Online roundtable for MPs on No Recourse to Public Funds - Co-covened with RAMP
Kath Scanlon, Distinguished Policy Fellow, LSE, breaks down the social-cost benefit analysis of lifting the NRPF policy.
On 24th May 2022, Praxis and RAMP co-convened an online roundtable for Members of Parliament on the No Recourse to Public Funds policy. The event, which was chaired by Stephen Timms MP (Lab, East Ham), sought to raise awareness amonst MPs, caseworkers and advisors about the NRPF policy, by examining its detrimental impacts on individuals and communities; promising models of support to people affected; and findings from recent research exploring the social costs and benefits of abolishing the policy.
The roundtable featured contributions from:
Sally Daghlian, CEO of Praxis, a human rights charity providing immigration advice and support to migrants and refugees and campaigning for a fairer, more compassionate immigration system. Sally spoke about Praxis’ years of experience supporting people affected by the NRPF policy;
Pat, a campaigner with the NRPF Action Group, a group of people with direct experience of NRPF who are campaigning for its abolition. Pat reflected on her own experiences with NRPF, as well as the Action Group’s calls for policy change;
David Barclay, an Advisor on Social Inclusion to the Mayor of Bristol, and part of the team that worked on the creation of the ‘Bristol model’ of support to people affected by NRPF. David spoke about the development and benefits of this collaborative effort to build a city-wide social safety net for people affected by NRPF;
Kath Scanlon, Distinguished Policy Fellow at the London School of Economics. Kath presented a summary of findings from a recent cost-benefit analysis carried out by LSE on behalf of the Greater London Authority, which found that abolishing NRPF would result in significant net savings to the public purse.
The chair, Stephen Timms MP, began the roundtable by noting that awareness about the No Recourse to Public Funds policy has grown in recent years, as the pandemic helped to draw attention to its harms. It was during the pandemic that Stephen raised this issue with the Prime Minister, who confirmed that families affected by NRPF should have access to support and said he would look into the matter. However, despite this promise, the Government have done little about NRPF ever since.
The Work and Pensions Select Committee, of which Stephen is the chair, heard a lot about the harms caused by the NRPF policy to children during its enquiry into child poverty over the last year. The committee recommended a range of measures to limit the harmful impacts of the policy on children, including that all British citizen children should be eligible for child benefit, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, and that parents with children should be given access to public funds after a maximum of five years. The committee has still waiting for a response from the Government.
Sally Daghlian OBE, CEO of Praxis
Roundtable participants then heard from Sally Daghlian OBE, CEO of Praxis. Praxis sees the devastating consequences of NRPF every day through the immigration advice and support work that the charity does across London. For lots of people who have migrated to the UK, including many who are making their lives here, the NRPF policy effectively cuts them off from access to a welfare safety net. As the pandemic highlighted, this can have really devastating consequences when crisis strikes. Although there is no official tally of the total number affected by this policy, estimates suggest this could be around 2 million. Sally reminded participants that NRPF applies primarily to two broad groups of people: the approximately 1.4m people who have a visa, whether for work, study or a long-term route to settlement, to which the NRPF condition is attached; and at least 675,000 people who have no recourse to public funds because they don’t have ‘the right’ documents, which can be for a huge variety of reasons.
Having no access to a safety net can be extremely damaging at the best of times, let alone in times of national crisis. In the current context of rapidly rising prices, large numbers of people who do have access to the welfare safety net are struggling to make ends meet. For those who are denied this support, it is even harder to get by. Sally underlined that the NRPF policy has deeply damaging impacts on individuals, families and wider communities. She highlighted in particular the detriment caused to children, including to their development and long-term life outcomes. Research carried out by organisations like The Unity Project have also highlighted how NRPF hits black and ethnic minority communities hardest, meaning it has an effectively discriminatory impact. By pushing migrants into poverty and destitution, NRPF acts as a block on integration.
Sally noted that, although there are some safeguards to protect people from the worst impacts of NRPF, these are complicated and difficult to access without legal advice, which is in dangerously short supply. While Local Authorities have a duty to provide support to certain groups, people have to be at rock bottom before they can access help – which often means families are on the streets before they can get help, and ultimately costs councils a lot more.
The NRPF policy is also extremely unfair, Sally argued. Many of those to whom NRPF is applied are working hard to support themselves, but struggle to make ends meet because they are trapped in low-paying and precarious jobs. As such, they are paying into the system through taxes and national insurance, but are effectively denied access to most of the support it provides. When it comes to healthcare, many migrants are effectively expected to pay twice, as they have to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge as well as taxes.
Praxis believes that the only way to prevent the policy from harming children, families, survivors of domestic abuse and others is to abolish NRPF completely. Sally noted that not all migrants will need to use the welfare system, as many earn high incomes and will not need additional support. However, she argued that the pandemic has reminded us of the importance of a safety net that protects us all.
Finally, Sally noted that NRPF is part of a much broader and very flawed immigration system. While the abolition of the NRPF policy may seem like a distant goal, there are other policy changes that would help limit the damage and improve the wellbeing of at risk migrants. Limiting long pathways to settlement – which can stretch to 10 years, 20 years or even longer – to a maximum of five years would reduce the amount of time that people are expected to live in limbo, with insecure and temporary forms of status. Cutting the cost of visas to administrative costs only would also be an important step forward, as the extortionate costs associated with visa applications and renewals are a significant factor in keeping migrants locked in debt and poverty.
Pat, NRPF Action Group member
Next, participants hear from Pat, a mother and member of the NRPF Action Group. Pat kicked off her intervention by noting that she is angry today, and wants to talk about something that has been too heavy in her heart – and that is NRPF. This is something that people don’t want to talk about it. It’s a policy that has separated children from the rest of the world, causing poverty in homes. It is like a cancer. But NRPF has a cure, which is action from the government and parliament. Pat noted that she wants to talk about NRPF because so many people don’t even know it exists. She highlighted that it has broken homes, and caused pain in the hearts of children and parents.
Pat remarked that the recent win that the NRPF Action Group contributed to, securing a permanent extension in access to Free School Meals for all children living in poverty regardless of their immigration status, was a positive step forward, but there is so much that needs to be done.
The amount of time it takes to get settlement, and the cost of fees, leave people desperate, Pat highlighted. Many people with NRPF also face needing to pay huge fees to renew their visas every 2.5 years. For a family of four, this can cost over £30,000 over 10 years. When you have to pay this huge amount regularly, you can easily become homeless. With the situation with the cost of living, it leads a lot of families to mental health problems. People skip meals for children to eat, while parents go hungry. Being on the 10-year route to settlement creates huge instability. While on this route, and with NRPF, there is no stability for children.
This is why the NRPF Action Group are calling for shorter, more affordable routes to settlement. Pat concluded by calling on participants to support their call for an immigration system that is fair and kind to all.
David Barclay, Advisor on Social Inclusion to Mayor of Bristol
David began his remarks by noting that Bristol City Council’s small team responsible for supporting asylum seekers underwent a change in role and mandate during the pandemic, partly as a result of the Everyone In initiative, which sought to provide accommodation to all rough sleepers during the pandemic – including migrant rough sleepers who are usually denied access to most support schemes by the NRPF policy.
Recognizing that Everyone In would be a temporary initiative, the council embarked on the creation of a city-wide working model, involving the council and a variety of charities and third sector organisations to provide a safety net for people affected by NRPF. The emergency response to the pandemic fostered a level of multi-stakeholder collaboration and partnership working that was extremely productive, and meant there was access to a wider and richer range of resources. The model that resulted has demonstrated that it is possible to support people affected by NRPF through a combination of accommodation, immigration advice and welfare support that means migrants are better able to find pathways out of homelessness. David noted that in developing the model, they looked at various different models, including the Everyone Home model in Scotland.
