No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds and homelessness. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for the work I do in this area. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

This is the second debate I have secured this year on no recourse to public funds. It is also the second time I do so with a profound concern that our stated ambitions of prosperity over poverty, and reducing homelessness and child poverty, are being actively undermined by immigration policies that are designed to do the very opposite.

This debate could not be more timely. Just days ago, the Government published their homelessness strategy. While I welcome the strategy—there are a number of measures contained within it—it is disappointing that it stops short of introducing meaningful action to tackle homelessness among one of the most vulnerable groups, which is migrants affected by the no recourse to public funds condition. As was highlighted in my previous debate, that group includes many children.

Our understanding of homelessness remains partial and fragmented. Official data routinely fails to capture hidden homelessness, which is especially prevalent in migrant communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady—I spoke to her beforehand. It has been brought to my attention in this last period of time that there is a proportion of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are survivors of trafficking. They were brought to the UK with unresolved status and they therefore struggle to access public funds for secure accommodation. Does the hon. Lady agree that those who are here illegally, but not because of their own choices, should be able to access the necessary support to help them gain safe and secure accommodation while they figure out how to get out of the mess they are in?

[Olivia Blake]

That is a very timely intervention, as we consider our aims to reduce violence against women and girls. As we know, many women are trafficked and suffer sexual abuse and sexual violence as a result. I absolutely agree: the least we could do is make sure they have a safe roof over their heads when they come forward for help and assistance. The hon. Member highlights an important point.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for robust data on migrant homelessness and no recourse to public funds. Will the Home Office commit to collecting better data on the number of people subject to no recourse to public funds who are at risk of, or are currently experiencing, homelessness?

Even in the absence of comprehensive figures, every available indicator points to a growing crisis. Around 4.5 million migrants in the UK are subject to no recourse to public funds, which means no access to universal credit, child benefit, personal independence payments if they are disabled, or social housing. The latest rough sleeping figures underline the scale of the problem. On a single autumn night this year, 27% of those sleeping rough in the UK were non-British citizens. That is the highest proportion recorded since 2017. This is clearly a growing problem.

Migrants face the same pressures that could push anyone into homelessness, which is something we are all at risk of, including low wages, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of support for mental health needs or substance abuse, but these challenges are compounded by the additional barriers imposed by the immigration system. These include prolonged settlement routes, high visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, lack of rights to homelessness assistance, the local housing allowance and discrimination from private landlords due to the right to rent.

As a result of being routinely locked out of social housing and housing-related benefits, people with no recourse to public funds are often forced to rely on overcrowded, unstable and often unsafe accommodation. When those arrangements break down, as they often do, people may be unable to access the last resort safety nets that exist to prevent homelessness. People with no recourse to public funds are therefore far more likely to fall into rough sleeping, not because services do not exist, but because their immigration status prevents them from being able to use them.

Once someone with no recourse to public funds becomes homeless, the reality they face is bleak. I have many examples, but most homelessness accommodation services have little or no provision for people excluded from the social security system. With services under immense pressure, more and more people are being forced to compete for fewer and fewer bed spaces. Too often, that leaves people relying on short-term emergency help from charities and faith groups that are already stretched beyond their limits.

Nowhere are the consequences of no recourse to public funds more stark than for survivors of domestic abuse. Many migrant survivors have their documents, finances and movements tightly controlled by a perpetrator through coercion and abuse. Those survivors are among the most vulnerable, yet they may be barred from welfare and housing support because of no recourse to public funds, leaving them unable to access safe accommodation, including refuges. Women’s Aid has found that over a quarter of women refused refuge spaces in the UK had no recourse to public funds, with many being forced to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return into the hands of their abuser. I know that some people can submit a change of conditions application to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. That advice is also in desperately short supply.

In South Yorkshire alone, two out of the five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid and immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases in 2023 and 2024 across Yorkshire. Research has found that 90% of people surveyed who attempted to have their no recourse to public funds status changed unassisted were unsuccessful. Yet when professional advice was sought and provided, 95% were subsequently successful.

Successive Governments have justified no recourse to public funds as a way to save money for the taxpayer and to ensure that migrants earn their settlement. The reality is very different for local authorities. Their statutory duties to support families with a child in need or adults with care needs means that councils end up supporting thousands of migrant households experiencing destitution and homelessness each year. Research from COMPAS, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, estimates that if all local authorities recorded data consistently, the annual cost of supporting no recourse to public funds households would be around £102 million each year. In 2023 to 2024, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is right that it is not cost free to do this. London councils spend tens of millions of pounds supporting families through emergency accommodation. Does she agree with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report in the last Parliament, which suggested exempting parents with dependent children from no recourse to public funds?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, I think that that is a very valuable solution. It is one that we discussed in the last debate we had on children. This is an issue that affects children profoundly; therefore, councils have to pick up that cost, so the Work and Pensions Committee makes a very valid point.

