No Recourse to Public Funds

The MP highlighted the inhumanity of the no recourse to public funds policy by sharing two case studies. In one, a family was left destitute for five weeks after losing their primary income provider due to COVID-19; in another, a man and his daughter struggled without support despite living in the UK since 2004. Gardiner urged the Minister to expedite changes to conditions within 48 hours when they risk destitution. Agreed with Siobhain McDonagh's point about repeated fee requirements making it impossible for families to cover their basic needs, leading to hardship and potential crimes. Will the Minister give way?

Mr Stephens highlighted the racial discrimination and hardship caused by the 'no recourse to public funds' policy, noting a 33% increase in rough sleeping in London since April. He called for the policy's immediate suspension during the pandemic and its permanent abolition due to its negative impact on BAME communities and individuals fleeing domestic abuse. He questioned how single parents affected by this policy are expected to manage rent and feeding their family when they face unemployment or health risks from the virus.

Mr. Simmonds highlighted the complexity of no recourse to public funds (NRPF), noting that up to 175,000 children live in households with NRPF adults. He mentioned a specific case involving an Indian woman married to a British man and their two UK-born children living under NRPF status. Mr. Simmonds argued that the policy has resulted in a cost shunt from central government to local authorities, estimating £44 million annually paid by council tax payers.

The MP highlighted the ongoing issue of no recourse to public funds (NRPF), noting that at least 175,000 children and over 1.4 million adults are affected by NRPF. She criticised the Home Office for not lifting NRPF during the pandemic despite alternative powers being available to councils. The MP urged the Government to consider suspending NRPF or providing mitigations for those impacted. Yes.

Mr John Cryer expressed concern about the worsening situation of individuals with no recourse to public funds, especially in his diverse constituency. He highlighted that almost half of all children with foreign-born parents in Britain live below the poverty line due to this policy. He also mentioned that councils are dealing with significant financial consequences, estimated at £48 million for 2018-19, which will likely increase post-covid. He provided two examples illustrating the dire effects on individuals, including a woman facing destitution and unable to change her circumstance due to legal requirements. Additionally, he noted that many migrants are on zero-hours contracts with no furlough support during crises.

There are 31,000 non-EEA citizens in Hackney out of a total population of 285,000. The Home Office does not know the number of people under 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions and fails to collect or publish this data. Overcrowding is a significant issue, with families living in one room due to housing costs and lack of housing benefit access. Councils spent £47.5 million annually on service provision for those without public fund access before the pandemic. The hon. Friend highlights the cost shunting by the government, where a principle was recognised but the costs were passed on to local government with only a small pot of money allocated for numerous issues in her constituency.

She expressed urgent concerns about the impact of no recourse to public funds on families in her constituency, highlighting struggles for hard-working parents due to uncertainty over homes and futures. She noted that NRPF impacts non-EEA national migrants with temporary permission, preventing them from accessing most state-funded benefits, tax credits, and housing assistance. With the pandemic worsening the situation, especially for those in insecure employment or on zero-hours contracts (1.05 million in total), there are serious concerns about whether our welfare state is fit for purpose.

The MP asked the Chair whether it suggests that the Prime Minister has not had an advice surgery in a long time and questioned if any London MP would be unfamiliar with the facts of no recourse to public funds. Described the impact of 'no recourse to public funds' policy on women and children, highlighting increased workload for local authorities and the Home Office. Mentioned that applications for removal of the restriction have increased by 600%. Raised concerns over the financial burden on social services and the creation of a new industry focused on helping families affected by the policy. Can the Minister add to his list women whose children are born and brought up here and are UK citizens, and are going nowhere?

The MP criticised the policy for exposing people and their children to additional health risks due to lack of income, forcing them to work even while unwell. He pointed out that local councils are struggling with homelessness without specific funding from central government and highlighted a High Court ruling describing the system as breaching article 3 on inhuman or degrading treatment. I was talking about unresolved cases. I thought I was actually quite specific in saying it was people who did not have indefinite leave to remain.