A woman who has lived in Britain for 12 years fears she may have to leave the country if changes to the welfare system proposed by Reform UK are made.
Sylvie Frankel, a German national and child benefit recipient with settled status in the UK, has four children with her husband.
Ms Frankel, a chartered accountant who lives in Derbyshire, has four children and receives personal independence payment (PIP) for her eldest child, who is a wheelchair user.
Reform UK has pledged to replace PIP and cut £50bn from the benefits bill.
“We have regular discussions already about leaving the country long-term,” Frankel told The i Paper.
“If something like that came into play, I’d like to say I would just leave, but we all know it’s not that easy to leave a country.”
Reform has pledged to block foreign nationals from accessing almost all forms of welfare, claiming “they have not contributed on an equivalent basis” to the benefits they receive.
The party also committed to abolishing PIP for working-age adults and replacing it with a “health security allowance” reserved for claimants with “severe, enduring and high-risk conditions”.
The proposals were included in a 52-page report which pledged to cut £50bn off the benefit bill a year from 2030, of which £20bn would come from foreign nationals claiming universal credit.
“I find it a bit outrageous considering study after study shows that immigrants contribute more to society than they take,” Ms Frankel said.
“Child benefit is already really crap compared to other European countries. I got less here for four children than I got in Germany for one”.
Holes in Reform’s arguments
Reform claims taking away benefits from foreign nationals is that they do not pay in “on an equivalent basis [to British citizens] and accordingly, ought not to qualify for the benefits”.
But experts suggest such blanket claims overlook the differences between migrant groups and contributions.
Ben Brindle, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, said: “There is quite a big difference in the impact that migration has on the public finances when we look at different routes.
“Broadly speaking, migrants that are in work and particularly those that are working in higher-paid jobs, make a net fiscal contribution to the UK, whereas those that are out of work and those who are the youngest and the oldest, the children and the elderly, have a negative impact.”
Marley Morris, associate director of migration at the Institute for Public Policy, said: “If we look at one of the most recent studies done by the migration advisory committee looking at the lifetime fiscal impact for individuals on skilled and the health and care routes including their dependents for the period 2022-2023, the net fiscal impact was positive.”
According to the Department for Work and Pensions, Reform’s policy to block foreign nationals from accessing welfare would mainly affect individuals on the EU settlement scheme, which make up 9.7 per cent of universal credit claimants.
Morris added: “The logic of what [Reform] are saying is that you need to have made a contribution before you can start accessing the welfare system.
“Our concern with this argument is that many of the people this would affect would be people who actually have been living and working in the UK for a long time and who have been making a contribution. It seems unfair to restrict access to welfare and support for those people who have been living in the UK for a long time.”
Less migration vs skills gaps?
Reform also claims that welfare is currently “an automatic entitlement for anyone who acquires the right to immigration status”. It argues that “welfare should be a reciprocal obligation of British citizenship”.
Under Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s reforms to indefinite leave to remain (ILR), applicants would need to have made national insurance contributions for at least three years.
According to the Oxford Migration Observatory, this is roughly equivalent to being employed with earnings of at least £12,570 a year for the required period.
Morris added: “There are various requirements in place to ensure a degree of self-sufficiency and to design a system in such a way that people in general will be contributing.
“Obviously that is not to say that every person will be making a significant tax contribution but certainly the way the system is designed it has specific requirements around salary thresholds.”
Reform’s proposals come as the British public increasingly sees immigration as one of the most important issues facing the nation, with public opinion divided on whether immigration is a bad thing overall or whether immigration numbers should be reduced.
Changes to the immigration system, such as ILR, are seen as a reflection of that growing public opinion.
“If the public are asked about migrants from different countries of origin, they will have more positive attitudes to migrants regardless of their country of origin if they are skilled migrants,” Brindle said.
“If they are asked about trade-offs, for instance, whether they would rather have less migration or potentially more migration and fill skills gaps, they usually would prioritise the economic aspect over reduced migration.”