‘Once and for all’ feels like another empty promise for the NHS

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The only pledge that the Tories are truly committed to is the transfer of as much government money as possible to privatisation (via REUTERS)

Rishi Sunak’s pledge to “fix the NHS once and for all” will remind us of his predecessor’s empty promises to fix social care “once and for all” after which the problems continued unabated. The only pledge that the Tories are truly committed to is the covert promise made to transfer as much government money as possible to big business through privatisation.

Sadly, Keir Starmer seems so terrified of a ruthless right-wing establishment, spearheaded by their media friends, that he dare not speak of reversing the privatisation juggernaut, even to protect his faithful electorate.

Andrew McLauchlin

Stratford upon Avon

The NHS cannot function without social care

There needs to be a long-term workforce plan for adult social care, as well as the one announced today for the NHS to enhance the quality of care and support provided by both. We know that social care workers already seek jobs in the NHS – with nursing and nursing auxiliary occupations accounting for 17 per cent and 11 per cent of departures – and an NHS-only plan is likely to exacerbate this, further driving up vacancies in an already stretched social care sector.

The ongoing deprioritisation of social care is a betrayal of the hardworking, skilled individuals who were on the front line of the pandemic and continue to provide essential care and support for older and disabled people. Our research reveals 80 per cent of the public believe social care is as important or deserves the same respect as the NHS. Yet the government has cut £250 million from promised funding to support its workforce.

The NHS simply cannot function without social care. The government must benchmark minimum care worker pay with NHS Band 3 (including therapy assistants, pharmacy assistants and administrative workers) and must provide the necessary funding for local authorities and social care providers.

A larger, better-paid social care workforce comes with costs, but it’s an investment in people – both in rewarding and retaining a dedicated workforce and in providing people with the support they require to live happy and healthy lives.

Rachael Dodgson

Chief Executive at not-for-profit support provider Dimensions

Is anyone in government listening to reason?

Surely it is time to bow to reality and accept that refugees will continue to make the crossing to the UK every year, regardless of government plans. Far better to swiftly process migrants in France before they are rendered destitute by criminal gangs and ensure the veracity of their case before they travel.

Reason would suggest full cooperation from the French authorities in cases where illegal means are used to access our shores in exchange for a policy that relieves them of responsibility for so many desperate families and ensures a swift return to France for those using criminal gangs.  

Such a scenario “stops the boats”, ensures that migrants have access to funds to help establish their new life (hitherto given to criminals), assists the French Authorities and manages an otherwise dangerous, chaotic situation. It may even go someway in restoring Britain’s tarnished reputation abroad.

But is there anyone in government listening to reason?

David Smith

Taunton

The Rwanda verdict is hardly a surprise

The ruling by the Court of Appeal that the UK government plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is unlawful should hardly come as a surprise.

Putting aside the cost, estimated at £169,000 for every person deported and processed, there is the small matter of Rwanda’s human rights record. Hence the court ruling that Rwanda had not provided enough safeguards to prove it is a "safe third country".

According to the US Department of State, there are reports that the Rwandan government has committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, with further documentation of the abuse of detainees by police, as well as arbitrary arrests and detention.

It also notes that the government continued to use arbitrary arrest (or the threat of arbitrary arrest) as a tool to discourage government critics, independent voices, and political opposition members. Local officials and state security forces also continue to detain and imprison some individuals who had previously disagreed with government decisions, or the police.

The proposed Rwanda scheme has thankfully been shown to be unworkable, unethical and indeed highly expensive, par for the course however for a Tory government more interested in dog-whistle politics than reason and compassion.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh