Helpful new briefing on government policy that restricts access to welfare benefits and social housing
The House of Commons Library has updated its helpful briefing on the 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) policy.
You can read a full copy of the briefing below, and you can download the original 20-page document here.
As the briefing explains, NRPF is a condition imposed on certain people subject to immigration control to restrict their access to benefits and other public funds.
The briefing provides a concise and factual overview of the policy. It considers who is subject to the condition, the history of the policy, and the arguments for and against it.
While the true number of migrants with NRPF is not officially known, the Commons Library estimates that around 3.3 million people held visas that would usually have an NRPF condition at the end of 2023.
For further comprehensive information on the NRPF condition, see the NRPF Network website here. The NRPF Network is a national network set up to safeguard the welfare of people who are unable to access benefits due to their immigration status.
The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford also has an in-depth briefing on the link between the NRPF condition and deprivation available here.
No recourse to public funds
Research Briefing
7 October 2024
By CJ McKinney, Steven Kennedy, Melanie Gower, Georgina Sturge
Summary
1 Overview of the no recourse to public funds policy
2 History and recent developments
3 Arguments for and against NRPF
4 Recent parliamentary interest
commonslibrary.parliament.uk
Number CBP-9790
Image Credits
Attribution: Home Office AS – by William. Licensed by Adobe Stock id=#339263279.
Disclaimer
The Commons Library does not intend the information in our research publications and briefings to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. We have published it to support the work of MPs. You should not rely upon it as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute for it. We do not accept any liability whatsoever for any errors, omissions or misstatements contained herein. You should consult a suitably qualified professional if you require specific advice or information. Read our briefing 'Legal help: where to go and how to pay' for further information about sources of legal advice and help. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
Sources and subscriptions for MPs and staff
We try to use sources in our research that everyone can access, but sometimes only information that exists behind a paywall or via a subscription is available. We provide access to many online subscriptions to MPs and parliamentary staff, please contact hoclibraryonline@parliament.uk or visit commonslibrary.parliament.uk/resources for more information.
Feedback
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated to reflect subsequent changes.
If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. Please note that authors are not always able to engage in discussions with members of the public who express opinions about the content of our research, although we will carefully consider and correct any factual errors.
You can read our feedback and complaints policy and our editorial policy at commonslibrary.parliament.uk. If you have general questions about the work of the House of Commons email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.
Contents
Summary
1 Overview of the no recourse to public funds policy
1.1 Who has no recourse to public funds?
1.2 What counts as public funds?
1.3 How many people have no recourse to public funds?
2 History and recent developments
2.1 In the 20th century
2.2 More recent developments
3 Arguments for and against NRPF
3.1 Why deny access to public funds?
3.2 Why allow access to public funds?
4 Recent parliamentary interest
Migrants in the UK on visas, illegally or seeking asylum are usually ineligible for welfare benefits and social housing. This is referred to as having 'no recourse to public funds', or 'NRPF'.
Most temporary migrants have no recourse to public funds, with human rights exceptions
Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who do not have any immigration permission or whose visa comes with an individual NRPF condition are excluded from benefits and housing. An NRPF condition is mandatory for most types of visa.
Migrants can apply for a 'change of conditions' granting them recourse to public funds. This is primarily aimed at people on family, human rights or Hong Kong visas, although in theory there is discretion to allow it in other cases. A successful application requires evidence of destitution, child welfare concerns or exceptional financial circumstances.
The list of public funds covers a wide range of social security benefits, tax credits and housing assistance. Local authorities have some statutory duties to support people with NRPF, in particular families with children.
The Home Office does not know how many people have no recourse to public funds
This is partly because the total includes unauthorised migrants, but also because the department did not keep a central record of how many visas are issued with NRPF. A new database may allow for improved statistics in future.
Around 3.3 million people held visas that would usually have an NRPF condition at the end of 2023. This figure does not necessarily reflect the number of people experiencing hardship as a result.
As of June 2024, there were around 225,000 people in various stages of the asylum system. Asylum seekers have no recourse to public funds in the sense addressed in this briefing, but do have access to state-provided accommodation and limited financial support.
