Will Labour’s new child poverty strategy exclude migrant children?

Within weeks of taking office last July, the new UK Labour government launched a new cross-government child poverty unit – to deliver on its manifesto promises. The new taskforce rightly includes the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education, and theTreasury. But what we don’t know yet is whether this will truly be a strategy to reduce poverty for every child – including migrant children.

The last decade has seen a significant increase in the number of people in the UK living in deep poverty, or facing destitution. Pressure on food banks, local authorities and advice services has soared as people on low-incomes struggle to weather changing circumstances and stay financially resilient. At the core of our social contract is the idea that when someone is faced with such hardship, the social security system – if functioning correctly – should act as a protective barrier, preventing people from ending up in poverty in the first place.

Migrant families, on the other hand, are excluded by design from this system by the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) visa condition. Almost all migrants in the UK who have not yet attained permanent residency (also known as indefinite leave to remain or settled status) are likely to be subject to the NRPF immigration condition, as are those without current status.

Currently, an estimated 4 million people live without access to the social security system in the UK because of NRPF – including undocumented migrants and at least half a million children. This rarely talked about policy was extended to cover more people, and was more recently extended to include people arriving in the UK from Hong Kong too.

It’s been reassuring to see ministerial recognition of the distinct challenges faced by migrant children, and confirmation that the child poverty taskforce is considering all children. To really make a difference to poverty amongst migrant children specifically, we are calling for NRPF to be scrapped entirely so that migrant families can access the social security system on an equal footing.

Not all families with NRPF conditions are living in poverty, but many migrants are earning low incomes – even when they are specifically recruited to fill skills gaps through the UK government’s shortage occupation list, or in key industries like the NHS or care sector. What this means is that migrant families are at higher risk of falling into poverty as the condition acts as a blanket ban on access to the social security system.

Those affected cannot access most welfare benefits, including Universal Credit, Housing Benefit and Child Benefit. The restriction disproportionately impacts children, as their well-being is directly tied to their family's financial stability.

It's not known exactly how many migrant children are living in poverty as a result of NRPF because the Home Office doesn’t keep accurate records. But we do know that children whose parents were born outside the UK face double the risk of relative poverty compared to children of UK-born parents (47.5% versus 25.8%). These children are also three time more likely to be in severe poverty than their peers. What’s more, according to the authoritative research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one third of the one million children living in deepest poverty in 2022 were children in migrant households. 

Consecutive governments have typically argued that NRPF rules are important to prevent costs to the taxpayer, and 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”. However, consecutive governments have failed to acknowledge that routes to settlement are long, complex and expensive, and often push people into poverty rather than lift them out of it.

At Praxis, we have been campaigning to end the NRPF condition since 2020. Our No Recourse to Public Funds Action Group is made up of people who are subject to the condition and are campaigning to end it. They regularly raise the difficulty of unavoidable living costs and providing for their families.

Anna Berry*, a member of the NRPF Action Group, said: “We work really hard, we pay tax, how does it make sense for us to have No Recourse to Public Funds? I have to work two or three jobs and I still can’t give my children the life I want for them. It's like the government gives you the right to breathe but makes you pay for the air”.

“We work really hard, we pay tax. It's like the government gives you the right to breathe but makes you pay for the air”

If the question is of cost to the taxpayer, we must remember two things – migrants pay taxes, and that prevention is better – and cheaper – than cure. Where the national government fails to intervene earlier on to prevent hardship, Local Authorities are responsible for intervening at the point of destitution or homelessness.

This places pressure and responsibility onto already stretched Local Authorities, who are operating with restricted budgets, and leaves migrants at risk of the worst outcomes before help is provided. Recent research from the University of Oxford found that Local Authorities are spending at least £103 million per year providing support to migrants facing destitution – funds that they are expected to cover from their existing social care budgets.

Labour may consider NRPF too politically challenging to navigate in the face of a live and hostile conversation about immigration. But the reality is that all government departments and Local Authorities already deal with the repercussions of the policy on a daily basis. Commitments to end child poverty, rough sleeping, and domestic violence cannot be met unless the government specifically addresses NRPF.

This is why charities including Praxis, have joined forces under the banner of the End Child Poverty Coalition to call for the government to invest in reform of the social security system as the cornerstone of the strategy, including reforms to the benefit cap and two-child limit.

Ultimately, ending NRPF is not just a matter of addressing poverty but of upholding the dignity and rights of every child living in the UK, and committing to the basic principles of a public safety net. If the government truly wishes to implement a successful child poverty strategy, it must remove Home Office policies that are a direct driver of poverty.

*Name has been changed to protect identity