Refugees won’t destroy public services, but austerity will

As an affluent and developed country, there’s no reason for us to make zero sum choices about which vulnerable populations to support

Katherine Tonkiss
Wednesday 16 December 2015 16:09
Comments
An anti-austerity march in London earlier this year
An anti-austerity march in London earlier this year

I scrolled down to the comments section at the end of an article about the expanded Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme and the measures local authorities will implement to help meet the needs of refugees beginning to arrive in the UK. As expected, there were comments about how these new arrivals were not as worthy as other excluded groups in the UK.

With councils strapped for funding, little provision for social housing in some of the most deprived areas, a tabloid media obsessed with perpetuating myths about migrants, and a government content to reproduce these assumptions in policy - I doubt many of us would be surprised by this opinion and will have heard it ourselves countless times.

The logic behind the argument that we can only support specific groups of vulnerable people rests on an assumption that funding for public services is zero sum. It is based on the idea that if one group is supported then other groups will miss out, and so the response ends up being to blame the group which has been supported and to suggest that they are less deserving. Migrants of all kinds are a common target for this thinking, both because national borders strongly shape the judgements that we make about who to consider as deserving of social justice, and because their impact on public services is over-reported and exaggerated.

With refugees arriving from Syria, the government has provided a funding scheme to local authorities to support the costs of settlement. Under pressure from the Local Government Association, this funding has been increased to extend beyond the first year, although the specifics of this commitment are not yet known. Reflecting on the decision, Councillor David Simmonds (chair of the Local Government Associations Asylum, Refugee and Migration Task Group) commented that ‘no community should be faced with the decision of having to close libraries or children’s centres in order to meet the costs of supporting refugees’.

Indeed, no local authority should be faced with such a choice. Many local councils will struggle to meet the needs of their local populations, but this won’t be due to the arrival of refugees. It will be down to austerity policies which are repeatedly undermining the efforts of local authorities to meet local need.

A report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation earlier this year examined the impact of austerity policies on local government and poorer communities, and found that despite the innovative strategies employed by local authorities to minimise the impacts of spending cuts on the most vulnerable, there is still ‘a clear limit to the capacity of local councils to shelter poorer groups from the worst impacts of austerity’. Indeed, the same report notes that local government as a whole has suffered a 27 per cent reduction in spending power since 2010, with the greatest reductions in the most deprived areas of the country. It is the logic of austerity driving forward these cuts which presents the real threat to public services.

As an affluent and developed country, there’s no reason for us to make zero sum choices about which vulnerable populations to support. Yet our ability to support the vulnerable is undermined by the ways in which years of austerity have deepened levels of deprivation across the UK. The arrival of refugees won’t exacerbate these problems; rather, austerity is the real and ongoing threat to public services.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in