NRPF policies have been in place for decades but were especially prominent during covid-19
No recourse to public funds has been a standard visa condition since 1980. Successive governments have taken further steps to limit or eliminate access to mainstream benefits for migrants without visas, such as EU citizens (pre- Brexit) and asylum seekers. This notably included the general bar on temporary, unauthorised and asylum-seeking migrants claiming benefits, under the Immigration and Act 1999.
In 2012, the NRPF condition was extended to people granted permission to stay in the UK for human rights reasons, which has been controversial.
The covid-19 pandemic drew attention to the lack of a mainstream welfare safety net for people with NRPF. The government did not waive normal benefits rules during the crisis, but did allow migrants to access temporary schemes such as the furlough programme.
Successive governments have implemented NRPF despite civil society objections
As a Home Office minister said in 2019, it is longstanding government policy that migrants should not be entitled to claim benefits until they have been granted indefinite leave to remain, "reflecting the strength of their connection to the UK". Ministers typically argue that NRPF rules are important to prevent migrants becoming a burden on the taxpayer, to promote integration, and to sustain public support for immigration.
Opponents say NRPF creates destitution, particularly for minority groups such as Black women, and shifts responsibility for dealing with the consequences to local government.
MPs have held several debates on NRPF in recent years, including in May 2024 and May 2023. The Work and Pensions Committee has also published a report on the policy's contribution to child poverty.
1 Overview of the no recourse to public funds policy
Migrants granted temporary permission to live in the UK usually have 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) as a condition of their visa. This means they are ineligible for most social welfare benefits and public housing.
The NRPF visa condition is imposed under the immigration rules. [1] Separately, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 makes certain groups of migrants ineligible for benefits. This statutory bar includes people with no permission to be in the UK, as well as those with an individual NRPF condition. [2] It is common to refer to all migrants who are ineligible for benefits for either of these reasons as having no recourse to public funds.
1.1 Who has no recourse to public funds?
Broadly speaking, people here with temporary immigration permission, seeking asylum or illegally.
Under section 115 of the 1999 Act, people are ineligible for benefits if they are "subject to immigration control". There are limited exceptions for certain groups of people, such as those covered by social security treaties. [3]
Section 115(9) defines who is a person subject to immigration control:
• People who do not have any immigration permission, such as visa overstayers, illegal entrants and asylum seekers
• People who do have immigration permission but with an NRPF condition
• People who do have immigration permission but subject to an undertaking by another person to maintain them during their stay
• People who only have immigration permission due to a pending appeal [4]
An NRPF condition is mandatory for most types of immigration permission. For example, a Skilled Worker or Student visa cannot be granted with access to public funds. [5] Breach of the condition can see the visa cancelled and the person removed from the UK. Deliberate breach is a criminal offence. [6]
The position is different for people applying for certain family or human rights visas. In such cases, Home Office civil servants can waive the NRPF condition from the outset if the person is at risk of destitution, in the interests of child welfare or where there are exceptional financial circumstances. [7]
People who have NRPF condition on their visa can apply for a 'change of conditions' granting them recourse to public funds. [8] This is primarily aimed at people on family/human rights routes and the special visa for Hongkongers. But there is discretion to allow people with other kinds of immigration permission to access public funds in rare and exceptional cases. [9]
A separate concession allows some victims of domestic abuse to access benefits if they are destitute and need to leave an abusive relationship. [10]
Other groups of migrants never have NRPF. These include:
• People with EU settled or pre-settled status, although the latter may need to show they have an EU law right of residence or invoke the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to access benefits [11]
• People with refugee status, although the government has the power to impose the NRPF condition on some refugees [12]
• People with indefinite leave to remain, except adult dependent relatives
The NRPF Network has more detail on who has access to public funds, as it does on all aspects of the NRPF system. [13]
1.2 What counts as public funds?
A complete list of benefits that are public funds for immigration purposes are available in Home Office guidance. [14] The list is exhaustive list: if a benefit is not listed, it does not count as public funds and the person can claim it if otherwise eligible.
The list covers most social security benefits, tax credits and housing assistance. Universal Credit, Housing Benefit and Child Benefit are all on the list, for example. It does not include benefits based on National Insurance contributions, such as New Style Jobseeker's Allowance and the State Pension. Nor does it include benefits paid by employers, such as Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay. [15]
Migrants may nevertheless be ineligible for benefits not listed as public funds if the qualifying criteria exclude them in other ways. For example, the benefit may come with a residence test or a requirement that the person first be eligible for a different benefit that does count as public funds.
Mixed status couples
NRPF applies to individuals. For couples with mixed immigration status (where one partner is a person subject to immigration control but the other is not), the rules are complicated, and can vary from benefit to benefit.
In Universal Credit, for example, while couples must make a joint claim, if one partner has NRPF the award will be calculated based on the standard allowance for a single person (although if the partner with NRPF has income and/or capital of their own, this is taken into account). As the award does not include an additional amount for the NRPF partner, it does not breach the public funds condition. But where a Universal Credit award includes the housing costs element or the childcare element, there are situations where a claim could potentially breach the public funds condition.
Welfare rights advice organisations recommend that mixed immigration status couples should obtain specialist immigration advice if they have concerns about the implications of making a claim for Universal Credit, or for any other benefit. [16]
Access to state support that is not public funds
Local authorities have some statutory duties to support people with NRPF, in particular under the Children Act 1989 (and equivalent provisions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The criteria are tighter for unauthorised migrants than for people lawfully in the UK with the NRPF condition. [17] In 2022/23, councils in England and Scotland were spending at least £78 million a year on this kind of support, according to the NRPF Network. [18]
Access to public services, as distinct from benefits, is not governed by the NRPF rules. There are separate rules on use of the NHS, and school-age education is provided irrespective of immigration status. [19]
1.3 How many people have no recourse to public funds?
As of 2021, the Home Office did not know how many people had NRPF. [20] This was partly because the statutory bar in the 1999 act affects an unknown number of unauthorised migrants, but also because the department did not keep track of how many visas were issued with an NRPF condition. [21]
The Conservative government had said that a new database may be able to produce figures on how many people have NRPF. [22] The database was supposed to be fully operational by mid-2024 but no relevant data has been released at time of writing. [23]
Library estimate using the figures that are available
It is possible to produce a rough estimate of how people might have an NRPF condition. This is based on the number of visas issued or extended that typically or always come with NRPF.
As of the end of 2023, there were approximately 3.3 million people in this position. [24] This is not an estimate of the number of people experiencing financial hardship as a result: "only a small share will be in this situation", as the Oxford University Migration Observatory notes. [25]
This figure excludes asylum seekers, who also have NRPF (but access to a separate scheme of asylum support). As of June 2024, there were 225,000 people in the UK's asylum 'work in progress' caseload. [26]
The final main group with NRPF, and possibly a substantial one, is people who do not have permission to be in the UK – in other words, unauthorised migrants. There is no reliable data on this population. The most recent estimate was between 594,000 and 745,000 people in 2017. [27]
Altogether these figures suggest that the total population with NRPF could be over 4 million, although this is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
How many people apply for a change of conditions?
The Home Office does publish data on change of conditions applications (see section 1.1 above). In 2023, there were 3,500 applications for recourse to public funds. Around two thirds were successful.
Nigerian (609) was the most common nationality of applicant, followed by Pakistani (384) and Ghanaian (335). The majority (63%) of applications were by women. [28]
Further reading and resources
The NRPF Network, a resource for local authorities, has a wealth of detailed information on NRPF rules and related issues, including support options.
Child Poverty Action Group has resources and information on benefits for migrants, including articles, factsheets, details of legal test cases and tools for advisers.
Project 17 has a useful briefing on local authority assistance under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
The Unity Project is a small London charity that helps people make change of conditions applications.
The Scottish Government and Welsh Government have detailed guidance for the public and third sectors. Law Centre NI (PDF) covers Northern Ireland.
2 History and recent developments
The principle that migrants to the UK should be able to support themselves has been reflected in legislation for over 100 years. The Aliens Act 1905 allowed officials to refuse entry to a migrant "if he cannot show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself or his dependents". [29]
The NRPF condition on visas
No recourse to public funds has been a standard visa condition since 1980, according to the Court of Appeal. [30] The explicit power to impose it was added to primary legislation in 1996. [31]
From 2012, the NRPF condition was applied to migrants granted permission to stay in the UK for human rights reasons. [32] Such people were also made ineligible for settlement for ten years. Previously they had been granted 'discretionary leave' with access to benefits (and settlement after six years). [33]
The statutory bar
Section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 took effect in 2000. It placed a general statutory bar on temporary, unauthorised and asylum- seeking migrants claiming benefits. The act set up a parallel welfare system of 'asylum support' for people seeking asylum instead.
