#section17

I’m speechless.

When I wasn’t taking my medication the nurses were all saying things like “your meds are really important, you must take them consistently as prescribed” etc…then this happens.

Ugh.

Not Seen, Not Heard: Children’s experiences of the hostile environment

A report by Project 17 published in February 2019

This report details the ways in which the Section 17 provision is being increasingly gatekept from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) who are facing destitution and homelessness. The report evidences that when Section 17 support is offered to families it is done so at a highly inadequate level, and that the process of getting this support is harmful to the vulnerable children who the council have a duty to protect.

‘Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children ‘in need’ in their area. This statutory provision has become an essential safety net for children whose parents are unable to access mainstream welfare support because of their (NRPF) immigration status.’ (Page 2)

The report focusses on the experiences of children whose families have needed Section 17 support. Their testimony provides a powerful insight into the hardship that children from families with NRPF face, and how their physical and emotional wellbeing are being harmed by NRPF, and by the treatment that they receive from local authorities.

Below the children’s testimony you will find the report’s recommendations which are printed on pages 4-6.

The case study that follows shows how a sudden change in circumstances led to a family becoming homeless, and how having no recourse to public funds (NRPF) made their experience all the more difficult. It was provided by The Unity Project, the charity that helped ‘Annie’ to make a * Change of Conditions application. 

* Although the Change of Conditions application may look simple, the refusals given by the Home Office demonstrate how much evidence is expected, and how difficult it is to make without the support of an experienced caseworker.

Please note, ‘Annie’ is a fake name used to protect the person’s privacy. The social services teams that are mentioned in this case are in London.

Annie’s experience:

Homeless and destitute families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) are able to access Section 17 support, as councils have a duty of care towards vulnerable children in need.

This article shares how having immigration officers embedded in councils has been used to deter people from accessing the Section 17 support they need. 

Quotes from article:

“Local authorities have a clear obligation to safeguard the welfare of children. That support is a right, and we are concerned that families are afraid to access that right because of data-sharing with the Home Office,” said Jennifer Ang, a human rights lawyer at JustRight Scotland...

Bethan Lant, head of casework at Praxis, said social workers who requested Home Office support in these assessments regularly threatened to separate families.

In a recording heard by the Guardian, a social worker tells an applicant with leave to remain that the Home Office worker present at the interview could deport her, in front of her daughter. “The impression being given by officers is that if you need help you have to consider going back home, which is absolutely not the case,” Lant said.

One Nigerian claimant told the Guardian that an immigration officer criticised her for sending her children to live with a family member while she was depressed. “They said: ‘Why would you abandon your kids? What kind of mother would do that?’ They made me feel like a criminal.

Campaigners say the practice of embedding immigration officers in local councils is harming vulnerable children. Chai Patel, legal policy director at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: “Section 17 support is designed to ensure that children and their families are not left destitute, homeless or starving. For the Home Office to use it to gather personal data on those families for immigration enforcement purposes is a gross perversion of the purpose of the law.”

https://twitter.com/NELMAcampaigns/status/1041748204230983680

Twitter thread posted by NELMA (North East London Migrant Action) on 17/09/18:

A mother and two young kids have been refused support & left street homeless by @lb_southwark's NRPF team tonight. The family & one of our volunteers spent the whole day trying to get support only to be told 10 mins before the office closed that none would be provided.

Decision made by @alexirvine77. We've seen Southwark's gatekeeping of s17 support from families with NRPF get worse and more hostile. These decisions to leave children street homeless are shameful. @peterjohn6 @helenhayes_

@lb_southwark has made it very clear that children living in families with no recourse to public funds do not matter to them. Rather than upholding their statutory duty to safeguard children in their area, they are failing some of the most vulnerable children in Southwark.

Olivia shares her first-hand experiences of being in the immigration system and its intersection with 'NRPF' and social work, as she struggled to receive the support that she and her child were entitled to. 

Olivia’s story is shared here: https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/case-studies/no-recourse-public-funds-olivias-story

On 20 November 2017, social work students at Glasgow Caledonian University took part in a session that formed part of their Working with Law and Ethics module. It was entitled, No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF): Supporting Individuals and Understanding their Rights. Its primary focus was on children and families.

The morning provided input from a human rights lawyer, Jen Ang from JustRight Scotland, and Natalia Farmer, a PhD student completing ethnographic research on this topic. Both brought case study material into the session. Critically, however, the session also contained Olivia's story.

Case study from ‘Making Change Happen: The impact of national policies on our clients’ lives… A report by Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network (LRMN)’, published March 2018

'Miremba* is a 31 year old woman from Uganda*. Miremba has been in the UK since 2003 and has recently been given Leave To Remain (LTR) due to being the single parent of her British Citizen son. Miremba's son suffers from autism, and in addition she has recently been experiencing severe anxiety as a result of her immigration status and housing situation. Miremba used to work as a carer, but had to stop as she cannot afford childcare for her son. She has a No Recourse to Public Funds status, meaning she cannot access most types of public funding, trapping her into having to rely on her local council for housing support (under Section 17 of the Children’s Act). Miremba wants to go back to work, but if she does she will no longer qualify for financial support, and what little money she makes won't be enough to support her family. Miremba has been relying on the help of friends to support herself and her son, and has also been relying on the support from LRMN. We have been providing Miremba with regular food parcels from our food bank as well as providing her with emotional support via our weekly Women’s Group. Miremba’s case is an example of those who are subject to the NRPF condition, as she is allowed to remain in the country, but is not given the support necessary to live independently, work, or pursue further education. She is instead forced to seek support from agencies such as LRMN and friends, and is not provided with the means for herself and her son to thrive.