visitor leave expires. People granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) for five years also risk losing entitlements if they fail to apply for settled status, another unintended consequence should people not follow the right immigration process. 

6              What are the fiscal and economic impacts of family migration policies, for instance in respect of the labour market, recruitment, productivity, and innovation?

6.1       Families with no recourse to public funds are supported by local authorities under social services’ legislation for on average 619 days before leaving social services’ support, families have typically been in the UK without immigration status for many years and face exclusion from mainstream services and employment during this time.

6.2       When families are granted leave to remain and are on a route to settlement, local authorities do not believe that the imposition of the NRPF condition (either when leave is granted or when leave is extended) is the best way to support their future integration or the development needs of children. Having access to the benefit system would provide financial stability whilst families transition into independence through employment. Full access to services is the accepted approach taken for refugees on resettlement programmes and Ukraine nationals entering on family or sponsor visa to help integration.

6.3       The government position that ‘migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without reliance on the welfare system’[9] overlooks the years spent living in the UK without entitlement to services for people who subsequently achieve status on family and private life grounds. It is difficult to see how individual productivity and wealth creation for this group is being promoted because of the negative impact of lengthy routes to settlement and high fees.

7              What is the impact of family migration policies on public services?

7.1       The NRPF Network welcomes recent changes made by the government to create a more inclusive approach to accessing services, namely: 

7.1.1                   The permanent extension of eligibility for free school meals in England to include children in all families with no recourse to public funds

7.1.2                   The government’s decision following the consultation on free early education for 2 year olds with NRPF to extend the 15 hours per-week free early education entitlement to all disadvantaged families.

7.2       Such changes go some-way to ensuring that people who might not be able to access public funds can still benefit from services that can help people achieve self-sufficiency through employment and meet the development needs of children.

7.3       It is regrettable, however, that there are still discrepancies in support entitlement for people with NRPF or who are unable to claim benefits; discretionary welfare payments made by a local authority in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland remains classified as a ‘public fund’ for immigration purposes and other cost of living support assistance (e.g. cold weather payment and winter fuel payment) are also either being classed as public funds or only available if people are in receipt of benefits. Of all the cost-of-living measures introduced by the government, only the Energy Bills Support Scheme is accessible for families with NRPF. Immigration requirements relating to Further Education funding based on immigration status and length of residence in the UK will also disadvantage people who are otherwise benefiting from family migration policies to live in the UK.

7.4       It is complex and expensive for public services to operate different eligibility criteria for people with different immigration statuses and entitlements, removing barriers to accessing public services offers administrative advantages for providers whilst helping people to remain self-sufficient even at times of national crisis.

8              What is the impact of family migration policies on local authorities?

8.1       As of the 31 March 2022, 69 local authorities using NRPF Connect were supporting 1,650 family households and 2903 dependants at the cost of £28,308,855 per annum.

8.2       Each family requiring social services support will cost the local authority at least £29,093 in accommodation and subsistence expenditure from start date of service and until resolution is achieved. 79 per cent if families leave support because LTR with recourse to public funds is granted and mainstream employment and benefit services are accessed.

8.3       The 2020/21 NRPF Connect data report recommended that the government uses the comprehensive spending review process to understand and provide financial reimbursement to councils when people with NRPF are provided with accommodation and financial support. The government’s response was to refer to existing funding-streams for local government which should be used when fulfilling statutory duties to prevent destitution and alleviate homelessness, a position that will unlikely change even as continuing costs are incurred.

8.4       When unaccompanied children who are in local authority care reach 18 years of age, children’s services are required to continue to provide accommodation and financial support up-until the age of 21 or 25 (if the young person is in education or training). Data from NRPF Connect indicates that as of 31 March 2022, 890 care leavers were being supported with accommodation and subsistence at a cost of £19,416,543 per annum. Average spend per care leaver on accommodation and subsistence expenditure is £21,816.34 per household, or £420 per week. Providing accommodation and subsistence support to care leavers who remain ‘subject to immigration control’ post 18 years of age will greatly exceed the £270 per week Home Office grant for care leavers who were formerly UASC, no grant funding is available for other leaving care groups who have NRPF.

