WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE | AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
April 12 2021
WE ARE A MAGAZINE ABOUT LAW AND JUSTICE | AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO

Home Office’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy challenged on grounds of racial discrimination

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on twitter

Home Office’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy challenged on grounds of racial discrimination

Banksy mural in Clacton-on-Sea, destroyed because it was 'racist'

A controversial Home Office policy preventing migrants from claiming social support and introduced in 2012 as part of the Coalition government’s so-called ‘hostile environment is facing a new legal challenge by a five-year-old Black British boy on the grounds of racial discrimination. The ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy denies non-EEA parents of British children, who have the legal right to live and work in the UK on the basis of strong family ties to the country, access to the same support available to other low-earning parents such as child and housing benefits.

According to Caz Hattam, project coordinator at The Unity Project, the policy has been ‘trapping working families in the most abject poverty’. In May last year, the High Court ruled that such policy was a breach of human rights ‘where the applicant is suffering inhuman and degrading treatment by reason of lack of resources or will imminently suffer such treatment without recourse to public funds’. This led the Home Office to publish new guidelines clarifying that the NRPF condition should be lifted or not imposed if an applicant is destitute or at risk of imminent destitution.

Despite this, the policy is now being challenged again but, this time, on the grounds of racial discrimination. According to Adam Hundt, partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, the law firm backing the legal action, the policy reportedly creates ‘an underclass of black British children’. Citizens Advice figures show that 82% of people who sought advice about NRPF in the 12 months leading to May 2020 were people of colour. The Law Society had also already warned that the NRPF policy ‘significantly affects BAME communities as they are more likely to be migrants holding conditional visas’.

According to The Unity Project, an organisation that helps people remove the NRPF condition from their leave to remain, the boy’s lawyers will argue that the Home Secretary’s failure to monitor such disproportionate impact of NRPF on people of colour constitutes a breach of her legal duty to promote equality.

One response to “Home Office’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy challenged on grounds of racial discrimination”

  1. Avatar Steven A says:

    Hello, I do agree. As someone who has been living in the uk for over a decade and never claim any benefits. I was firstly a college student and then went to the university. All paid for by my own means. However, I lost my job in January this year and I have been struggling to survive.

    To approach office for them to remove the no recourse to public funds and i was met with a rejection is not fair. I have always been law abiding and I have been in this country for over a decade. If i was an European I am quite sure those laws won’t be effective.

    So many people of colour are suffering right now because of this. I believe it time to remove it especially if you have paid into the system like I have done over the years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts