← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
No Recourse to Public Funds
15 May 2024
Lead MP
Beth Winter
Responding Minister
Tom Pursglove
Tags
ImmigrationAsylum & RefugeesMigrants & BordersForeign AffairsLocal Government
Word Count: 3975
Other Contributors: 3
At a Glance
Beth Winter raised concerns about no recourse to public funds in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The UK Government should facilitate access to devolved schemes of assistance, extend legal aid scope, reduce immigration application fees, shorten long settlement routes to a maximum of five years, exempt key benefits from public funds, and enable councils to provide discretionary cost of living support. The policy of no recourse to public funds is part of a discriminatory migration policy that punishes vulnerable people.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The policy of no recourse to public funds is inhumane and cruel, causing poverty and hardship for vulnerable individuals. An estimated 2.6 million people are subject to these conditions, increasing their risk of living in destitution and putting significant pressure on local authority services. The cost of providing accommodation and financial support has risen by 22% from £64 million to £78 million at the end of 2021-22.
Ian Byrne
Lab
Liverpool West Derby
Mr. Ian Byrne expresses disappointment at the Government's delay in consulting on permanently extending the Healthy Start scheme to households with no recourse to public funds, calling for urgent action and citing support from organisations like Feeding Liverpool, the Food Foundation, and Sustain. Asked why the Government does not give people seeking asylum the right to work so that they can contribute to the tax system and society, challenging the Minister's framing of the debate as making no sense.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Mr. Jim Shannon congratulates the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and stresses the importance of ensuring that anyone with a right to be in the country has access to food and medical care, regardless of their immigration status.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough
The hon. Member for Halifax has highlighted the detrimental impact of no recourse to public funds on individuals and communities, particularly in cost-of-living crises.
Government Response
Tom Pursglove
Government Response
The Government's policy on no recourse to public funds is grounded in the principle that migrants should not impose an unreasonable burden on the welfare system. The minister noted that those seeking to establish a life in the UK must do so without relying heavily on taxpayer support, promoting integration and preventing exploitation by criminal gangs. He emphasized the importance of legal migration routes over perilous small boat crossings and highlighted the Government's commitment to providing sanctuary through established visa routes for asylum seekers, with safeguards in place to lift NRPF conditions for those at risk of destitution or facing exceptional circumstances. The minister acknowledged that 71% of change of conditions applications were granted, indicating the system's effectiveness. Additional support measures include access to free school meals and early years education for two-year-olds, subject to income thresholds. He also mentioned ongoing engagement with other departments and devolved administrations on NRPF issues.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.