This is a guest post by James Radcliffe of Shelter Cymru in response to the current immigration series. It takes a view of some of the consequences of legislation passed to restrict migrant worker’s access to benefits and explodes the myth immigrants are getting free houses, free cars and massive benefits.

When the A8 countries joined the EU in 2004, the UK government was faced with the usual scare stories in tabloid newspapers about Britain being over-run by hoards of migrants who would both steal our jobs and lazily claim benefits.

Faced with these concerns the UK government introduced additional restrictions on people from the new members of the EU. They introduced the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) in order to initially monitor and restrict access to benefits.

For those of you still unconvinced of the power of the media, it is worth taking a look at the leaked paper from the ministerial working group on immigration that considered whether to extend the WRS beyond the initial transition period. Note the following paragraphs:

“The change in policy is likely to be perceived domestically as a loosening of the governments grip on migration and benefit shopping. This would contrast unhelpfully with other government policy to tighten management of the migration system (as set out in the five year strategy for immigration and asylum). Public and media opinion remains largely resistant to rational arguments for migration, and the media climate is more hostile to migration now than in early 2004………..by closing the WRS, the UK would be going out on a limb re-igniting the media debate to no obvious (domestic public) advantage”

This has a consequence. In order to be eligible for public funds*, an A8 national has to been registered on the WRS and working in the UK for 12 months continually (they are allowed up to 30 days break). If they do not meet these criteria then they cannot access housing services, and many welfare benefits.

In the jargon they have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF). A8 nationals in the UK with this condition do not have a welfare state to provide a safety net for them should they lose their job or get evicted from their home, etc.

As a result, anecdotal evidence of destitution amongst A8 nationals began to emerge from a variety of sources. I’m highlighting a couple of case studies that we uncovered in the course of our research to illustrate the human side of NRPF.

Case 1 – A Polish family sleeping rough in a town in North Wales.

The family consists of a couple in their late 40s, Mr and Mrs X, their 22 year old daughter and her boyfriend.

Initially Mr X arrived in the UK in early 2007 and worked in heavy industry, often working 80 hours a week. However he enjoyed working in the UK so brought his partner – Mrs X – over to the UK and found her a job.

Mrs X worked until earlier this year when she lost her job following an injury at work. The couple’s daughter and her boyfriend then flew over to look after her mother while she recovered from her injuries.

Following an argument, they were illegally evicted from their rented property by their landlord, who changed the locks and threw their belongings into the street. Unable to access his keys for work, Mr X missed a day of work and as a result lost his job, leaving the family without employment, money or a place to stay.

The police advised the family to access a shelter for the homeless, but as the family had NRPF status, they were not allowed to access the night shelter and were left sleeping rough.

Despite having worked for over two years, the husband discovered he was not registered with the WRS as the employment agency concerned had simply kept the fee and “forgotten” to register him. Due to their NRPF status, the family have been reduced to sleeping rough with sleeping bags provided by the Red Cross and surviving on soup from a local charity. They’ve been assaulted by racist drunks and have medical conditions that are being inadequately treated and made worse through rough sleeping. To make matters worse, the couple’s daughter is now heavily pregnant and social services will have to take the baby into care once it is born.

We have further evidence of children being separated from their parents who have NRPF status. If this practice is widespread then this evidence suggests that this legislation actually costs the taxpayer money due to the need to fund the care of children of NRPF cases. It is, of course, hardly healthy for a pregnant woman and her unborn child to be sleeping rough.

Case 2 – Single parent, South Wales.

Mr and Mrs Z were living with 2 children in a flat above a shop in a large city. The flat was damp and mouldy. The family slept on mattresses in the main room. The relationship was abusive, and police were called to the property after a serious incident and helped Mrs Z to leave. She arranged to stay with a friend on a temporary basis. The Red Cross became involved and helped her to move into her friend’s house and to apply for benefits.

