Written evidence by NRPF (SCI0454)

Introduction  

  1. The No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) Network, hosted by Islington Council, provides advice and guidance to local authorities across the UK regarding their statutory duties to support people who are excluded from mainstream benefits and housing assistance. 
  2. This response will focus on the experience of NRPF households impacted by longer routes to settlement and the impact such changes will have on councils.
  3. For the past two decades we have provided expert advice to councils across the UK and for the last 11 years have operated NRPF Connect, currently used by 97 councils to record financial support provided to residents with no recourse to public funds. Our recommendations are informed by the practice experience councils have shared across our network and collective data from NRPF Connect. Unless stated otherwise, all data referred to is taken from our annual NRPF connect data report for the financial year 2024-25.
  4. The government’s proposals to implement longer pathways to settlement for many people contradicts the evidence-based recommendations we have developed over the last two decades. We recommend that the period to achieve settlement does not exceed five years on any immigration route, and that, if the ten-year route is maintained, we recommend that leave is granted for a period of no less than five years at a time.

Summary of key points

  1. The government’s priority should be to review settlement routes with a view to reducing these and introducing shorter pathways, rather than extending them.
  2. Increasing settlement pathways will:
  1. We strongly oppose any proposal to penalise individuals by lengthening settlement routes because a person has accessed public funds. Safeguards against destitution and to protect child welfare must not result in further disadvantage.

Recent developments in Government policy on settlement and citizenship

Q.4 What are the implications of having many long-term residents on temporary visas without access to ILR and/or citizenship?

  1. Having a large population of long-term residents on temporary visas without access to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) or citizenship creates significant challenges for individuals, as well as for local authorities, and public, private and voluntary sector services who support them. The absence of rights and protections that come with settlement increases vulnerability to poverty and destitution, placing additional pressure on council resources.

 

  1. A key driver of these risks is the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) condition, which is typically applied to people with limited leave to remain. The NRPF condition prevents access to most welfare benefits and local authority housing assistance, removing an essential safety net that protects against homelessness and income loss. Moreover, families with NRPF also often have limited or no access to other support schemes such as free childcare for working parents or Healthy Start. These immigration-related restrictions are compounded by the additional pressures created by high immigration fees. From our experience supporting councils, we know that for people on the current 10-year route, the cost of having to make repeated immigration applications to renew status, places significant strain on already stretched household budgets.

 

  1.                     Statutory social care duties require councils to provide accommodation and financial support to safeguard children, care leavers, and adults with care needs who have no recourse to public funds, but this intervention is costly and needs to be met through over-stretched social care budgets. Once individuals obtain ILR, they gain access to public funds, reducing the need for such support. However, until then, longer settlement pathways prolong the period during which families and individuals remain excluded from the safety net of the benefits system, increasing the risk of destitution and homelessness.

 

  1.                     Evidence from NRPF Connect illustrates the scale of the NRPF condition’s impact on households and on councils, underlining the need for the government to address the funding gap if councils are to tackle child poverty and homelessness effectively. In 2024–2025, 91 local authorities supported 5,724 NRPF households at an annual cost of £94 million, using statutory powers under the Children Act 1989 and Care Act 2014. Notably, 28% of families and 18% of adults receiving support had leave to remain with NRPF. 32% of families referred to councils also had lawful residence. Despite having permission to stay and the right to work, many households still encounter poverty and homelessness. [1]

 

  1.                     The implications of longer settlement routes are particularly severe for single-parent households, which account for 80% of families supported by councils. These households are already recognised in the government’s child poverty strategy as being at greater risk of poverty. Extending settlement pathways risks deepening financial hardship for these families. Delaying access to the protections settlement brings will likely result in more families requiring council support and will prolong the period during which they remain dependent on statutory assistance. Given that the majority of these households (75% of families supported) are female-led, these outcomes have a clear gendered impact, raising concerns about systemic inequality and the possibility of excluding women from settlement. [2]

 

  1.                     Children themselves are directly affected by longer settlement pathways. Parents with NRPF often cannot access child-related benefits such as free early education and Healthy Start vouchers, with Child Benefit also being unavailable even if a child is British. Prolonged exclusion from these entitlements deepens poverty and negatively impacts child health and development. The government’s own child poverty strategy recognises that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience poorer outcomes in health, education, and employment as adults, limiting their future ability to contribute economically and socially to society. Extending settlement pathways could therefore create further instability for these children. This would undermine the Home Secretary’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children through its functions related to immigration and nationality under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

