Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds

We are very pleased that the Government has now permanently extended free school meal eligibility to children from all families with NRPF. We heard repeatedly from parents and organisations about the positive impact this would have on children in poverty, their long-term prospects and ability to contribute to the UK.

We recommend that the Government undertakes research to establish if children in families subject to the NRPF condition are overrepresented in serious case reviews. We are pleased that the Department for Education is enthusiastic about improving the communication between organisations on children’s welfare, neglect, and abuse and ask that the DfE report back to us within six months on the work it is doing to improve safeguarding for children, particularly those with parents with NRPF.

We heard worrying evidence about the impact of the NRPF condition on survivors of domestic violence, including children. We are pleased that the Government has launched the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme pilot, in addition to the support offered through the Destitution Domestic Violence Concession. We are, however, concerned the pilot ended on 31 March 2022, and now parents and children with NRPF will once again lack the support they need to leave abusive relationships.

We recommend the Government ensures the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme is evaluated swiftly and consequential policy decisions are made quickly. The pilot must be fully rolled out or alternative measures put in place immediately to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse, including children, receive support when and where it is needed. We ask the Government to update us on whether or not the scheme will be permanently in place when the evaluation has been completed. The Government should also explain what support for survivors of domestic abuse with NRPF will be available between the end of the pilot in March and the introduction of any subsequent scheme.

We are pleased that the Government is contemplating and planning to consult on whether all children from families with NRPF should have access to the two- year-old entitlement. We believe that parents with NRPF have been prevented from working as much as they can to relieve financial pressures on their families due to restricted access to free childcare. The Government wants to ensure that people with NRPF are in work and it is in the interest of families and their employers to make childcare accessible. This is a step in the right direction. We urge the Government to undertake its consultation swiftly and consider positively the extension of the two-year-old entitlement to all children from families with NRPF conditions.

We recommend that the Department for Education complete its consultation on whether there are any additional groups of children from families with NRPF who are not yet eligible for the two-year entitlement within six months. As the Government Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds 49 creates future childcare policies, it should ensure that childcare is not a barrier to work for NRPF families and that they are aware of their childcare entitlements.

We welcome this recognition from the Government that 10 years is an excessively long period for a young person to wait for indefinite leave to remain, and access to public funds, and that five years is a more appropriate period.

The levels of deprivation children in poverty endure as a result of their parents being subject to the NRPF condition should not be allowed to dominate any childhood. Many parents will have NRPF for 10 years—much of a child’s formative years. Given that parents could be without access to child-related benefits and other forms of social security for 10 years, children, many of which are or become British citizens, may spend the majority of their childhood living in poverty, which will have a negative impact on their development and adulthood.

We recommend the Government significantly reduces the period for which children may be subjected to NRPF conditions. Parents with children should be given access to public funds after a maximum period of five years.

Most of those who gave evidence were keen to see an end to the no recourse to public funds condition. But we think the Government is unlikely to change this policy and such a change could result in fewer people bring granted visas to the UK. As an alternative, we have concluded that it is both affordable and appropriate for the Government to extend Child Benefit to all British children irrespective of their parents’ immigration status. We recommend it does so as soon as possible.

We recommend the Department for Work and Pensions improve its guidance and practice on the social security entitlements that people with NRPF already have, in order to increase take up of that support. We ask the Department to write to us within three months explaining what improvements it plans to make, how they will be implemented and awareness raised. (Paragraph 36) Data

The Home Office does not collect sufficient data on the number of families with NRPF. Whilst we appreciate that the Home Office is attempting to improve its data collection, NRPF is not a new policy and it is shocking that the Government is unable to provide Parliament with an estimate of how many people are subject to NRPF. Without accurate data it is impossible for Government, local authorities and NGOs to cost and plan support for families with NRPF. This is particularly concerning given the increase in the number of parents with NRPF following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and implementation of the Nationality and Borders Bill.

We recommend the Home Office collect and publish data on the number of people with NRPF attached to their limited leave to remain in the UK. The Home Office should also invest time and resource into establishing the number of British children affected by NRPF. We recommend the Government use this data to improve evaluation of the 50 Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds impact of the NRPF policy on children in poverty. We ask the Home Office to provide a written update on its data gathering regarding those with NRPF conditions and children living in families with NRPF on their leave to remain within six months. We also ask to be kept updated on the collaborative work that the Home Office and the ONS are doing on the issue of migrant poverty. (Paragraph 47) Change of conditions

We are pleased that the Home Office has changed its policy to prevent those on the 5 year route from being automatically transferred to the 10 year route in the event of a successful change of condition application. However, this is only for families who are no longer accessing public funds when they apply for indefinite leave to remain, so this change is unlikely to benefit all families who’ve been living in poverty with NRPF.

We recommend that people on the 5 year route to leave to remain are not moved onto the 10 year route following a successful application for a change of conditions, even if they are still accessing public funds when they apply for settlement. We further recommend that the Home Office urgently updates its website with guidance on this policy change.

We are pleased to hear that the Government’s NRPF forum is regularly receiving feedback on the change of conditions process. We recommend that the work of the Government’s NRPF Forum is more transparent and readily available to stakeholders. We ask the Government to publish the number of times the NRPF forum meets, as well as who attended, items discussed and outcomes. We ask for the Government to publish this information within four weeks after each meeting of the NRPF forum.

Many parents told us that without the help of charities they would not have been successful in their change of conditions application. The charities providing this assistance are often small, with limited resources. We recommend the Government fund independent support for change of conditions applications, using the Help to Claim service for Universal Credit as a model.

We recommend the Home Office introduces a clear process for applicants to challenge a change of conditions refusal. We recommend the review of the pilot scheme is published alongside a timeline showing when the conclusions from the pilot will be implemented. We also recommend the Home Office improves the data it collects on change of conditions applications to include (i) whether or not the applicant has children, and (ii) the reason(s) for rejections. (Paragraph 64) Local Authorities

Thousands of families with NRPF are supported by local authorities under Section 17 every year, with costs running into the tens of millions. We are concerned that this indicates that the mechanisms used to support households in poverty with no recourse to public funds does not represent value for money for the taxpayer. (Paragraph 70) Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds 51

We are concerned that it is not cost effective for local authorities to operate their own alternative welfare system, and that support for families is inconsistent across the UK. We recommend that the Government carry out an analysis of whether it would be more cost effective for families with NRPF to have earlier access to the welfare system, and, if so, bring forward proposals along these lines. One option could be to enable local authorities to apply on behalf of families with NRPF for a change of conditions.

Discretionary welfare funds are a public fund and therefore largely inaccessible to people with NRPF, however, the guidance the Government provides to local authorities has caused confusion and many families have not received additional support.

We recommend the Government provide additional support to local authorities in areas with large NRPF populations through direct and targeted funding. We further recommend the Government consider reclassifying discretionary welfare payments, so they are excluded from the ‘public funds’ definition used for NRPF purposes, rather than asking local authorities to use their own judgment or take individual legal advice. Confusion over what local authorities can provide to families with NRPF is a waste of both time and money. (Paragraph 75) 52 Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds