Introduction

The concept of citizenship implies membership of some form of community; in turn the notion of community opens up questions about terms of inclusion and exclusion. This chapter's focus is to consider the ground rules which are seen by welfare service users as being pertinent for individuals to be included in or excluded from arrangements for the collective provision of welfare benefits and services. Throughout the research sessions, it became clear that many users saw certain people as having legitimate claims to welfare while the claims of others were often seen as invalid. A distinction between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ claims was apparent in the users’ dialogue. This was a recurrent and often strongly expressed discourse that was regularly used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of certain people from public welfare. Illustrative examples of the users endorsing either an inclusionary or exclusionary approach (and the strategies that they use to justify their stance) in healthcare, housing and social security respectively are offered in the following discussions. Where relevant, comments about all social provision and welfare rights in general are included. It should be noted that in common with previous discussions on conditionality (see Chapter Five), a lack of individual contribution and/or responsibility once again appears to be of significance among those who are seeking to defend their decisions to exclude certain individuals from welfare rights.

Inclusion and exclusion from healthcare: undeserving immigrants, deserving senior citizens

Several of the questions that were put to the groups for discussion were designed to explore whether any of the users saw the exclusion of particular individuals (or groups) from access to certain welfare rights as justified. Question 5 (see Appendix) attempted to specifically address the question of access to free public healthcare in relation to two groups, immigrants/asylum seekers and senior citizens.

Excluding immigrants

When considering the claims of immigrants/asylum seekers, the most prevalent opinion (49% of users) was that the denial of free healthcare for those who had recently entered Britain could, in some instances, be justified. Users were keen to acknowledge that healthcare rights should be granted to ‘genuine’ immigrants, that is, those who had openly entered the country in order to seek political asylum and escape persecution in their homeland; but their comments also tended to echo a belief that a substantial number of immigrants entered Britain primarily to make use of free treatment.