Written evidence from the Institute for Public Policy Research (CPN0014)

IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive think tank. We are an independent charitable organisation with our main office in London. IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated think tank for the north of England, operates out of offices in Manchester and Newcastle, and IPPR Scotland, our dedicated think tank for Scotland, is based in Edinburgh.

Our primary purpose is to conduct and promote research into, and the education of the public in, the economic, social and political sciences, science and technology, the voluntary sector and social enterprise, public services, and industry and commerce.

IPPR is submitting evidence to this enquiry as we have conducted research on the ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy. In August 2021, IPPR published a briefing which provided an overview of the NRPF policy and how it impacts the everyday lives of people who are subject to immigration control. The briefing explored the potential impacts of the proposed extension of the NRPF condition in the nationality and borders bill. Based on this analysis, the briefing paper put forward a set of recommendation to address some of the most adverse impacts of the current system.

IPPR’s published work on no recourse to public funds can be accessed here: https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/locked-out-of-a-livelihood

Approximately how many children in the UK live in households that have NRPF? What are the challenges involved in estimating this accurately?

It is very challenging to make an accurate estimate of the number of children living in households that have NRPF. As explained in our recent report (Morris and Qureshi 2021), there are three main cohorts of people with NRPF: (a) people without immigration status, (b) people granted leave on condition of a ‘maintenance undertaking’, and (c) people with NRPF attached to their leave. Moreover, the children of families with NRPF may not necessarily have NRPF themselves, further complicating any estimates. Below we consider each category briefly in turn.

1. Measuring the size and characteristics of the population without immigration status is extremely challenging, because they are generally unable to be reached by traditional household survey methods or through Home Office administrative systems. There is no reliable assessment of the number of people without status: estimates tend to vary widely, often because they are based on differing methodologies (Walsh 2020). One of the most recent studies was commissioned by the GLA and estimated that the total undocumented population in the UK was around 809,000, including both UK- and foreign-born children. In estimating the number of undocumented children, the report provided a range between 190,000 and 241,000, with a central estimate of 215,000 (GLA 2020).
2. There are also no known available estimates of the number of people granted leave with a ‘maintenance undertaking’, though it is likely that this is a relatively small proportion of the total number of people with NRPF.
3. The Home Office does not provide official figures on the numbers of people living in the UK with the NRPF condition attached to their leave. However, it is possible to approximate this number based on the Home Office’s Migrant Journey data, which tracks individuals through the immigration system over time. Assuming that nearly all people with limited leave to remain are subject to the NRPF condition, we can use figures on the number of people with limited leave to remain as the basis for an estimate.

The most recent estimate providing a breakdown by age is in Migration Observatory (2020). This estimates that the number of children (under 18) with valid leave to remain other than ILR or citizenship at the end of 2019 (for those whose entry visa was issued from 2004 onwards) was around 176,000.

However, there are a number of limitations with this estimate. First, the Migrant Journey statistics do not track where individuals are living; therefore, there may be some people who have a valid visa but do not live in the UK (an issue likely to have been exacerbated by the pandemic). Second, some people with limited leave to remain do have recourse to public funds (eg via a change of conditions). Third, this estimate does not account for children of people with NRPF who do not have NRPF themselves, including children with UK citizenship. This group may still be affected by the NRPF condition through their parents/carers.

Moreover, there is also limited information on the characteristics of the NRPF population, including the financial circumstances of children with NRPF. This is in part because the UK’s main household surveys (such as the Labour Force Survey) generally do not ask questions on an individual’s immigration status. To improve our understanding of the impacts of the NRPF policy, we recommend that the ONS introduce a new question on immigration status into the Labour Force Survey.

What impact has the pandemic had on children with NRPF? Has the lifting of restrictions made any difference?

We have seen the overwhelming impact the pandemic has had upon children living in the UK. The closure of school and childcare facilities, the increased risk of child poverty, and the restriction of outdoor activities has meant that a generation of children have not had experienced a normal childhood for the past 18 months.

