NRPF Network submission to the Home Affairs Committee on the Draft (partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill. September 2008

Transcription

1 NRPF Network submission to the Home Affairs Committee on the Draft (partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill Table of Contents September 2008 Executive summary...1 No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) Network...2 What is NRPF?...3 Introduction...3 Selective migration...4 Earning the right to stay...5 Managing any local impacts...7 Summary of recommendations...7 Executive summary 1. This submission focuses on the implications of the draft (partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill for local authorities supporting people who have no recourse to public funds (NRPF). Approximately 4,000 people subject to immigration control with NRPF are being supported by local authorities at a cost of at least 33.4 million per annum, 1 primarily because they are unable or unwilling to leave the country. This situation arises because of the incompatibility of community care and immigration law, which is not addressed by the draft Bill. 2. Furthermore, the Bill introduces an additional stage prior to migrants acquiring British citizenship or permanent residence, entitled probationary citizenship. This stage will increase the length of time in which some migrants will have no recourse to public funds, and will consequently increase costs to local authorities. We understand that those granted refugee status will be exempt from the NRPF requirement during the probationary citizenship stage. 3. The submission welcomes a commitment to remove those without permission to be in the UK in a sustainable and sensitive way (ideally through assisted voluntary returns programmes). There needs to be resolution to cases 1 No Recourse to Public Funds: Financial Implications for Local Authorities (May 2008) Jonathan Price and Olvia Fellas, NRPF Network 1

2 currently being supported by local authorities however, which may involve exploring options to grant some form of permission and thereby allowing them to work or access mainstream benefits. 4. Additional concerns highlighted in this submission are as follows. Firstly, the introduction of restrictions for those who voluntarily return seeking to re-enter the UK will act as a disincentive to take up voluntary return and will compromise the work of local authority caseworkers and social workers who use this option to resolve cases. Secondly, charging additional fees for immigration applications for migrants who tend to consume more in public services is unreasonable and may potentially disadvantage vulnerable migrants. No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) Network 5. The NRPF Network is a network of local authorities focusing on the statutory response to destitute people from abroad who have no recourse to public funds. The Network, established in 2006, aims to share information and good practice amongst local authorities, work with government departments to raise practical and policy issues and to develop a strategic response to NRPF. 6. There are over 600 members of the NRPF Network representing local authorities, the voluntary sector, central government, the police and the NHS. Many of our members work with people who have NRPF and are particularly vulnerable on account of having a community care need which entitles them to local authority support under section 21 National Assistance Act 1948 or Section 17 Children Act (more information below). It should be borne in mind that the implications of the Immigration and Citizenship Bill may be particularly acute for this group of people due to their need for care and attention (as defined by community care legislation). 7. The NRPF Network is currently working with the Home Office on mechanisms for reimbursing organisations for providing support to victims of domestic violence applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Domestic Violence Rule. The Network has also begun preliminary work with the UK Borders Agency (UKBA) to seek resolutions to individual cases being supported by local authorities. Objectives have been set to identify and conclude cases, taking enforcement action where practicable or granting status to cases in accordance with their policies. These objectives have been set out as part of pilot partnerships with local authorities in the UKBA s Enforcement Strategy. 8. The NRPF Network is funded by the UKBA and Islington Council. 2

3 What is NRPF? 9. No recourse to public funds applies to a person who is subject to immigration control; does not have the right to work; 2 and has no entitlement to welfare benefits, public housing or UKBA asylum support. 10. The NRPF policy affects a wide range of people who are subject to immigration control, including refused asylum seekers, visa overstayers, post-18 former unaccompanied asylum seeking children, people in the UK on spouse visas and some EEA migrants Case law has ruled that those who are destitute and in the country lawfully are entitled to local authority support where they are assessed as being in need of care and attention (National Assistance Act, 1948) or, if they are in the country unlawfully, where it would be a breach of their human rights to withhold or withdraw support (Human Rights Act, 1998). Individuals with mental health problems, physical health problems, older people and those suffering domestic violence may be entitled to local authority services. In addition, support may be provided by a local authority to a family under the Children Act 1989 where a child is found to be a child in need. 12. Due to complex and overlapping community care, immigration and human rights legislation, many people are found to be ineligible for local authority assistance. Those who do not qualify may become destitute and/or street homeless. Others will become hidden homeless, staying for example with family or friends, or in mosques or churches. Introduction 13. The NRPF Network represents a broad range of stakeholders comprising principally local authority representatives but also those from the voluntary sector, and statutory bodies such as the police and the NHS. This submission will focus on the impact the new legislation is likely to have on statutory bodies and the clients to whom they provide services. 14. The Draft (partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill, published on 14 th July 2008, does not include details of changes to entitlements to public services and benefits, which is the principle concern of the NRPF Network. However, a document accompanying the draft Bill, Making Change Stick: an Introduction to the Immigration and Citizenship Bill, provides a rough outline of how the changes will look in the full Bill. Additionally, the Path to Citizenship Green paper, published by the UKBA in May 2008, outlined proposals for amendments 2 People granted leave as spouses or civil partners are permitted to take up employment 3 The term migrant will be used henceforth to refer to these groups collectively. 3