 

  1.                     A prolonged and punitive pathway to settlement makes it more difficult for people to maintain lawful status. Many people become overstayers after failing to renew leave due to financial barriers such as high immigration fees, limited access to legal advice, and other challenging personal circumstances. Low-income households are often forced to save or borrow money, placing them in further hardship or debt. In 2024–25, 23% of adults and 26% of families supported by councils were overstayers, illustrating that managing immigration status over time can be a challenge. Extending settlement routes will lengthen the period during which people must repeatedly navigate complex and costly requirements, increasing the risk of status loss and subsequent reliance on local authority support to avoid destitution and homelessness.

 

  1.                     Extending settlement pathways will inevitably result in rising costs for councils providing support to NRPF households. Immigration restrictions preventing people from accessing benefits and local authority housing assistance increase the likelihood that children and adult social care services are required to provide financial support and accommodation to alleviate destitution and poverty. With no funding provided from central government to local authorities to reimburse or contribute toward the cost of delivering support, councils are likely to continue to see their resources further stretched. An extended settlement model is also counterproductive to integration and does not benefit communities as it reduces the ability of individuals to become financially independent and make both economic and social contributions to the communities they live in.

Historical and International Context

Q3. In the light of previous errors and failings (such as the Windrush scandal), is the Home Office capable of implementing policy changes? Should responsibility for immigration, nationality and citizenship remain with the Home Office and, if not, where should it rest?

  1.                     The proposed earned settlement model introduces a far more complex framework for assessing eligibility, which will make Home Office decision-making more resource-intensive and time-consuming. Without significant investment in staffing and systems, there is a real prospect of substantial backlogs and delays, which could also impact other areas of casework. The current processing time for a human-rights based family or private life application is currently 12 months, demonstrating that there are already delays in processing some immigration decisions.

 

  1.                     Recent reports by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on asylum casework and fee waivers have highlighted how capacity constraints have previously contributed to backlogs and reduced quality assurance. While the Home Office has increased staffing in response, extending settlement pathways will add further administrative complexity, requiring sustained investment to expand operational capacity, prevent new backlogs, and ensure high standards in decision-making. [3][4]

 

  1.                     In addition, the earned settlement model could be extremely complex for applicants to understand and navigate. Clear, accessible public guidance will be essential to ensure individuals understand the requirements and timelines for settlement. This would help reduce invalid applications, ease operational pressures, and minimise the risk of overstaying for those unable to meet unclear or misunderstood criteria.

The Citizenship Process

Q1. Is the process of applying for ILR and Citizenship too complex, or is complexity unavoidable?

  1.                     It is essential that people applying for settlement and citizenship understand the process and requirements and can access affordable immigration legal advice. However, we have serious concerns about the capacity of the immigration advice sector to respond to the government’s proposed reforms. More frequent applications for further leave to remain will increase demand for advice in a sector already under significant strain. Justice Together’s report ‘No Access to Justice’ highlights the scarcity of advice in some regions, with many residents in some parts of the country facing barriers to accessing advice and support. These proposals risk increasing the number of people who fail to maintain lawful status, disproportionately impacting certain communities and deepening existing inequalities. [5]

 

  1.                    Complex rules regarding settlement are avoidable. Rather than introducing a more convoluted model for establishing eligibility, the Home Office should implement a clear and simple settlement framework with broadly consistent requirements across most routes. This would reduce reliance on legal advice and make the system easier to navigate. In our view, the period to achieve settlement should not exceed five years on any immigration route, with quicker pathways retained for certain groups such as survivors of domestic abuse.

Under the Immigration White Paper’s expansion of the points-based system, what will happen to those who never ‘earn’ enough points to achieve ILR or citizenship?

  1.                     The proposed earned settlement model risks locking individuals and families into prolonged insecurity, with many facing sustained hardship and exclusion from essential services if they cannot meet the proposed mandatory earnings requirement to obtain settlement. This will prevent many people from ever qualifying for ILR, particularly those already facing structural disadvantage, including refugees, single parents, women with caring responsibilities, and individuals with physical or mental health conditions - groups more likely to have low incomes, periods out of the labour market, or caring responsibilities that limit full‑time work. It is currently unclear which, if any, groups will be exempt from the earnings threshold or able to receive a reduction in their settlement qualifying period, creating uncertainty for those who are least likely to be able to meet this requirement.

