October 2023

Transcript
See For the Sake of Transparency

This is a transcript of the audio piece accompanying my piece, For the Sake of Transparency.

---

Liaison Committee, 27 May 2020

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
Can I pick up that social justice point and ask a question about a couple in my constituency? They both work, they have two children, the husband's employer didn't put him on the job retention scheme so he has zero income, his wife is still working but her income is less than their household rent. They have leave to remain in the UK but No Recourse to Public Funds so they can't get any help at all.

Isn't it wrong that a hard -working law -abiding family like that is being forced by the current arrangements into destitution?

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister
Hang on Stephen. Why aren't they eligible for universal credit or the employment support allowance or any of the other…

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
It's a very good question because they have no recourse to public funds that's a condition that's attached to their leave to remain, they've been here for years, their children have been born in the UK but because for a 10 -year period they have this no recourse to public funds, at the moment they can get no help at all.

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister
Where are they actually from?

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
The couple I'm thinking of are from Pakistan but it applies to anyone outside the UK.

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister
And they can't get furloughed obviously. Well look I'm going to have to come back on that Stephen because clearly there are people who have worked hard for this country who live and work here should have supported one kind or another. But you've raised a very, very important point. If people– their condition of their leave to remain as they should have no recourse to public funds I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help.

---

House of Lords, 1 February 2022

Natalie Bennett, The Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
And it's interesting actually that it's almost two years since Boris Johnson claimed to not know that this status actually existed– that he didn't know there was such a thing as No Recourse to Public Funds. And I do note that at that time Boris Johnson did say he was promising to review the policy. Now, as I understand, there has been no overall review of No Recourse to Public Funds, although I'd be very pleased if the noble Lady the Minister could tell me that I'm wrong about that.

---

No Recourse to Public Funds Debate, House of Commons, 11 May 2023

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
The Home Office doesn't know how many people in the UK have No Recourse to Public Funds. That I think is understandable. Once given leave to remain, the Home Office doesn't know who departs. But parliamentary questions have shown that the Home Office can't even tell us how many people it gave leave to remain to last year with the NRPF condition attached, apparently because of the inadequacy of its computer systems.

---

Prime Minister’s Questions, 3 June, 2020

Paul Blomfield, MP
In front of the liaison committee last week, the Prime Minister was clearly shocked to learn that many migrants living and working lawfully in the UK have no recourse to public funds. Without support, many have been forced to continue working in unsafe conditions or have been pushed into extreme poverty. He promised the liaison committee that he would do all he could to help. Scrapping the policy would be the best step. So can he update the House on his progress?

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister
Yes, Mr Speaker. What I can tell you is that everybody knows that no recourse to public funds is a long standing condition that applies to people here with temporary immigration status. But that doesn't– it's a term of art. It doesn't mean that they are necessarily excluded from all public funds. And for instance, they may be eligible for coronavirus job retention scheme funds, self-employed income support scheme funds, and indeed if they've paid in to the benefit system, they may be eligible also for certain benefits.

---

Covid-19: No Recourse to Public Funds debate, House of Commons, Monday 8 June 2020

Priti Patel, The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Mr Speaker, the Government have made it our priority to protect the vulnerable throughout this national emergency, but we do not believe it is necessary to suspend the NRPF condition to do so. It is right that migrants coming to the UK are financially independent; however, practical support, such as rent protections and the coronavirus job retention scheme, apply to those NRPF conditions. We have allocated more than £3.2 billion to local authorities and £750 million to charities to support the most vulnerable.

Sir Edward Davey, Leader of the Liberal Democrats
Mr Speaker, the Home Secretary does not get it. People who have worked here and paid taxes here for years are being denied support and falling into destitution. People who have lost their jobs or seen their income slashed can be excluded from the very protections that the Home Secretary cites. Given that the rule disproportionately impacts people in our black and minority ethnic communities the hardest, will the Home Secretary suspend the “no recourse to public funds” rule for the duration of the pandemic?

Priti Patel, The Secretary of State for the Home Department
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and his comments. The answer is no. Local authorities have provided a basic safety net, and that is because of the significant financial provisions that the Government introduced and the range of measures to support those people who had been working. Because of coronavirus—because of the national health pandemic situation we find ourselves in—we will support people with “no recourse to public funds”, and that assistance is being given under the coronavirus retention scheme and also the self-employed income support scheme, so funds are available. It is wrong to imply that safety nets are not in place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to local authorities, which, throughout this pandemic and this crisis, have been resourced with an extra £3.2 billion to provide vital financial help.

Holly Lynch, MP
Thank you very much Mr Speaker. On the 26th of March, further to the comments that the Home Secretary just made, Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to all councils on 26 March asking them to utilise alternative powers and funding to assist those with “no recourse to public funds”, so it seems that the Government have understood in principle that NRPF is counterproductive during the pandemic, but the lack of clarity from the Home Office means that in practice people are still facing destitution. With that in mind, will the Home Secretary look again at the spirit of the Prime Minister’s comments to the Liaison Committee and outline how the Government intends to support these families?

