2027/2028 Two-Year Budget: The Migrants’ Advisory Board opposes staff cuts

Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar: Zum deutschen Artikel.

The city budget for 2027/28 is likely to be a balancing act. On the one hand, savings must be made, as Torsten Bonew, the councillor responsible for finance, emphasized when presenting the budget to the city council. On the other hand, the political groups and the advisory boards entitled to submit proposals must prevent new social inequalities that they find unacceptable.

This also applies to the Migrants’ Advisory Board, which tabled five budget motions. We met with the board’s co-chair, Maria Habre, and discussed the necessity of these motions from the board’s perspective.

The interview

Ms Habre, the Migrants’ Advisory Board has tabled five budget motions – what are your aims?

As an advocacy group, we act as the interface between the city administration, the City Council and the people of Leipzig with a migration background. It was important for us to state our position within the context of this draft biennial budget, given the many cuts we expect to see in the social sector.

What are the key priorities you are highlighting with these five motions?

We have had a closer look at the draft two-year budget and the planned consolidation measures, particularly the cuts to the staffing plan. We are aware that the budgetary situation is currently difficult. Nevertheless, it was significant for us to consider which cuts we, as the advisory board, wish to take a stand on. This has resulted in a total of five motions to amend the budget.

Our first motion concerns the preservation of the Participation and Complaints Office for people in shared accommodation. The aim is to maintain this independent body, which is attached to the Social Services Department.

The second motion concerns safeguarding and further developing social support in shared accommodation in line with needs, with the proviso that staffing ratios should not be reduced as part of the reorganization of social support services, but rather maintained.

The third motion concerns the retention of existing posts in the field of naturalization. There is a backlog of applications at the authority, yet posts are still to be cut. This is incomprehensible.

Equally incomprehensible to us is the scrapping of a post for the AKZESS administrative procedure at the Leipzig Immigration Office. Our motion calls for the cut to be reversed. AKZESS speeds up the entry procedure for qualified skilled workers and facilitates access to the labour market for graduates from third countries for employers in Saxony. A delay caused by staff shortages is also detrimental to the economy.

These motions concern posts – or rather, the reversal of post cuts. Why is this important to you, and how many posts are involved in total?

The complaint’s office for people in shared accommodation involves a 0.55 FTE, which is a 20-hour-a-week post. The aim there is to have an independent, central office within the social services department that records complaints – in other words, a complaint’s management system. There is a three-stage procedure. People can lodge complaints directly at the shared accommodation centres, they can contact the social services department directly, and in more complex cases, a higher-level body – which also includes members of the Migrants’ Advisory Council – is called upon. In recent years, there have been around 70 complaints there. This scheme is unique in Germany; it is also considered best practice, and Leipzig has been recognized as a role model. Now there are plans to scrap it again because it is a voluntary service provided by the city. Currently, all departments are withdrawing from voluntary services.

In the area of naturalization, we are looking at 2.1 full-time equivalents from 2027 onwards. However, it is also important to emphasize that there are two or three further posts in the Foreigners’ Registration Office’s staffing plan that are due to be cut. We have therefore tabled a motion calling for no cuts to the posts in the naturalization department and for no further posts to be cut in that area. As for AKZESS, this involves one full-time equivalent.

In the preliminary discussion, you emphasized the importance of social support and of retaining the posts in that area. Could you say a little more about this?

The Social Services Department is planning to restructure social support in shared accommodation. In future, there are to be ‘clusters’, meaning that different shared accommodation facilities will be grouped together into a single cluster. Social support services will then be responsible for a cluster, with one larger shared accommodation facility acting as the lead centre, where social support staff are present on site every day. Smaller shared accommodation facilities will only have staff present once or twice a week and will then have to go to the larger facilities if necessary.

However, social support services in the shared accommodation facilities are already stretched to the limit, which is likely to lead to a lack of support. Even external counselling centres can no longer make up for this shortfall. After all, cuts are being made there too.

This brings us to the fifth motion, which deals with this very issue. Please could you comment on this?

This is a joint motion tabled by the Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, DIE LINKE and SPD parliamentary groups. This concerns civil society integration work carried out by integration organizations and migrant self-help groups. These organizations not only do important work in the cultural sphere; their remit also includes advice and support with administrative matters, language mediation, education and other areas.

Funding for this work from the city has remained unchanged since 2019, despite the rising number of migrants and higher cost of living. At the same time, funding opportunities from other sources are drying up. We want to see this addressed and are calling for an increase of €100,000 in funding under the ‘Special Funding Guidelines for the Allocation of Grants to Bodies Outside the City Administration’ issued by the Department for Migration and Integration, with effect from the 2027 financial year.

There is much more to be said; the motions are fully substantiated, and you can read all about them there. Ms Habre, thank you for the discussion.

Conclusion: The Migrants’ Advisory Board is also aware that the city’s budgetary situation is difficult. Nevertheless, maintaining the status quo in the provision of support for people is not an option for the Migrants’ Advisory Board. A vote on the two-year budget will take place in December; we will then know which motions have been approved by the City Council.