However, children who come from families that have NRPF have been hit particularly hard. A report by the Children’s Society based on interviews with families with NRPF has highlighted that, even before the pandemic, many families with NRPF were reliant on food banks and were unable to access free school meals (Pinter et al 2020). Home Office statistics show that there was a sharp increase in the number of people under 18 who applied for a change of conditions during the first stages of the pandemic, indicating a significant rise in destitution (Home Office 2021a).

What other financial support from the Government is available for families with NRPF who are facing financial hardship? How effective is this support?

There are some forms of support which are not defined as ‘public funds’ and so which may still be available for people with NRPF. This includes retirement pension, statutory sickness pay, and contributory benefits such as contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance and contribution-based employment and support allowance. Primary and secondary education and NHS treatment are also not designated as public funds, though there are separate barriers in place for migrants seeking secondary healthcare (ie hospital treatment). In addition, where people with NRPF are in ‘mixed households’ with others who do not have NRPF, they may in some cases be able to be included as part of a benefit claim.

Finally, some of the government measures in place during the pandemic – including the job retention scheme (furlough) – are not classified as public funds and are available for people with leave with the NRPF condition attached, though they may not always be easily accessible for those with a non-standard employment status (NRPF Network 2021). 

The government’s call to temporarily grant free school meals eligibility for some cohorts with NRPF was a particularly welcome move. This meant that children of Zambrano carers, children of families on a family or private life route based on Article 8 of the ECHR, and children of families receiving section 17 support who are subject to NRPF could access free school meal provision (DfE 2021).

However, this is only a temporary measure and excludes some children of families with NRPF. In recognition of the need to address child food poverty, we recommend the government extend this concession to all children of families with NRPF and ensure this change is permanent.

What role do other bodies, such as local authorities and third sector organisations, play in supporting children with NRPF?

People with NRPF may in some circumstances be able to get support from their local authority on the basis of their statutory duties. The main situations where this may apply for children in England include:

Children in need: under section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989, local authorities have a duty in general terms to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their areas who are in need. The act gives local authorities the power to support the families of children in need, including in cases where they have NRPF. Children are in need if they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the local authority’s support, if their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired without such support, or if they are disabled. Under Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, some people with NRPF – including people in the UK without permission (who are not asylum seekers) – are excluded from section 17 support unless this would breach their human rights. In these cases, a further human rights assessment is required (Project 17 2020).

Care leavers: under the leaving care provisions of the Children’s Act 1989, local authorities are responsible for providing certain forms of support to former looked after children up to the age of 21 (or 25 if they are in education or training). This may include accommodation, financial assistance, personal advisers, pathway plans, and help with education and training. As with section 17 support, some people with NRPF are excluded from accommodation and financial support unless it would breach their human rights.

What impact has the pandemic had on these organisations’ capacity to support children with NRPF?

During the pandemic, local authorities under the ‘everyone in’ initiative provided temporary accommodation for people who were rough sleeping and those in accommodation where it was hard to self-isolate. While the government first indicated that local authorities should seek to support those with NRPF, there was a lack of clarity over the legal and financial mechanisms for providing this support (particularly for single adults who would not be otherwise covered by local authority’s statutory duties). According to research carried out by Dickson et al (2020), while some councils placed practical emergency support for those with NRPF, the England-wide response was “characterised by confusion, a lack of information about support options, the ‘gatekeeping’ of access to accommodation, and gaps in essential provision”.

The legal situation for local authorities was recently clarified in a High Court judgement. The judgement found that local authorities could accommodate individuals with NRPF on the basis of the Local Government Act 1972, which gives councils additional powers in emergencies or disasters, as well as the NHS Act 2006, which allows councils to take steps to improve the health of people in their areas (SW 2021).

In a policy workshop IPPR hosted in April 2021 with local authority and charity stakeholders, participants highlighted that the costs of supporting people with NRPF had in many cases been passed from central to local government without any direct compensation. We therefore recommend that central government provide additional support to local authorities with large NRPF populations through direct and targeted funding.

People with leave to remain on family or human rights grounds can apply to have the NRPF condition lifted in some circumstances. How effective has this measure been at preventing families from falling into serious hardship?

There are currently two main pathways for individuals to lift their NRPF condition: people on the ’10-year’ route may be able to apply for a change of conditions or people on a partner visa whose relationship has broken down due to domestic violence may be able to apply for the destitution domestic violence (DDV) concession.