Priti Patel, The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Thank you Mr Speaker. It is important to put on the record that this is not just about the Home Office; we work across government and MHCLG—the Department responsible for local government and communities—is obviously central to this issue. In terms of the resources that have been provided, practical support, such as rent protections and the coronavirus job retention scheme, apply to those under the “no recourse to public funds'' conditions. The hon. Lady specifically mentioned MHCLG and local authorities; £3.2 billion has been provided. I have been working directly with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I have also been part of discussions with the devolved Administrations, throughout the past 10 weeks, looking at the protective measures and the support that can be provided through the resources provided from central Government.

Joanna Cherry, MP
Thank you Mr Speaker. The Black Lives Matter movement and Public Health England’s review of the disparities in risks and outcomes in the covid-19 outbreak have highlighted the inequalities suffered by black and minority ethnic people in our society. Does the Home Secretary accept that the “no recourse to public funds” policy disproportionately affects people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities? If she does, why will she not push for it to be suspended, as a concrete step towards tackling the inequalities that so appal many of our constituents?

Priti Patel, The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a number of points to make to the hon. and learned Lady. First, the Government published the report last week on the impact of coronavirus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The findings are indeed shocking and it is right that the Government invest their time and resources, particularly through the Minister for Equalities, to look at the measures that can be put in place. The “no recourse to public funds” policy is one of many policies, and it is right that as a Government we look at all policies that affect all communities in the round, without singling out one particular policy.

Joanna Cherry, MP
I am glad to hear that the Home Secretary is looking at the policy, but I urge her to read a report that came out this time last year by Agnes Woolley called, “The Cost of the No Recourse to Public Funds Policy”. It found that most families with “no recourse to public funds” in the United Kingdom have at least one child who is British by birth, and nearly all those families are black and minority ethnic. Accordingly, “no recourse to public funds” is inherently more likely to affect BAME British children than white British children. Therefore, given this evidence that “no recourse to public funds” is a policy with racially discriminatory impacts, why will she not accept that it needs to go?

Priti Patel, The Secretary of State for the Home Department
If I may say, it is wrong to characterise the policy as racially discriminatory. It is a fact, however, that, for all communities and people of all backgrounds, there are many financial protections in place through the safety net of the welfare state. In addition, when it comes to children, funds have been made available through the Department for Education in the pupil premium. There are a plethora of support packages, which, combined collectively, are based on individual needs and individual circumstances. It is right that we treat people as individuals and not just categorise them. It is important to recognise that a plethora of issues affect people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, but we cannot assume that there is a one-size-fits-all approach, or a single-policy solution, to address those issues. It is right, as I have already indicated, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities looks at the report that was published last week and that the Government provide a collective response to the many challenges facing the community.

---

No Recourse to Public Funds Debate, House of Commons, 11 May 2023

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
No assessment has been made of the impact on children in low-income families with no recourse to public funds of the non-availability of the support being provided to other families in identical situations, but not much imagination is needed to work that out.

The household support fund is paid out through local authorities. When it was introduced, councils did not know whether they were allowed to support people with no recourse to public funds. The Government advice was that councils should take their own legal advice on whether or not they are allowed to use the household support fund for that purpose. At last, paragraph 45 of the Government guidance on the household support fund states that, from 1 April 2023:


The Government guidance remains somewhat unclear, but the first point is welcome and overdue.

---

Liaison Committee, 13 January 2021

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
Can I raise one final area? We spoke at the Liaison Committee in May about hard-working, law-abiding families with no recourse to public funds. You made a point that I very much agreed with. You said that “people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here, should have support of one kind or another”. I think that is absolutely right, but unfortunately that is not the current policy. In my area, it is one of the factors in the spread of the pandemic—people cannot stop working because they cannot claim social security, so they have to carry on working. Shouldn’t this NRPF condition at least be suspended for the duration of the pandemic?

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister
I totally understand the logic of your argument, but the problem is that it is a very, very long-standing provision in this country that NRPF conditions should apply for those who, for instance, are here illegally or unlawfully, and I think that it would not be the right way forward to change that. What I think we also discussed, Stephen, was that just because people have their NRPF does not mean that they are not eligible for support of many kinds, provided through local councils or otherwise.

Sir Stephen Timms, MP
No, but they are not able to claim universal credit, therefore forcing many people to carry on working. The current arrangements go back to 2012. The Education Department has been helpful, giving people access to free school meals. The Housing Department has accommodated rough sleepers with no recourse to public funds, at public expense. Is the Home Office still in a kind of Windrush mindset, and not picking up your point that people ought to get support?

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister
I don’t agree with that. To go back to the point I was making earlier on NRPF people, I have massive sympathy for them, but they do have access to the coronavirus job retention scheme, to furlough, and to the funds that local authorities can make available to help people in particular hardship—the £7.2 billion of funding we have made available to local authorities. This country does not allow people to fall through the cracks, even if they are classified as NRPF. The point you make about UC is a valid one, but I think I have given what I hope are intelligible reasons for why we want to make a distinction between those who are eligible for UC and those who are NRPF.

---

Migrants: 'No recourse to public funds' policy ruled unlawful, for the fifth time, Sky News, 4 Mar 2023

Adam Hundt, Solicitor, Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors
The no recourse to public funds policy has now been found unlawful five times in as many years in lots of different respects and that's because of a fundamental problem which is that it strips people of the basic right to ensure that their subsistence needs are met– that their essential living needs are met and that they and their children and their loved ones can live in adequate accommodation.