Amber Rudd’s migrant impact fund is ‘too small to make a difference’ – TUC

Funds are being directed towards policing immigrants rather than supporting communities


At Tory Conference earlier this year, Home Secretary Amber Rudd pledged to create a ‘controlling migration fund – designed specifically to ease the pressures on public services in areas of high migration.’

However, a new TUC report shows that the fund is nowhere near adequate, as all English local authorities will have just £25m a year to split between them.

This is equivalent to 0.02 per cent of local authority budgets or — as TUC general secretary Frances O’ Grady described it — ‘ministerial small change’.

The TUC has called on Chancellor Philip Hammond to ‘at least double the £140m pledge’ in the autumn statement, and to give greater control to communities themselves.

Commenting on the report, O’Grady said:

“EU migrants pay £2 billion more in tax than they take out. It’s only fair that communities across England get to feel the benefits of that extra cash through a properly-resourced Migration Impacts Fund.

“The cash has to be controlled by local people so that it is spent where it’s really needed – dealing with pressure on schools and hospitals, stopping bad bosses undercutting local labour markets, and funding English classes.

“We all want to live in strong communities where people get along and everyone gets a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work. At the autumn statement, the chancellor has to announce proper funding to help local communities manage the impacts of migration better.”

Following the vote to leave the EU, and recognising working peoples’ concerns about immigration, the TUC has been working to develop a left-wing migration strategy.

A migrant impact fund, like the one introduced by Gordon Brown and scrapped by David Cameron, is a key plank of that strategy. However, the TUC has argued that the fund should be considerably larger than it was under Brown, and that local communities should have a greater say in how it’s used.

Its uses could include:

  • Extra cash for schools, hospitals and other public-facing services in places where migration has pushed up demand
  • Fighting workplace exploitation by bad bosses, which undercuts local labour markets
  • Tackling rogue landlords and building homes
  • Funding ESOL English language classes
  • Training local people to fill skills gaps, so employers don’t have to look abroad for workers

However, instead of following the union’s guidance, Rudd announced a pathetically small central government contribution, rebranded as a ‘controlling migration fund’.

Over the course of the parliament, £40m of the £140m fund will be directed to immigration enforcement activities.

In other words, the Tory proposal is not intended to bolster public services or build community cohesion, but rather to police and stigmatise migrants.

See also: What does a Left-wing migration policy look like?

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

6 Responses to “Amber Rudd’s migrant impact fund is ‘too small to make a difference’ – TUC”

  1. GodfreyR

    We should not be wasting taxpayer’s money on immigrants. If they cannot afford to live here, they should not come here !!!

  2. John

    We aren’t, Godfrey. Migrants pay way more in tax than they use in services. It’s a net benefit to the UK, but we’re spending that cash wrong – only 1% is going to boosting services where the level of need has changed as a result.

  3. Alex from Carlisle

    ‘Migrants pay way more in tax than they use in services’

    Utter garbage. A tiny number of rich immigrants from lands like Norway and Switzerland pay more, but other EU migrants barely break even. And Third World migrants are a massive drain. For no net benefit whatsoever we’re crowding our schools and hospitals, destroying the habitats of trees and wildlife to build more houses, the big cities are being de-Englished – and for what? So the liberal left can have its cultural enrichment and ‘rub England’s nose in diversity’. The backlash is long overdue.

  4. Michael WALKER

    The analysis of migrants paying more tax is often quoted.

    It is of course disingenuous..##
    The analysis which I read specifically stated:
    EU migrants got jobs, paid tax and contributed positively to the UK economy.
    Non – EU migrants did not contribute.

    Strangely enough those in favour of migration never state that.

    Which is why they and their writings on the subject are treated with derision.

    ## a polite way of saying they are lying.

  5. GodfreyR

    And, of course, then there are the cultural costs of immigration.

  6. Imran Khan

    As the third generation of immigrants I have a point of view on this. My family arrived from Pakistan and received no help from anyone except for the fact that we were allowed to come here which was enough. Hardw ork and frugality meant that the second generation went into business and higher education and the third both, but writ larger.

    What the left confuse, I think deliberately, is that not all immigrants contribute to the tax revenues. Some do so massively like the examples given. The waves of those seen at Calais and on the southern shores of Europe don’t and will never. The left is hoist on its own petard that opposition to immigration is racist and even fascist, those are some of the insults and slurs that I have heard thrown at people who have questioned the wisdom of an open doors unrestricted immigration policy which is essentially what the left and the current Labour leadership have always advocated.

Leave a Reply