 

  1.                     Under the new proposals, individuals on the ten-year route to settlement could face extended timelines, potentially up to 20 years before achieving ILR. For those who have overstayed or entered the UK illegally, this period could extend to as long as 30 years. Access to public funds may remain restricted until citizenship is granted, with the government considering penalising those who claim benefits by moving them onto a longer settlement pathway. This includes people who have had the NRPF condition lifted through a Change of Conditions (CoC) application, often as a last resort to prevent homelessness or safeguard child welfare. Such measures would deter vulnerable families from seeking essential support, heightening risks of poverty, abuse, and exploitation, and increasing demand for local authority interventions.

 

  1.                     Financial resilience over such extended periods cannot be guaranteed. Rising living costs and immigration fees, including the Immigration Health Surcharge, make saving for future applications increasingly difficult. Families subject to NRPF remain excluded from schemes such as free childcare for working parents and tax-free childcare, leaving even currently stable households vulnerable to future hardship. Penalising low-paid work or benefit use ignores structural barriers and the essential roles many migrants perform, such as in the care sector.

 

  1.                     The requirements proposed to shorten a person’s settlement pathway would primarily benefit those already financially secure. Expecting individuals to undertake voluntary work alongside employment and caring responsibilities is unrealistic and places undue pressure on families already struggling to meet basic needs. Groups such as single parents are unlikely to meet these social contribution requirements if they cannot meet the economic ones. Further, those who have accumulated NHS debt could face permanent exclusion from settlement, unfairly penalising those who have experienced hardship in the past.

 

  1.                     Overall, the earned settlement model will entrench inequality, punish vulnerability, and undermine integration by prolonging insecurity for those least able to meet arbitrary contribution-based requirements. A system that prevents access to benefits and penalises those that do access this support will inevitably discriminate against people who cannot work due to disability, chronic health conditions, or for other complex personal circumstances.

Applying for Citizenship and its impact on integration and social cohesion

Q.1. What are the advantages of becoming a British citizen versus remaining on Indefinite Leave to Remain and should there be certain benefits reserved for citizenship? What other reforms to the citizenship process should be considered and would they require changes to primary legislation?

 

  1.                     Under current rules, British citizenship offers some advantages over ILR. These include broader eligibility for housing and homelessness assistance in mixed households, where a British citizen as the main applicant ensures greater protection for family members with NRPF. Citizenship also provides security of status, as individuals can leave the UK indefinitely without risk of losing their rights, whereas ILR holders may lose status if they remain outside the UK for extended periods.

 

  1.                     We do not agree that access to essential benefits should be reserved for British citizens. The government has suggested ending access to public funds at the point of settlement and requiring citizenship before individuals can benefit from welfare or housing assistance. Under proposed reforms, some people could wait up to 30 years before becoming eligible for citizenship. A system that withholds the safety net of benefits and penalises those who access support would disproportionately harm individuals unable to work due to disability, chronic health conditions, or other complex circumstances. These individuals, who the Home Office has determined have a future in the UK under the Immigration Rules, should not be disadvantaged for factors beyond their control, as doing so risks deepening inequality and undermining integration.

 

23 January 2026

References

[1] NRPF Network (2025), NRPF Connect 2024-25 National Data Report:

https://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/-/media/microsites/nrpf/documents/nrpf-connect/annual-reports/data-report-20242025.pdf?la=en&hash=9B7F4F6ABAE982AB422776A08DC73D60F869EE3A

[2] Cabinet Office (2025), Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-children-our-future-tackling-child-poverty 

[3] Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (2024), An Inspection of Asylum Casework

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-inspection-of-asylum-casework-june-october-2023

[4] Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (2025), An Inspection of the Home Office’s Management of Fee Waiver Applications

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-inspection-of-the-home-offices-management-of-fee-waiver-applications-august-2024-november-2024

[5] Justice Together (2025), No Access to Justice:

https://justice-together.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/No-Access-to-Justice-Report-2025.pdf