Mann: Free school meals - Migrant children Chief Minister's reply

A detailed reply here to my query to the Chief Minister about free school meals and the exclusion of the children of migrant workers. I queried if it meets the obligations of the Island under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Chief Minister avers the current situation complies with the Convention

Nonetheless it's disappointing on a day when £400,000 has been announced as a sweetener to attract skilled workers that the children of migrant workers who may occupy poorly paid but vital jobs in areas of the Manx economy such as retail and healthcare should be discriminated against on the grounds of status.

I note the important caveat relating to ‘harsh or oppressive’ circumstances and this is of course helpful however I believe whilst the current situation may meet the letter of the Convention it does not meet the spirit of it.

I trust some members of Tynwald will raise the issue so that children of migrant workers are not discriminated against

I thank the Chief Minister and his staff for their expeditious reply:

“Dear Mr Moffatt

Further to your e-mail below dated 27 December 2018 and received on 27 January 2019 regarding the interface between the eligibility for Free School Meals and the benefits residency criteria I can confirm the following.

I am advised that a child’s right to receive Free School Meals (FSM) is based on their parent or guardian’s benefit status and, as you have pointed out, this does create an issue for households where a parent does not meet residency criteria for means-tested benefits.

Ordinarily, to be entitled to employed person’s allowance, income support or income-based a person must satisfy the “Isle of Man residential condition”, which is satisfied if the person –
was born in the Island;
has been ordinarily resident in the Island for a continuous period of at least 5 years at any time; or
has been ordinarily resident in the Island for 3 or more periods which, when added together, amount to at least 10 years.

It is also satisfied (subject to other conditions) if the person is -
the spouse or civil partner of a person who satisfies any of the above criteria;
the surviving spouse or civil partner of a person who satisfies any of the above criteria;
the former spouse or civil partner of a person who satisfies any of the above criteria; or
the child of a person who satisfies any of the above criteria who was (or whose spouse or civil partner was) serving in HM Forces when they were born.

However, a person who does not satisfy this condition may nevertheless be awarded an income-related benefit if it would be “exceptionally harsh or oppressive” to deny them benefit.

Having children attending school would be persuasive when considering whether to invoke the “exceptionally harsh or oppressive” provision in any particular case. However, we cannot provide confirmation that the presence of school age children within the household would guarantee the grant of rights to benefits as each case must be considered on its individual merits. It is therefore possible for a child living on the Isle of Man to not be able to access FSM despite living in a household in poverty.

Considering the UN convention on the Rights of the Child, I have received advice confirming that a state is not under a duty to provide financial support to foreign nationals and their families who are permitted to enter their territory but who are also in a position to freely return home. In other words, it may be the choice of a family to remain on the Isle of Man despite an inability to claim benefits. It is a feature of immigration control that people falling into the “No Recourse to Public Funds” category are given leave to enter on the condition they are not supported by benefits and in the event they need to access support, their human rights may not necessarily be infringed by returning to their state of origin, to make such a claim for funding.

Overall therefore, I am content that reasonable application of the ‘exceptionally harsh or oppressive’ exemption within our regulations presently provides adequate and fair protection for the groups you have identified. As noted above, while some may not be granted the exemption, it is likely that these would be ‘in a position to return home’ and could therefore make an informed choice as to how to proceed. I would also note that this is the same position as that of the UK who are also governed by the Convention.

This is not to say that this is an unalterable position as it would be within the powers of Tynwald to amend the applicable regulations so as to extend rights of families to access benefits; for instance, by reducing the residential requirements or by permitting children to access FSM where their households would be on means-tested benefits other than lack of residential qualifications. However, there are no plans to amend this within the present Programme for Government.

Yours sincerely

Howard Quayle

Hon Howard Quayle MHK
Chief Minister”

Bernard Moffatt
Celtic League