4 to access to benefits and other public funds for migrants. It appears that the proposals in the Green paper will be fully incorporated into the legislation Below, we consider the draft Bill under some of the headings outlined in this call for submissions in areas relating directly to the work of the NRPF Network. Selective migration Those overstaying permission 16. The document accompanying the draft Bill states that anyone who knowingly enters or stays here without permission after it has expired or been cancelled will be committing an imprisonable offence. There are many reasons however why migrants may still be in the country without permission. Research undertaken by the NRPF Network in May 2008 found that almost 4,000 people with NRPF were being supported by local authorities across the UK during 2007/8; many of these people are in the country without permission. 5 Their inability to leave the UK may be on account of a physical or mental illness, the lack of a safe route of return, or a lack of travel documentation, to name but a few. 17. Local authorities have a duty to support migrants with NRPF and have an assessed community care need (most often a mental or physical illness) under the National Assistance Act 1948 or, in certain circumstances if they have children, under the Children Act 1989, or in order to avoid a breach of their human rights under the Human Rights Act These individuals and families should not be punished for being in the UK without permission through no fault of their own; furthermore, many of these individuals and families, on account of being supported by the local authority, are particularly vulnerable, and their specific needs and circumstances should be taken into consideration if any enforcement action is to take place. 18. In order to avoid the situation in which those without permission are being supported by local authorities, the UKBA should remove refused asylum seekers at the end of the asylum process and resolve cases currently being supported by local authorities. Local authorities collect considerable amounts of information on clients whilst supporting them. The UKBA should use this to inform decisionmaking and help find sustainable solutions to individual cases. Furthermore, the UKBA should consider adopting a casework approach to address individual 4 Please see the UKBA s response to the Path to Citizenship consultation: citizenshipbill/pathtocitizenshipconsultation/governmentresponse.pdf?view=binary 5 No Recourse to Public Funds: Financial Implications for Local Authorities (May 2008) Jonathan Price and Olvia Fellas, NRPF Network 4

5 cases being supported by local authorities in order to reach these resolutions more efficiently. 19. There are some individuals and families whose removal from the UK is unenforceable on account of a physical or mental health problem, and in such cases the UKBA should consider granting some form of permission, and therefore entitling them to work or access mainstream benefits. 20. In cases where travel documents cannot be granted, the UKBA should reimburse the local authority for continuing to provide support to the individual until such time that travel documents can be granted. 21. In cases where return is an option, the UKBA should work with local authorities to seek the best solution for individuals and families. Ideally this would be through assisted voluntary return programmes. 22. In cases where overstayers are families with children, it is of concern that separating families would raise a safeguarding dilemma for local authorities who are under a general duty to safeguard the welfare of children and enable children to be cared for within the family (Children Act 1989). Clause 189 of the draft Bill requires immigration officials to have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We stress that this duty should extend to children within families as well as unaccompanied children. Removals 23. Part four of the draft Bill outlines the power to make expulsion orders for the removal of people from the UK and to restrict re-entry into the UK. 24. For those who are in a position to leave the UK, the NRPF network welcomes powers to remove those unlawfully in the country in a sustainable yet sensitive way. In cases where return is an option, the UKBA should work with local authorities to seek the best solution for individuals and families. Ideally this would be through assisted voluntary return programmes. 25. It is of concern that the legislation provides for a ban on those who return voluntarily from re-entering the UK for potentially lengthy periods of time (discussed further below). We believe that this acts as a disincentive for take-up of voluntary return. Further, this would appear to restrict the rights of individuals to return to the UK if they experience persecution on returning to their country of origin. Earning the right to stay 26. The introduction of probationary citizenship as a step towards permanent permission to reside in the UK aims to inscribe earned citizenship into immigration legislation. 5