This was part of a long-term trend under successive governments to limit or eliminate access to mainstream benefits for migrants not already subject to the NRPF condition. Until the late 1980s, migrants without visas could access the mainstream welfare system. EU citizens could claim the same benefits as British citizens, while asylum seekers could claim means-tested benefits at a reduced rate. [34]
From 1988 onward, a series of legislative changes (including the 1999 Act) restricted access to benefits for EU citizens and eliminated it for asylum seekers. These included the habitual residence test in 1994 and limiting asylum seekers' eligibility for income support and housing benefit in 1996. [35]
Covid-19 controversy
The covid-19 pandemic drew attention to the lack of a mainstream welfare safety net for people with NRPF. The Chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and Work and Pensions Committee summarised the concerns in April 2020:
The Government's own guidance advises against leaving the house for non- essential reasons. We are concerned that, if people will have no source of income if they are unwell or otherwise unable to work, they will have to choose either to follow the public health guidance and face financial hardship or risk exposing themselves or others to the virus in order to make ends meet. [36]
Migrants' rights campaigners called for the easing of NRPF conditions in light of the emergency, as did local government representatives and 98 MPs. [37]
In May 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the Liaison Committee that "clearly people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another… I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help". [38] Some people interpreted this as suggesting a fundamental reassessment of the NRPF regime. [39]
Ultimately, the government did not make extensive changes to the NRPF rules during the pandemic. Ministers noted that the principle of temporary migrants being financially independent rather than becoming a charge on public funds was long-established. [40] But covid-specific support programmes such as the 'furlough' scheme and payments to self-employed people were made available to people with the NRPF condition. [41]
Free school meals and childcare
Eligibility for free school meals in England was also extended to some NRPF families on a temporary basis during the pandemic. [42] It has since been made permanent. [43]
Similarly, an initially temporary extension of free childcare for two-year-olds from September 2020 was extended to all NRPF families (earning below a certain income) from 1 September 2022. [44]
Legal challenges
There have been several legal challenges to the NRPF regime in recent years. In particular, people with human rights-based permission to be in the UK have successfully challenged the rules on when they can be granted public funds:
• In May 2020, the High Court held that the rules were unlawful because they did not properly address cases of imminent destitution (as opposed to people already destitute). [45] They were amended accordingly.
• In April 2021 and June 2022, the High Court held that the NRPF rules did not properly address the legal duty on the Home Secretary to arrange immigration functions with regard to the best interests of children. [46]
• In February 2023, the High Court approved a consent order that the rules did not adequately cover disability as an exceptional circumstance in which public funds might be granted. [47]
Following this litigation, the rules on when public funds can be granted for human rights reasons has been gradually softened. The Home Office has also suspended a policy of making family visa holders who successfully apply for public funds wait ten years for settlement rather than the usual five. [48]
Confirmation that there is a general discretion to lift the NRPF condition from any kind of visa, not just those involving human rights, was also added to government guidance because of a court case. [49]
3 Arguments for and against NRPF
3.1 Why deny access to public funds?
The rationale for the NRPF condition has been expressed in Home Office guidance:
People wishing to come to the UK are expected to be able to maintain and accommodate themselves and their families until they are settled here. This is important in reassuring the public that immigration brings real benefits to the UK and that its finite resources are protected for British citizens and those who have lawfully settled here on a permanent basis. [50]
The Immigration Act 2014 states that it is in the UK's interests that migrants be financially independent because such people are not a burden on taxpayers and are better able to integrate into society. [51]
In July 2019, Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford set out the "main points" of the Conservative government's position on NRPF, in the context of a report critical of its impact on children and families.
The Government's position on no recourse to public funds is simply that those seeking to establish their family life in the UK must do so on a basis that prevents burdens on the taxpayer and promotes integration. I stress that this position has been approved by Parliament in primary legislation, most recently in the Immigration Act 2014 […] successive Governments have adopted the general position that persons subject to immigration control should not be entitled to access public funds until they have obtained indefinite leave to remain, reflecting the strength of their connection to the UK.
