Philippa Stroud is co-founder and CEO of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and Chair of the Low Pay Commission.
Britain’s social contract is built on a simple yet profound principle: those who work hard and contribute to society deserve support in times of genuine need. For many legally resident migrants who fulfil vital roles where we have skill shortages, this foundational principle does not apply.
For many, the status No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) has been attached to their visa. The British public will be surprised to hear this, but NRPF denies essential support to around 3.3 million individuals – hardworking people who not only contribute through their employment and taxes, but are often the backbone of sectors that keep our nation running smoothly.
If we truly aspire to build a society that reflects our stated values, we need to think again about the unintended consequences of NRPF, particularly in sectors where our workforce depends heavily on legally resident migrants.
The report I launched last week (No reason for no recourse, a Centre for Social Policy Studies report for the Trust for London) highlights how this NRPF policy is linked to increased poverty. While well-intentioned in its desire to ensure that migrants “pay their way,” the policy often imposes hidden social costs on the migrant worker themselves, and burdens local services disproportionately.
The impact is significant. Migrants working legally in the UK, often in roles listed on the Government’s shortage of occupation list, face a precarious existence; even minor crises can drive them into poverty.
In London, nearly 70 per cent of certain sector workers are migrants, yet they are systematically excluded from in work benefits that could help them navigate life’s challenges. This means that two people doing the same job will receive very different take-home pay, as one will be supported by Universal Credit and the other will not, although their costs will be the same.
This situation also has implications for the taxpayer as the strain on local services continues to rise. Section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014 states migrants should be “financially independent so that they are not a burden on taxpayers.” In reality, however, the NRPF policy creates costs by requiring local authorities to provide support for children in need and adults with caring responsibilities.
In addition to this, recent analysis from the LSE indicates that allowing households with children access to public funds could lead to economic, social, and Exchequer gains of up to £872 million. This is because the NRPF status prevents parents, particularly mothers, from accessing higher-paying jobs or increased working hours due to the unavailability of subsidised childcare that is available to others in the same jobs.
Moreover, children of NRPF-affected families, although educated in Britain, find themselves blocked from higher education because of ineligibility for student loans. This stifles social mobility and prevents families from feeling part of British society.
To promote integration (a key objective of the NRPF policy as outlined in the Immigration Act 2014) it is also essential to recognise that the conditions imposed by NRPF hinder migrants’ successful integration into British society by increasing the likelihood of poverty.
Evidence from the Social Metrics Commission shows that individuals living in poverty are less likely to trust their neighbours, participate in community organisations, or feel a sense of belonging. For children in families affected by NRPF, the inability to engage in extracurricular activities limits their development and social interactions with peers from diverse backgrounds.
When legal migrants who we have asked to come to this country to fill our skill shortages are treated differently, despite contributing equally to society, it undermines the sense of fairness and belonging, further obstructing their ability to integrate effectively.
However, this is not a difficult challenge to address. Practical, incremental steps are well within reach. A first step would be to allow those we have asked to come to this country to fill our skills gaps, to access in work support so that their take home pay is the same as anyone else doing the same critical job.
This would also mean allowing them to receive childcare support so that they can work the critical hours needed. Not only would this create a level playing field for those who are in work, it would also prevent local authorities from having to pick up the costs of destitution.
With thoughtful policy making, we can forge a more balanced approach that respects both economic realities and our responsibilities to one another. Its time to think again about NRPF.
Philippa Stroud is co-founder and CEO of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship and Chair of the Low Pay Commission.
Britain’s social contract is built on a simple yet profound principle: those who work hard and contribute to society deserve support in times of genuine need. For many legally resident migrants who fulfil vital roles where we have skill shortages, this foundational principle does not apply.
For many, the status No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) has been attached to their visa. The British public will be surprised to hear this, but NRPF denies essential support to around 3.3 million individuals – hardworking people who not only contribute through their employment and taxes, but are often the backbone of sectors that keep our nation running smoothly.
If we truly aspire to build a society that reflects our stated values, we need to think again about the unintended consequences of NRPF, particularly in sectors where our workforce depends heavily on legally resident migrants.
The report I launched last week (No reason for no recourse, a Centre for Social Policy Studies report for the Trust for London) highlights how this NRPF policy is linked to increased poverty. While well-intentioned in its desire to ensure that migrants “pay their way,” the policy often imposes hidden social costs on the migrant worker themselves, and burdens local services disproportionately.
The impact is significant. Migrants working legally in the UK, often in roles listed on the Government’s shortage of occupation list, face a precarious existence; even minor crises can drive them into poverty.
In London, nearly 70 per cent of certain sector workers are migrants, yet they are systematically excluded from in work benefits that could help them navigate life’s challenges. This means that two people doing the same job will receive very different take-home pay, as one will be supported by Universal Credit and the other will not, although their costs will be the same.
This situation also has implications for the taxpayer as the strain on local services continues to rise. Section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014 states migrants should be “financially independent so that they are not a burden on taxpayers.” In reality, however, the NRPF policy creates costs by requiring local authorities to provide support for children in need and adults with caring responsibilities.
In addition to this, recent analysis from the LSE indicates that allowing households with children access to public funds could lead to economic, social, and Exchequer gains of up to £872 million. This is because the NRPF status prevents parents, particularly mothers, from accessing higher-paying jobs or increased working hours due to the unavailability of subsidised childcare that is available to others in the same jobs.
Moreover, children of NRPF-affected families, although educated in Britain, find themselves blocked from higher education because of ineligibility for student loans. This stifles social mobility and prevents families from feeling part of British society.
To promote integration (a key objective of the NRPF policy as outlined in the Immigration Act 2014) it is also essential to recognise that the conditions imposed by NRPF hinder migrants’ successful integration into British society by increasing the likelihood of poverty.
Evidence from the Social Metrics Commission shows that individuals living in poverty are less likely to trust their neighbours, participate in community organisations, or feel a sense of belonging. For children in families affected by NRPF, the inability to engage in extracurricular activities limits their development and social interactions with peers from diverse backgrounds.
When legal migrants who we have asked to come to this country to fill our skill shortages are treated differently, despite contributing equally to society, it undermines the sense of fairness and belonging, further obstructing their ability to integrate effectively.
However, this is not a difficult challenge to address. Practical, incremental steps are well within reach. A first step would be to allow those we have asked to come to this country to fill our skills gaps, to access in work support so that their take home pay is the same as anyone else doing the same critical job.
This would also mean allowing them to receive childcare support so that they can work the critical hours needed. Not only would this create a level playing field for those who are in work, it would also prevent local authorities from having to pick up the costs of destitution.
With thoughtful policy making, we can forge a more balanced approach that respects both economic realities and our responsibilities to one another. Its time to think again about NRPF.