These routes are only available to people on a strict set of visa types. While the government has recently announced that the change of conditions application will be available to people from Hong Kong on the BN(O) visa, it is not clear what the justification is for barring other cohorts of people with NRPF from accessing the same scheme. Ultimately, individuals who meet the other criteria for a change of conditions – for instance, they are destitute or at risk of becoming destitute – will be just as in need of support regardless of their visa type. Similarly, people with NRPF who are subject to domestic violence and are destitute will need support irrespective of whether or not they hold a partner visa.

The NRPF Network found through its analysis that most households exit local government support by securing leave to remain with recourse to public funds. However, evidence from a study by the Unity Project suggests that many people struggle to make change of conditions applications independently: according to a telephone survey of 66 people assisted by the charity with their application, around 90 per cent who tried to apply independently were unsuccessful. The study highlighted procedural barriers, excessive evidence requirements, and inconsistent decision-making as key problems with the current system (Woolley 2019). Moreover, according to Home Office data the average length of a decision appears to vary considerably by quarter, ranging from 18 days in the last quarter of 2019 to 46 days in the second quarter of 2020 (Home Office 2021b).[1]

We therefore recommend that the government considers ways to simply and speed up the process and sets service standards for caseworkers to encourage fast, accurate and fair decision-making. As part of this effort, we suggest that decisions on destitution for change of conditions applications could where appropriate be based on assessments by local authority social services staff. This would give more powers to local authorities to resolve immigration cases, help to simplify the work of the Home Office, and offer a more joined-up system between local and central government.

We also suggest that there should be no requirement for people on the five-year partner/parent route to move to the 10-year route if they make a successful change of conditions application. This policy risks undermining the integration of long-term migrants and worsening their financial precarity by imposing additional visa fees over a longer period for them to secure settlement. A simpler approach would allow people on the five-year route to make an application for a change of conditions without surrendering their current status.

References:

Department for Education [DfE] (2021) ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19): temporary extension of free school meals eligibility to NRPF groups’, guidance. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-free-school-meals-guidance/guidance-for-the-temporary-extension-of-free-school-meals-eligibility-to-nrpf-groups

Dickson E, Jolly A, Morgan B, Qureshi F, Sojka B and Stamp D (2020) Local authority responses to people with NRPF during the pandemic: Research report, ICRD, University of Wolverhampton. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343774922_Research_report_Local_Authority_Responses_to_people_with_NRPF_during_the_pandemic

Greater London Authority [GLA] (2020) London’s children and young people who are not British citizens: A profile. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/final_londons_children_and_young_people_who_are_not_british_citizens.pdf

Home Office (2021a) ‘Immigration and protection data: Q2 2021’, data set. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-and-protection-data-q2-2021

Home Office (2021c) ‘Migrant journey detailed datasets’, data set. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/migrant-journey-2020-report

Migration Observatory (2020) ‘Between a rock and a hard place: the COVID-19 crisis and migrants with no recourse to public funds’, commentary. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-covid-19-crisis-and-migrants-with-no-recourse-to-public-funds-nrpf/

Morris and Qureshi (2021) Locked Out Of A Livelihood: The case for reforming ‘no recourse to public funds’. https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/locked-out-of-a-livelihood

NRPF Network (2021) ‘Benefits’, web page. https://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information-and-resources/rights-and-entitlements/benefits-and-housing-public-funds/benefits

Pinter I, Compton S, Parhar R and Majid H (2020) A lifeline for all: children and families with no recourse to public funds, The Children’s Society. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/information/professionals/resources/lifeline-for-all

Project 17 (2020) ‘Briefing: section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989’, article, Free Movement blog. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/briefing-section-17-of-the-children-act-1989/

SW (2021) ‘R(Ncube) v Brighton: ‘Everyone in’ does exactly what it says on the tin’, blog post, Nearly Legal. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2021/03/rncube-v-brighton-everyone-in-does-exactly-what-it-says-on-the-tin/

Walsh P (2020) ‘Irregular migration in the UK’, briefing, Migration Observatory. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk/

Woolley A (2019) Access denied: the cost of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy, The Unity Project. https://www.unity-project.org.uk/research

September 2021