The minister added that denying eligibility for public funds to unauthorised migrants, in particular, is "an obvious and essential requirement of immigration control". [52]
The Conservative government also noted that people who can no longer financially support themselves and their families in the UK can return to their home country. [53]
3.2 Why allow access to public funds?
Proponents of increasing recourse to public funds often focus on poverty among those with no access to mainstream benefits.
Research by Citizens Advice in 2021 found a "comprehensive picture of hardship". A professional survey of people with NRPF commissioned by the charity found that 81% were behind on at least one bill (compared to 20% of people generally), 48% lived in overcrowded accommodation and 18% had been "unable to feed themselves or their family". [54]
The Trussell Trust, which runs food banks, has said that NRPF drives a significant amount of demand for its services. [55]
There is particular concern about people whose immigration status means they will not be eligible for indefinite leave to remain (and so public funds) for ten years instead of the usual five. A report by the Children's Society found many such families "experiencing cycles of homelessness, sofa-surfing and sleeping on floors with other families, or in cramped accommodation; with spiralling debt and deep in poverty". [56]
The Institute for Public Policy Research has commented that the combination of this 'ten-year route to settlement' policy with the NRPF rules means there is a "significant number of residents who have spent many years in the immigration system without being able to access mainstream benefits. The [NRPF] policy therefore does not just apply to recent arrivals". [57]
Charities also note that people with NRPF pay into the system. The Unity Project provides a case study of a single mother who pays £7,600 per year in income tax and National Insurance. [58]
The cost to local authorities of supporting people with NRPF is another issue often raised, not least by local authorities. 82 councils in England and Scotland spent £78 million on social care services to households with no access to mainstream benefits in 2022/23, according to the NRPF Network. [59] London Councils has described this as a "direct cost shunt resulting from central government policy". [60]
Lifting NRPF restrictions would save local authorities £405 million over ten years and cost central government £2.9 billion over the same period, according to research by the London School of Economics. This would be a net increase in public sector spending of £2.5 billion. But it put the benefit to individuals at £3.2 billion, resulting in "net gains to society" overall. [61]
Public opinion
Around two thirds of adults in Great Britain think migrants should be able to claim the same welfare benefits as British citizens within three years, according to the National Centre for Social Research. 30% think it should take five years or longer to qualify (broadly the current policy). The question asked specifically about migrants "who are working and paying taxes in the UK". [62]
By contrast, a 2014 YouGov survey which asked only about "immigrants to Britain", in the context of finding ways to reduce overall government spending, found 62% support for migrants being disqualified from all benefits for at least five years. 76% supported a two-year qualification period. [63]
4 Recent parliamentary interest
2024-25 session
The Labour government says it is "committed to the continuous review" of the NRPF policy's impact. [64] The Conservative government had said the same thing earlier in 2024, so this does not signal a policy shift. [65]
2023-24 session
A Westminster Hall debate on the policy took place on 15 May 2024 in the name of Beth Winter (Labour). [66] She argued that NRPF is "forcing some of the most vulnerable people into poverty and hardship". Tom Pursglove, the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, said "the Government's position remains that those seeking to establish a life in the UK must do so on a basis that prevents a burden on the taxpayer and promotes integration".
Separately, Sarah Champion (Labour) proposed an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill intended to guarantee support for victims of crime to people with NRPF. [67] An identical amendment was discussed by the House of Lords. [68] The government said the amendment was unnecessary, as the victims' code applies irrespective of residence status, and it was not adopted. [69]
2022-23 session
A Backbench Business debate on NRPF took place on 11 May 2023 in the name of Sir Stephen Timms (Labour). [70] He argued for a five-year limit on the duration of NRPF conditions for parents, saying "after half a decade, a family with British-born children is here for good". Sarah Jones, then a Shadow Home Office Minister, said "when Labour gets into government, we will look very closely at the public finances, the data around no recourse to public funds and the cost of any policy changes".
Responding for the government, Robert Jenrick said that restrictions on public funds were an important feature of a "relatively permissive" immigration system. The alternative, he argued, would be significant tightening of visa rules: for example, to require migrants to earn higher salaries.