The key elements of what has become known as the “Bristol model” include:
Designing out destitution, through the provision of hardship payments;
Ensuring that people affected by NRPF are informed and supported. This means that people should know what options are available to them so that they can make informed decisions. In particular, access to immigration advice is limited because of cuts to legal aid over the last decade. This means that many people struggle to know what their options are, or to regularize their status which would open up further options. The model has helped to identify ways to connect people with advice;
What’s more, people affected should be included and involved at all levels, including in shaping approaches and interventions;
Finally, everyone should have a safe place to stay while they are supported. This is critical to enabling people to engage with immigration support and case work, and ultimately to resolving their status.
David concluded by noting that the Bristol model is all about meaningful partnership working. Unfortunately, the council does not have the resources to make it real for everyone in Bristol. However, they believe that if multiple actors can work together effectively through this model, its principles can be made real for more people. Putting these simple principles at the heart of joint working means a lot more can be achieved.
Kath Scanlon, Distinguished Policy Fellow, LSE
Finally, participants heard from Kath Scanlon, Distinguished Policy Fellow at LSE, who was part of a team of researchers that carried out a social cost-benefit analysis of lifting the NRPF policy on behalf of the Greater London Authority.
The question that this research sought to answer was: what would be the costs to the public purse of allowing recourse to public funds to migrants on visas allowing them to work, and what would the benefits be, over a 10-year period? This is a standard framing for a social cost-benefit analysis.
The first challenge faced by the research team was estimating the numbers affected, which is hard given that the Home Office does not collect data on the number of people to whom NRPF is applied. They estimated that around 1 million people have NRPF as a condition of visas that allow them and their family members to work. This group are the focus of the research, and it should be noted that undocumented people are not included. Researchers examined the social costs and benefits of two options: the first was lifting NRPF from households with children; the second was lifting NRPF from all households.
Kath noted that, increasingly, people with limited leave to remain are not moving onto indefinite leave to remain (also known as permanent settlement) because of costs and other barriers. However, they are very likely to remain in the UK on various forms of temporary status and indeed, many of these families are settled except on paper, therefore there are already and will be costs to communities and public services down the line. Kath also noted that extending access to public funds does not mean that everyone will make use of these, as most support has restricted eligibility in any case, therefore only those who qualify will be able to access them. Under option one, researchers estimated that 106,000 households with children might become eligible; while under option 2, 362,000 households might be eligible. Some 9,000 families might become eligible for Universal Credit, although not all of these would take up their rights in full.
The main finding of the research is that both options would result in a net gain to the public purse over 10 years. For families with children this would amount to £872m over 10 years, compared to £428m for all households (a 1.5 and 1.15 cost-benefit ratio). The main categories of gain for families with children are from better housing and better early-years provision for children. There are also benefits from relief of problem debt, earlier diagnosis of health conditions and reductions in domestic abuse, as well as in employment and productivity.
In conclusion, Kath noted that the cost benefit analysis is only one part of the evidence needed to inform decision-making. The removal of NRPF would see a shift of costs from local to central government, freeing up local authority resources to support other people in need. The current system generates a lot of waste in terms of money and staff time processing lengthy and complex change of conditions, which could be spent elsewhere. Moreover, the newly passed Nationality and Borders Act will generate even more work of this nature through the creation of a new form of Temporary Protection Status.
Following panellists’ presentations, the discussion was opened for questions from the floor, which are summarized below:
Is there a way of comparing and quantifying costs to local and central government? It was noted that the current cost to local authorities is £158m. If this was shifted to central government, there would still be a residual level of administrative costs of an estimated £3m, but a lot of these costs would be moved over;
How long are people typically in need of public assistance but not able to access it because they are not working? For universal credit, the median length of claim is between 1.5 and 2 years. Some claim indefinitely at some level, whilst others claim for a very short amount of time.
How did the research translate gains into financial benefits? This was a social cost benefit analysis, so it did not look exclusively at economic savings but also at intangible and difficult to value social benefits. There is a lot of existing research on this, meaning that there is a big menu of options to choose from to estimate the various types of gain.
Thank you to RAMP for co-coveneing this roundtable, our speakers and all the attendees!