Due to Mrs Z’s NRPF status, she found that she had no entitlement to support and, therefore, no right to any welfare benefits. All she actually wanted to do was return to Poland but she is prevented from doing so for legal reasons; her youngest child was born in the UK and Mrs Z requires permission from the child’s father in order to obtain the Polish passport that the child needs to return to their mother’s country of birth. The child’s father, because of the history of domestic violence, has refused to give permission.

This case illustrates how NRPF disproportionately affects women.

One local authority in Wales has compiled data on local NRPF cases that show the majority of them are women. In London, Amnesty International and Southall Black Sisters produced a report that explored the effects of NRPF in more detail. It includes evidence of cases where women have been murdered by violent partners because their NRPF status has meant they have been unable to access the services of women’s refuges.

In cases where domestic violence is not an issue, we have evidence of families with NRPF status being threatened with having  their children into care.

Other cases of NRPF we came across included:

• a man left disabled following an accident at work who was left relying on his friends for care and support as he had only been working for 11 months rather than the 12 months that would have seen him qualify for support;
• a family who slept in their car for a few days parked in a supermarket car park before a colleague took them in;
• a migrant worker who slept rough after being denied access to a hostel for the homeless.

On a slightly less serious note, we have come across some ridiculous interpretations of NRPF by various agencies.

A migrant worker with NRPF status was using a job point in a Jobcentre to look for work and found a job he was interested in. The information provided explained that details of how to apply would be obtained from a member of staff. When he asked a member of staff for this information he was told that because he had no recourse to public funds the member of staff was not allowed to spend time with him explaining about the job.

In another local authority, we also found a case in which a Portuguese man was turned away because a member of staff dealing with his enquiry thought Portugal was in Eastern Europe!

Some of the anti-immigration attitudes amongst staff in public sector agencies has led to quite ridiculous (and incorrect) interpretations of the law. It also creates a culture of “gate keeping” in which people are refused help and assistance, even if they are entitled to it.

The introduction of the WRS and restrictions on benefits were a logical response to the concerns about public services being overwhelmed by migrants from the A8 Accession states. In practice, it seems that a significant number of migrant workers have either failed to register or paid for registration though their employment agency, on for the agency to fail to complete the necessary paperwork. Around a third of the migrant workers we spoke to were not registered and, as a result, are unable to access support of claim benefits when this needed, even after working in the UK, and paying income tax, for several years.

On the plus side, we did also find that although around 30% of the A8 nationals we spoke had become homeless at some point**, many had managed to turn things around with the help of friends, colleagues and voluntary sector organisations.

Notwithstanding the ethics of leaving people destitute; NRPF is not a cost free option for the taxpayer. By offering a little support to help people obtain new employment and accommodation, or to escape abusive relationships, we all gain in the long run from the Income Tax and NI contributions of migrant workers and from not having to use social services, the NHS and the criminal justice system to clean up the mess created by an ill-thought out, knee jerk policy that was designed to appease the tabloids rather than implement a fair and workable system.
————–

* It is worth pointing out here that “public funds” in this context only refer to some ways in which public money could be spent. People with NRPF status are still entitled to use public lavatories for example.

** In this context I am using a strict definition of homeless that only counts periods of time when somebody literally had no home of their own to go to and were left sleeping rough, in a hostel or on the floor/sofa of friends houses. I am not referring to inadequate or unsafe housing – although these were issues that emerged. I’ve have excluded initial arrangements – where somebody stays on the floor of a friend’s house for a week or two upon arrival in the UK before finding their own place – from these figures.

More details are available from our website for those of you interested and a slightly longer version of this article can be downloaded from this link.

1. Liberal Conspiracy
   

   :: The cost of 'No Recourse to Public Funds' http://bit.ly/5ur2b3

2. Sam the Drummer
   

   Someone should tell the Daily Mail. If they cared #immigration RT @libcon: :: The cost of 'No Recourse to Public Funds' http://bit.ly/5ur2b3

3. Liz A
   

   RT @libcon: :: The cost of 'No Recourse to Public Funds' http://bit.ly/5ur2b3