MPs also tabled questions about the impact of inflation on people with NRPF, and their inclusion in cost-of-living support schemes. [71]
2021-2022 session
The Work and Pensions Committee published a report on NRPF in April 2022. It concluded (among other things) that NRPF children, many of them British citizens, "may spend the majority of their childhood living in poverty, which will have a negative impact on their development and adulthood". [72]
Among the Committee's recommendations were that the government:
• reduce the time parents have NRPF to a maximum of five years
• allow parents, irrespective of their immigration status, to receive Child Benefit if their children are British citizens
• provide additional support to local authorities in areas with large NRPF populations
• consider reclassifying discretionary welfare payments so that they are excluded from the 'public funds' definition
The government said it had no plans to shorten the period for which families with children are subject to NRPF, commenting:
The requirement to be self-sufficient at the point of entry is a way of ensuring they are prepared for life in the UK, so that their own welfare is catered for, and finite taxpayer funded benefits are protected. The majority of those seeking permanent residence accept and adhere to these requirements and qualify for settlement after five years. Overall, the Government thinks it is right to distinguish them from those who require the additional support of public funds. This keeps the fundamental aims in sight and maintains fairness and confidence in our immigration system. [73]
The government also rejected the recommendation to extend Child Benefit to British children. Its response to the report highlighted that parents can apply for a NRPF condition to be lifted and noted the availability of safety net support from local authorities. [74]
During passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, the power to apply the NRPF condition to some refugees was scrutinised in both Houses. Members of the Lords tabled probing amendments to understand when NRPF conditions would be applied to refugees. [75] In response, the government said that it would "take into account relevant factors" (such as impact on families), and not apply the condition to people who would otherwise be at risk of destitution. [76] The power has not been used.
Children with NRPF were raised during two Westminster Hall debates on free school meals and child food poverty. [77] Education minister Vicky Ford highlighted her department's then temporary extension of free school meals during the pandemic, and its broader review of support for NRPF families. [78]
2019-2021 session
The covid-19 pandemic led to increased interest in the lack of a welfare safety net for people with the NRPF condition. A June 2020 Work and Pensions Committee report recommended suspending it "on public health grounds". [79] The government's response noted that the Department for Work and Pensions did not have the legal power to award public funds to people with NRPF. [80]
37 MPs signed an early day motion calling on the government to "urgently suspend NRPF conditions". [81] Another such motion expressed support for "scrapping NRPF". [82] The government said that, as other forms of support were available, changes to NRPF were not necessary. [83]
A Westminster Hall Debate on the policy, in the name of Stephen Timms, took place in October 2020. [84]
Various amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill sought to broaden the types of support available to migrant victims of domestic abuse with NRPF. [85] The government said that existing schemes and arrangements were the "right mechanisms" to ensure such people "get the support they need". [86]
_______________________________
The House of Commons Library is a research and information service based in the UK Parliament. Our impartial analysis, statistical research and resources help MPs and their staff scrutinise legislation, develop policy, and support constituents.
Our published material is available to everyone on commonslibrary.parliament.uk.
Get our latest research delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe or scan the code below:
commonslibrary.parliament.uk
@commonslibrary
(End)
[1] As authorised by the Immigration Act 1971, s3(1)(c)(i)
[2] Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s115
[3] The Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000, SI 2000/636, para 2 and schedule; The Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, S1 2000/71, para 2 and schedule
[4] On the fourth group, see EE v City of Cardiff (HB) (Housing and council tax benefits - recovery of overpayments) [2018] UKUT 418 (AAC), 11 December 2018
[5] Home Office, Immigration Rules Appendix Skilled Worker, accessed 25 September 2023, paragraph SW 18.2(a); Immigration Rules Appendix Student, accessed 25 September 2024, paragraph 25.1(a)
[6] Immigration Act 1971, section 24(1)(b)(ii)
[7] Home Office, Immigration Rules Appendix FM, accessed 25 September 2024, paragraph GEN 1.11A; Immigration Rules Appendix Private Life, paragraph PL 10.5(c)
[8] UK Visas and Immigration, Apply to change your permission to allow access to public funds, 10 January 2024
[9] UK Visas and Immigration, Permitting access to public funds, version 3.0, 17 July 2024, p18
[10] UK Visas and Immigration, Migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, version 4, 5 September 2024; R (SWP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 439, 25 April 2023
[11] Child Poverty Action Group, EU citizen guide to claiming benefits in the UK (PDF), May 2023; Destitute EU nationals with PSS can rely on EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to obtain Universal Credit, 8 February 2024; CPAG information note for welfare rights advisers (PDF), version 4, 9 February 2024
[12] Nationality and Borders Act 2022, section 12(5)(c). This power has not been used.