6 27. This additional stage further complicates migrants path to permanent settlement in the UK. For some migrants, the time period during which they have no recourse to public funds will be increased. This has financial implications for local authorities (discussed below) as well as creating additional barriers for migrants wishing to settle permanently in the UK. 28. The requirement to undertake voluntary work in order to demonstrate active citizenship may be particularly difficult for migrants being supported by local authorities on account of their community care needs. There should be some discretion for migrants with community care needs in regards to this requirement. 29. More broadly, we welcome the introduction of incentives to encourage English language learning and skills development amongst migrants. However, this must be supported by a commitment by central government to fund community cohesion and integration projects to support refugees and migrants develop English language skills and develop skills for future employment. Such projects could be administered by local authorities. Charging migrants a little extra 30. It is proposed that migrants pay a little extra towards public services through immigration applications. This is justified on the grounds that some migrants tend to consume more in public services. We understand that these additional funds will go towards a fund to manage the transitional impact of migration (discussed further below). 31. The Path to Citizenship Green paper acknowledges that migrants are fiscal contributors in regards to public services. 6 In light of this, it is difficult to justify imposing further charges on migrants on account of the greater consumption of public services by some migrants. Further, the NRPF Network is concerned that funds will be raised by charging those most vulnerable, such as dependents (which tend to be women, elderly people and children). It would be preferable for charging additional fees to be means tested. Automatic ban on returns 32. The legislation introduces a ban on returning to the UK after returning voluntarily and the requirement of foreign nationals to repay cost to taxpayers if they ever want another visa once their exclusion period has been served. This acts as a disincentive for take-up of voluntary return and would seem to contradict current efforts to increase usage of this option of return. 6 citizenshipbill/pathtocitizenshipconsultation/pathtocitizenship?view=binary 6

7 33. Local authorities frequently use this option to resolve cases either through UKBA section 4 support or in partnership with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). Such a ban would compromise the work of local authority caseworkers and social workers. Managing any local impacts 34. The legislation will increase the period during which migrants on the family and economic routes have no recourse to public funds. We understand that this will be for a minimum of one year and for up to five years, pending English language and citizenship tests and the demonstration of active citizenship. The extension of these time periods will increase costs to local authorities. Research conducted by the NRPF Network found that in 2007/8 the NRPF policy cost local authorities at least 33.4 million, which is an increase of 8% on the costs incurred in 2006/ We understand that additional charges on immigration applications will go towards a fund to manage the transitional pressures of migration at local levels. This is to be available to a range of agencies and statutory bodies. Although the Network question the means through which these funds will be raised, part of this fund should be used to reimburse local authorities for the cost of supporting people with NRPF pending their removal from the country or granting of permission. It is unclear whether such funds would meet the above cost. 36. Ultimately however, there needs to be agreement on how to find case resolution on legacy cases and other complex cases that local authorities are supporting. These cases can be resolved, either by returning people to their countries of origin at the end of the asylum/immigration process if it is safe to do so, or by granting people temporary or indefinite leave to remain, thereby entitling them to work or to claim mainstream benefits. Part of the solution however is to recognise that removal (voluntary or enforced) is not an option in a significant number of cases and that leaving people destitute is not in the interests of broader social protection policy. 37. This would free individuals from a state of limbo, enabling them to continue their lives either in the UK or abroad and have the right to work and live dignified lives. It would also significantly reduce the financial burden on local authorities and council taxpayers. Summary of recommendations a) Central government should reimburse local authorities for the expenditure incurred on supporting individuals and families who have NRPF, pending their removal (if enforceable) from the UK. Reimbursement should form part of a 7 No Recourse to Public Funds: Financial Implications for Local Authorities (May 2008) Jonathan Price and Olvia Fellas, NRPF Network 7

8 strategic response to NRPF, which should focus principally on finding sustainable solutions to people s situations. b) There are some individuals and families whose removal from the UK is unenforceable on account of a physical or mental health problem, and in such cases the UKBA should consider granting some form of permission, and therefore entitling them to work or access mainstream benefits. c) In cases where return is an option, the UKBA should work with local authorities to seek the best solution for individuals and families. Ideally this would be through assisted voluntary return programmes. d) Restrictions on those who have returned to their country of origin via assisted voluntary return programmes seeking to re-enter the UK should be reconsidered. e) Central government should increase funding to local authorities through community cohesion and integration projects to support refugees and migrants develop English language skills and develop skills for future employment. 8