CEY1537

Written evidence submitted by Praxis

About Praxis

Praxis is a human rights organization that works with migrants and refugees in crisis. Since 1983, we have been working to create positive change for and with individuals and communities who are marginalized because of their immigration status. We do this through providing specialist legal advice and holistic welfare support to around 2,000 people across London every year; building the capacity of other services across the UK; and campaigning for systemic change.

About this submission

This submission has been developed based on insights from our immigration advice and welfare support services, and the priorities for policy and practice change that we have identified together with the people who use our services, including the No Recourse to Public Funds Action Group (a group of people with lived experience of the immigration system who are campaigning for change).

Summary

Our submission focuses on the following question:

Are the current entitlements providing parents/carers with sufficient childcare, and to what extent are childcare costs affecting parents/carers from returning to work full-time? 

Our experience of working with parents and carers affected by the No Recourse to Public Funds (hereafter NRPF) condition is that current entitlements do not provide them with sufficient childcare, and that this is a major barrier to either returning to work or to extending their working hours. Specifically, this group’s lack of entitlement to the extended 30-hour offer for 3- and 4-year-olds makes it more difficult for parents and carers to find work or to extend their hours. In addition, low-income families restricted by NRPF cannot access Universal Credit which allows families to claim back funds for childcare, while even families on higher incomes who are working can access tax-free childcare for older children. Finally, there appears to be generally low levels of awareness about the limited entitlements of those with NRPF amongst parents, providers and local authorities, which further limits access. For families already denied access to the welfare safety net, being prevented from working by a lack of access to childcare not only means they are unable to contribute economically. It also dramatically increases their risk of poverty. As the cost of living remains high and people affected by NRPF remain unable to access many cost of living support schemes,[1] being able to work a sufficient number of hours is critical to families’ ability to support themselves and maintain an adequate standard of living.

We make the following recommendations:

1. The Government should extend access to the full 30 hours of government-funded childcare to the parents and carers of all 3- and 4-year-olds who meet the other criteria relating to employment and income, regardless of their immigration status;
2. The Government should make tax free childcare available to all working migrant families including those on low incomes who are not eligible for Universal Credit because of their immigration status;
3. The Government should increase investment in raising awareness amongst stakeholders including parents and providers of the recently introduced change allowing all families affected by NRPF from accessing government-funded childcare for disadvantaged 2-year-olds.

What is NRPF?

The No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition is an immigration policy which prevents multiple categories of migrants from accessing most income-based mainstream benefits that form the social security safety net. These benefits are listed as ‘public funds’ in government guidance and include means-tested benefits like Universal Credit, Child Benefit and Housing Benefit and non-means tested benefits such as Personal Independent Payments and Disability Living Allowance. Families are also prevented from accessing other forms of support which are not themselves named public funds including early years provision named in the above section.

At least 2 million people are thought to have no access to the welfare safety net because of NRPF. Though there is no precise data available as the Home Office does not keep a record of the number of people to whom the condition is applied, in 2019 1.376m individuals[2] had a valid form of limited leave to remain in the UK. Given that the government’s policy is to generally apply NRPF restrictions to all those with limited leave to remain or a visa, it is assumed that most of these will have NRPF as a condition of their permission to live and work in the UK. A further 674,000 people[3] are estimated to have no access to public funds due to their insecure immigration status.[4] Not all of those who are restricted by NPRF conditions will be living on low income.

NRPF isn’t only applied to short-term visitors. It also affects long-term residents and people who are building their lives in the UK, as well as a significant number of children with British citizenship. Many people who have been in the UK for extended periods of time – in some cases for decades – and who are settled in all but their status, are cut off from the welfare safety net, even if they work, pay taxes and national insurance.

Asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of their asylum claim also have no recourse to public funds. During this time, they are generally not permitted to work but to avoid destitution, they are able to access a parallel system of support provided via the Home Office which provides below-poverty rates. Families who are receiving asylum support (Section 95 or Section 4 asylum support) with 2 year old children are eligible for the disadvantaged 2 year old offer of 15 hours and the universal provision of 15 hours for 3- an 4-year olds (though they are similarly excluded from the 30 hours of extended care). However, even when asylum-seeking parents are granted permission to work because they have been waiting for over 12 months for their claim to be decided, they are not eligible for any of the childcare provisions mentioned above – namely the 30 hours of extended care, tax free childcare or the childcare support provided under Universal Credit as well as other support like Child Benefit. So in practice families with children are likely to struggle to earn a sufficient income solely from work.