[13] NRPF Network, Who has recourse to public funds?, accessed 25 September 2024
[14] Home Office, Public funds: caseworker guidance, version 19.0, 5 October 2023, pp23-28. This consolidates the separate lists in paragraph 6.2 of the immigration rules and section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which largely overlap but not entirely.
[15] As above, p35
[16] See for example NRPF Network, Public funds, exceptions, claiming benefits as a mixed household, and eligibility rules for EEA nationals, accessed 4 October 2024
[17] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, schedule 3
[18] NRPF Network, Cost to councils of supporting people with NRPF rises to £77.6 million, 24 January 2024
[19] Commons Library briefing CBP 3051, NHS Charges for Overseas Visitors; Department for Education, School applications for foreign national children and children resident outside England, 28 March 2024 (the position is similar in the other parts of the UK)
[20] PQ 24386 [on Migrants], answered on 6 July 2021
[21] Office for Statistics Regulation, Letter from Daniel Shaw, Head of Profession for Statistics, Home Office, 3 July 2020
[22] Work and Pensions Committee, letter from Robert Jenrick to Sir Stephen Timms and Dame Diana Johnson (PDF), 29 December 2022
[23] PQ 11233 [on Immigration: ICT], answered on 30 January 2024
[24] Home Office, Migrant journey: 2023 report, 23 May 2024, table MJ_D01. The Migration Observatory provides details of how this is calculated (for an older estimate of 1.4 million people).
[25] Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, Between a rock and a hard place: the COVID-19 crisis and migrants with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), 26 June 2020
[26] Home Office, Immigration and protection data: Q2 2024, 22 August 2024, table Asy_D03. This includes those awaiting a decision and refused asylum seekers who are subject to removal action.
[27] MIrreM, The Irregular Migrant Population of Europe, 7 October 2024, p32
[28] Home Office, Immigration and protection data: Q2 2024, 22 August 2024
[29] Aliens Act 1905, section 1(3)(a)
[30] R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants & Anor) v Secretary of State for Social Security [1996] EWCA Civ 1293, 21 June 1996. See also HL Deb 11 December 1979 c1029; HC Deb 19 January 1984 c438
[31] Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, s12 and sch 2, para 1(1)
[32] R (W, A Child By His Litigation Friend J) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2020] EWHC 1299 (Admin), 21 May 2020, paragraph 14
[33] Migration Observatory, Migrants on ten-year routes to settlement in the UK, 27 July 2021
[34] Harrison et al, MacDonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 10th edition, 2021, section 14.2
[35] As above
[36] Home Affairs Committee and Work and Pensions Committee, letter to Priti Patel and Dr Thérèse Coffey (PDF), 3 April 2020
[37] Commons Library briefing CBP-8888, Coronavirus: Calls to ease No Recourse to Public Funds conditions, 27 April 2020
[38] Liaison Committee, Oral evidence from the Prime Minister, HC 322, 27 May 2022, Qq 67-69
[39] "Johnson hints at review of no recourse to public funds policy after 'jaw-dropping' committee grilling", Civil Service World, 28 May 2020
[40] Work and Pensions Committee, letter from the Prime Minister to Sir Stephen Timms (PDF), 4 June 2020; Home Affairs Committee, letter from the Home Secretary to Stephen Timms and Yvette Cooper (PDF), 28 April 2020
[41] PQ HL11666 [on Immigrants: Coronavirus], answered on 13 January 2021
[42] As above
[43] Department for Education, Providing free school meals to families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF), 31 January 2023
[44] Department for Education, Eligibility for the free early education entitlement for two-year-olds from families with no recourse to public funds (PDF), 25 March 2022, p10; HCWS276, 5 September 2022
[45] R (W, A Child By His Litigation Friend J) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2020] EWHC 1299 (Admin), 21 May 2020
[46] ST (a child, by his Litigation Friend VW) & VW v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1085 (Admin), 29 April 2021; R (AB & ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 1524 (Admin), 20 June 2022
[47] R (HAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, CO/308/2023 (PDF), 8 February 2023
[48] PQ 119396 [on: Immigration], answered on 10 February 2022
[49] R (PA & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 2476 (Admin), 6 October 2023
[50] Home Office, Public funds, version 18.0 (archived), 20 August 2021, p9
[51] Immigration Act 2014, section 19
[52] HL Deb 19 July 2019 c1791
[53] Work and Pensions Committee, Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds: Government Response, HC 328 2022-23, p3
[54] Citizens Advice, How do I survive now? The impact of living with No Recourse to Public Funds (PDF), November 2021. Survey by Savanta ComRes of 397 people with NRPF in England and Wales.