I am glad that the commitments in the homelessness strategy provide £3.5 billion to homelessness services and welcome the renewed emphasis on prevention. However, despite those positive steps, the strategy falls short in its response to homelessness driven by the immigration system. It fails to grapple with the impact of restrictions on access to public funds and ignores the damaging consequences of the 28-day move-on period for refugees, which is another pinch point where people find themselves falling into homelessness.

I am glad that the Home Office is included as one of the key Departments responsible for delivering on the cross-Government strategy. However, it is disappointing that the Home Office is not held to the same standards as other Departments, which have been given clear measurable targets to end the discharge of people from institutions into homelessness. The strategy mentions a pilot in four council areas for people with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that initiative and how local authorities are expected to use funding to support such migrants.

However, it is not clear how local authorities should use funding allocations to prevent and reduce homelessness among migrants at the moment. Existing successful schemes such as immigration advice services for people who are rough sleeping, including the Sub-regional Immigration Advice Service in London, the Restricted Eligibility Support Service in Manchester and the Home Office homelessness team and escalation team should be maintained, extended and replicated if we are to meet the challenge we face.

In the immigration White Paper the Government claim they want to halve long-term rough sleeping and tackle homelessness, but the policy outlined in the paper will inevitably prolong the risk for migrant communities for decades, extending qualifying periods to settlement to 10, 15 and 20 years. Prolonging the time without access to public funds will inevitably inflict penalties for those who do not receive benefits, which will exacerbate homelessness among migrants and create longer periods for which homelessness will become a concern and an issue for individuals.

Examples highlighted by Praxis are a stark reminder of the profound consequences of the policy. A child brought here at 14 on a visitor visa could face waiting until middle age for settlement. A mother who lawfully accessed universal credit after losing her job could be forced on to a 20-year path, and someone who lost their immigration status following a mental health crisis, already street homeless for two decades, could now confront an additional 30 years of uncertainty. Applying the proposals retrospectively would be a profound injustice for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and their British families who have already invested years of their lives, built communities and contributed financially to this country. I remind the Minister that anyone can fall victim to homelessness. We are each of us in a precarious state in the UK. We can pretend that some of us are isolated from it, but certain communities are exceedingly vulnerable to it, including migrant communities.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The points she makes are extremely accurate and relevant. She talks about the ease with which people can fall into homelessness. It is incredibly sad that at this time of year my inbox is seeing an explosion in homelessness cases, including hidden homelessness and people living in cars, some still in work. No recourse to public funds is especially painful in rural areas, where there might be limited additional support of the type she talks about from charities and a shortage of emergency accommodation. Does she think that the recommendations she has made to the Government and what the Government need to look at should also focus on the peculiarities of rural areas and the difficulty of providing services there?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, it is more challenging to provide support in rural areas, but there is also huge pressure on cities as well. As I mentioned earlier, the financial burden that falls on councils as a result of the policy is huge. Wherever they are in the UK, I think local authorities would say it is a challenge. That is why this needs to be taken in the round and why we need to look at how we tackle individual support.

I would also like to ask the Minister, in relation to the White Paper, on what basis the Government will be applying rules retrospectively. Will holders of indefinite leave to remain be subject to no recourse to public funds? How will local authorities be supported to manage the resulting poverty and homelessness? Will there be new burdens funding, for example, for local authorities, as they have to pick up the pieces? Does the Minister generally think that the Home Office’s earned settlement model is compatible with the Government’s ambition to halve rough sleeping and get back on track to end homelessness?

In my debate in June, I urged the Government to ensure that immigration policies do not deliberately plunge people into destitution and homelessness. I find myself stood here today repeating that call. Instead, we should be reviewing restrictions on access to public funds. We need clearer guidance on the legal powers and responsibilities of local authorities so that councils know when and how they are expected to accommodate and support migrants with limited eligibility for public funds. Crucially, we need proper funding from the Government so that local authorities can provide minimum standards of safe, suitable accommodation regardless of immigration status. That should move beyond trials and pilots so that every local authority can benefit from it.

We urgently need to create a system that no longer traps people in poverty or pushes them into homelessness. Without that, we fail some of the most marginalised people in our society, increase pressures on public services and deepen the social divisions and instability in our communities that so many of us are so concerned about.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is of considerable interest to her, and indeed to other Members. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed to what has been a wide-ranging and interesting discussion, and I look forward to meeting her in the new year to discuss this further.