How does immigration policy affect childcare entitlements and access?

All 2-year-olds whose parents or carers meet the criteria are now entitled to access 15 hours childcare for the most disadvantaged, following a recent policy change announced by the Department for Education in August 2022.[5] This is a very positive move, which will enable parents of young children to return to work, as well as helping to even out some of the inequalities in access to early years care. It is commendable that people seeking asylum are included in this policy change also. However, outreach has not been sufficient and in our experience many people are not aware that they are eligible for help with childcare. They may misunderstand, or be misinformed, about their entitlements. The Hostile Environment creates a chilling effect where people are hesitant to access services to which they are entitled due to fear of being penalised in some way.[6]  Another effect of the Hostile Environment is that, given the government’s complex and hostile approach to people who are not British, members of staff at, for example, nurseries, sometimes act as gatekeepers or de facto immigration officers. We have heard from people that use our services that some nursery or council staff are not familiar with immigration status-based restrictions on welfare entitlements, and therefore incorrectly turn people away from accessing help with childcare. 

All 3- and 4-year-olds in England are entitled to 15 hours of free childcare per week (or 570 free hours per year), regardless of the immigration status of either themselves or their parents. Families where parents are in work and earning over a certain amount are entitled to a further 15 hours of government-funded childcare per week (30 hours in total). However, some 3- and 4-year-olds are denied access to this extended offer by the immigration status of their parent or carer – regardless of whether other eligibility criteria are met, or the citizenship of the child themselves. This is due to the additional eligibility criteria for the extended 30-hour offer, which excludes all parents who are ‘subject to immigration control’ – i.e. parents who are on a visa or who have limited leave to remain - from this provision[7].

What is the impact?

The NRPF condition means that families lack a safety net on which to fall back in times of crisis. A number of pieces of research demonstrate the higher prevalence of poverty amongst migrants in the UK, and amongst migrant families in particular, in comparison to UK population at large.[8] Many of these draw a connection between the poverty experienced by migrants and the lack of social security entitlements that are typically associated with either citizenship or permanent residency, as recognized in the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s recent report on children in poverty and NRPF.[9] As well as harming family well-being, even short periods in poverty can have a hugely detrimental impact on children’s life outcomes well into the future. Many families who have leave to remain on a pathway to settlement in the UK must survive for extended periods in these circumstances. For the estimated 143,000 people who have leave to remain on the 10-year family life route to settlement, this can extend for decades. 

What’s more, most people affected by NRPF have limited leave to remain which must be renewed every 30 months at a cost of £2,608 per person. These costs, which add up to £48,264 for a family of 4, are a real burden on families, especially given that people on this type of route to settlement are already likely to be low-income earners.[10]

The combination of restricted welfare entitlements and high costs mean that it is vitally important that parents and carers affected by NRPF are able to work. However, given the prohibitively high costs of childcare, their lack of entitlement to the full 30 hour offer for 3- and 4-year-olds means that parents and carers must wait until their child/ren reach school age before they can either return to work, or take on longer hours of work. This can result in major financial difficulties for families, forcing many into debt,[11] and further raising the risk of poverty.

There is clear evidence that access to 30 hours childcare helps parents – especially mothers – to increase their hours.[12] Being denied access to this is therefore a clear example of how the NRPF condition is actively preventing some people from working – despite requiring them to be self-sufficient.

It is also worth noting that the policy itself has been found to be unlawful no less than five times in recent years, because it fails to comply with the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.[13] 

What are the solutions?

We present the following recommendations for the committee’s consideration:

1. Access to the full 30 hours of government-funded childcare should be extended to working parents and carers of all 3- and 4-year-olds who meet the other criteria relating to employment and income, regardless of their immigration status;
2. Tax free childcare should be made available to all working migrant families including those on low incomes who are not eligible for Universal Credit because of their immigration status; 
3. Increased investment should be made in raising awareness amongst stakeholders including parents and providers of the recently introduced change allowing all families affected by NRPF from accessing government-funded childcare for disadvantaged 2-year-olds.

4