8.5       New pressures for local government are being encountered because of the Home Office’s increasing use of asylum contingency hotels and failure to secure suitable accommodation in the private rented sector for asylum seekers. The 2021-2022 Asylum Dispersal Grant provided £250 per asylum seeker in Home Office supported asylum seeker accommodation as of 27 March 2022. The 2022-2023 Asylum Dispersal Grant will make available £3500 per new occupied bedspace opened between 28 March 2022 and 31 March 2023. Administration of the asylum support system is the responsibility of the Home Office and contracted delivery partners, but impact on local authority services remain significant and costly. Time spent responding to age assessments, completing statutory assessment of needs, or helping to improve the health and wellbeing of people accommodated remains only partially funded.

8.6       Other bespoke schemes that offer grant funding for local government, education and health services are briefly set out below for illustrative purposes and focus on per-person grant funding:

8.6.1                   Hong Kong (BN) O Visa holders – funding of up to £800 per adult to support access to English language classes. Funding for a local authority of up to £2,720 per household for destitution support if financial assistance is required whilst Change of Conditions application are determined. Other funding awards are provided under the Hong Kong British Nationals (overseas) welcome programme. 

8.6.2                   Homes for Ukraine sponsorship visa route – £10,500 per person resettlement grant for one year after arrival, £3,000 per pupil for early years provision, £6,580 per pupil for primary education and £8,755 per pupil for secondary education. No funding or additional support is available for Ukraine nationals entering through the family visa route. 

8.6.3                   Afghan Resettlement – ACRS / ARAP- £20,500 per person resettlement grant for three years after arrival, £4,500 education grant for pupils aged 5-18, £2,250 education grant for children aged 3-4, £850 per person for ESOL. A per person grant of £2,600 is also ringfenced for healthcare provision.

8.7       The overall impact of family migration policies and related funding streams on local government is to create a disparate array of entitlement and support, with ring-fenced funding schemes creating inconsistencies in approach between people on different immigration pathways. Local authorities will remain reluctant to participate in support for ‘priority groups’ or other government-led initiatives when some areas of provision remain significantly underfunded.

8.8       Local government financial pressures coupled with a national housing and cost-of-living crisis is likely to be a contributing factor to the high number of Afghan evacuees who sadly remain in bridging hotels post evacuation form Afghanistan in August and September 2021, with offers of resettlement accommodation not currently sufficient to meet demand.

9              In what circumstances may family immigration law and practice result in an extended (or indefinite) period of family separation or place families under stress in other ways? How could they be adapted to prevent or shorten periods of family separation or be more accommodating of the wellbeing of families?

9.1       This question does not fall within the expertise of the NRPF Network

10         How do family migration policies affect children separated from one or both of their parents (or other relative)? How do families separated by immigration law use modern means of communication, and what is the impact of this use?

10.1  This question does not fall within the expertise of the NRPF Network

11         How should family migration policies interact with the right to respect for family and private life and the best interests of the child? What can the immigration process learn from the family justice system and how could they best interact with one another?

11.1  The NRPF Network has consistently call on government to review NRPF policies that put children and families at greater risk of homelessness and destitution. Although there have been positive changes with regards to access to early years education and childcare (see answers to question 7), a reluctance to make changes to the 10-year route to settlement is disappointing and is a decision that is not made with the ‘best interests’ of children at heart.

12         How do family migration policies and their implementation affect the integration and participation in British society of (would-be) sponsors and their sponsored family members?

12.1  It is easier to support families into full participation in British society when they have equal access to services. Whereas some families assisted by local authorities come to the UK with access to employment and benefits, or even with settlement rights in the case of refugee resettlement programmes, other families do not. Resettlement routes that purposefully delay the acquisition of settlement rights do-not assist integration or participation in British society.

15 September 2022