[55] Trussell Trust, State of Hunger, May 2021, p58
[56] The Children's Society, A Lifeline for All, 1 May 2020, p47
[57] Institute for Public Policy Research, Locked out of a livelihood: The case for reforming 'no recourse to public funds', 6 August 2021
[58] Unity Project, Access Denied: The cost of the 'no recourse to public funds' policy (PDF), June 2019, p32
[59] NRPF Network, Cost to councils of supporting people with NRPF rises to £77.6 million, 24 January 2024
[60] London Councils, No Recourse to Public Funds (archived), accessed 7 October 2024
[61] London School of Economics, Social Cost Benefit Analysis of the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) policy in London, March 2022, pp9-11; Access to public funds for some visa holders could create economic and social gains, 23 March 2022
[62] National Centre for Social Research, BSA 41: Immigration Changing attitudes, policy preferences and partisanship, June 2024, p30
[63] YouGov Survey Results (PDF), 9-10 January 2014
[64] PQ 801 [on Migrants: Finance], answered on 24 July 2024
[65] PQ 24036 [on Migrants], answered on 2 May 2024; PQ 24333 [on Migrants: Children], answered on 9 May 2024
[66] HC Deb 15 May 2024 c161WH
[67] Report stage amendment NC8; HC Deb 4 December 2023 c125
[68] Committee stage amendment 80; HL Deb 5 February 2024 cc1518-1520
[69] HL Deb 5 February 2024 cc1531-1532
[71] For example, PQ 162308 [on: Payments: Migrants], answered on 17 March 2023; PQ 139273 [on Immigration: Cost of Living], answered on 9 February 2023; PQ 59901 [on Migrants: Cost of Living], answered on 17 October 2022
[72] Work and Pensions Committee, Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds, HC 603 2021-22, 14 April 2022, p49
[73] Work and Pensions Committee, Children in poverty: No recourse to public funds: Government Response, HC 328 2022-23, p3
[74] As above, p7
[75] HL Deb 1 February 2022 cc881-894
[76] As above; see also letter from Tom Pursglove to Sir Roger Gale and Siobhan McDonagh (PDF), 26 October 2021, p2
[77] WH Deb 24 May 2021 cc1WH-25WH; WH Deb 26 May 2021 cc144WH-163WH
[78] WH Deb 24 May 2021 c23WH. For the outcome of this review see: WS HCWS714 [Update on Children with No Recourse to Public Funds], 24 March 2022
[79] Work and Pensions Committee, DWP's response to the coronavirus outbreak, HC 178 2019-21, 22 June 2020, paragraph 81
[80] Work and Pensions Committee, DWP's response to the coronavirus outbreak: Government Response to the Committee's First Report, HC 732 2019-21, 8 September 2020, paragraph 11
[81] EDM-1206 of 2019-21 (No Recourse to Public Funds), tabled on 30 November 2020
[82] EDM-1263 of 2019-21 (Migrant Workers' Rights), tabled on 10 December 2020
[83] PQ 173208 [on Migrants: Finance], answered on 26 March 2021
[86] HL Deb 21 April 2021 c1922; see also PQ 106497 [on Migrants: Domestic Abuse], answered on 16 December 2022