I will come on to some of the issues and questions that have been raised, but it may be helpful if I set out the positions in broad terms first. As Members are aware, the no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing one. In essence, it seeks to ensure that those coming to the UK are able to support themselves and their families while in the country, thus avoiding unexpected pressures on the welfare system. When applying for permission to enter or stay in the UK, most migrants must demonstrate that they can financially support themselves and their dependants. On that basis, a no recourse to public funds condition is attached to their permission to stay or enter. That means that most temporary migrants will not have access to benefits that are classed as public funds. Those in the UK without an immigration status who require one are also subject to the NRPF condition.

There are certain specific exemptions to the NRPF condition. Certain benefits, such as those based on national insurance contributions, may still be assessed. A number of safeguards are in place to protect more vulnerable migrants. Those here under the family or private life routes, the “appendix child relative” or the Hong Kong British national route have the option to apply for a change of conditions to have their NRPF condition lifted for free if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child or they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure. If there are particularly compelling circumstances, discretion can be used to lift the NRPF condition on other immigration routes.

I will turn to the issue of homelessness, a central theme of this debate. This Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. There is no single or simple solution, but our cross-Government strategy, published just last week, sets out a long-term vision to end homelessness for good.

The national plan to end homelessness has three key pledges to be achieved by the end of this Parliament: to halve the number of long-term rough sleepers, to end the unlawful use of B&Bs for families and to prevent more households from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy is backed by ambitious goals to deliver lasting change. That includes a duty on public services to work together to prevent homelessness, a boost to the supply of good-quality temporary homes and £3.5 billion—a £1 billion funding boost over and above previous commitments—to combat rough sleeping and support services.

Furthermore, the Home Office has made a strategy commitment to ensure that all local authorities receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness. That will enable local authorities to commence a homelessness assessment, which will be received within two days of an asylum discontinuation and within 14 days of family reunion visa issuance.

I will outline the safeguards specifically in place for rough sleepers with NRPF. The Home Office provides a dedicated homelessness escalation service, which helps local authorities and service providers swiftly clarify and resolve the immigration status of individuals if they are rough sleeping or at risk of doing so. I will also highlight an ongoing piece of work directly relevant to the issue. As we know, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are running a pilot in four council areas. It focuses on access to immigration advice and short-term accommodation, and provides a named point of contact in the Home Office for rough sleepers. Its aim is to provide more support to councils so that they can better help people sleeping rough with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam says about moving beyond the pilot, and we look forward to the results to see whether we can move it forward. We will consider its evaluation, which we expect to receive next year, to understand whether the approach is working.

For some people, returning to their home country can be the most viable route out of homelessness. To that end, the voluntary returns service will work in partnership with trusted and willing civil society organisations, establishing a clear and accessible process to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from being supported to return to their country of origin. The Government encourage councils and partners to explore all lawful options to help those who cannot access statutory homelessness assistance due to their immigration status. Our shared aim is to work together to identify pathways off the street for everyone, including individuals with a no recourse to public funds condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of data. We will continue to explore what further information on NRPF can be produced. At this time, we are unable to provide a specific timeframe for data publication or confirm what will be published. Additionally, the Home Office has committed to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop questions on no recourse to public funds for inclusion in the 2026-27 family resources survey, which is a household survey undertaken annually to explore living standards in the UK. The Home Office continues to develop the underlying dataset used for its publications so that it can show where NRPF has been applied to leave to remain applicants.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of safeguarding. It is important that safeguards are in place to protect the most vulnerable. A change of conditions application provides that safeguard for temporary migrants, but I hear what my hon. Friend says about access to legal aid in South Yorkshire, and I would like to cover that in more detail when we meet in the new year. There is an option to apply if someone is destitute or at imminent risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to a child’s welfare that outweigh the considerations for imposing the condition, or if they face exceptional circumstances affecting income or expenditure. On applying the rules retrospectively, we are going through a consultation period in which transitional arrangements are still under consideration. Any representations on that issue are encouraged; the consultation ends early next year, when there will be more detailed guidelines.

To conclude, the NRPF policy is and will continue to be a means by which we operate a managed but fair immigration system.

[Olivia Blake]

I wonder if the Minister wants to make particular comment about violence against women and girls and the impact of the NRPF condition.

[Mike Tapp]

That quite rightly falls under any additional safeguarding issues and circumstances that apply to migrants, which can and will be taken into consideration. As I have set out, the Government are committed to driving down rough sleeping across the board. Our cross-Government strategy will help to deliver on that. Ours is a compassionate and generous society, as has come through in the contributions that we have heard in this debate. One of the tasks of governing is to ask ourselves constantly whether our systems and processes strike the right balance of firmness and fairness. On this issue, we believe that they do, but that does not make the discussion today any less worthwhile. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam for securing the debate and thank all who have participated.

Question put and agreed to.