Connect with us

Politics

Let’s get this straight: private healthcare will and must work for the NHS – not the other way around | Polly Toynbee

Published

on

Our critically injured public services beg for help, but the totem signifying the state of the nation will always be the NHS. The monthly waiting time reports on ambulances, the state of A&E, the wait for cancer or GP appointments: all take the nation’s pulse.

The latest figures showed a twitch of improvement. Can a government only 100 days old claim any credit? Alastair McLellan, the editor of the Health Service Journal, suggests it probably can, as health trusts accelerate activity. But, he says, the £3.2bn elective recovery fund that pays for weekend and evening operations is running dry. Hospitals say they could do more, but only with cash for staff overtime.

Into that arena comes an insidious player, apparently bearing gifts: the private sector big beasts, who have written to the chancellor and the health secretary offering £1bn investment towards clearing the backlog with new surgical and diagnostic units. The Independent Healthcare Providers Network, including Bupa, Circle Health Group and Care UK, proffers 2.5m treatments, “starting in weeks”. So what is that: a gift horse or a Trojan horse? Health secretary Wes Streeting approaches it gingerly. He’s right to.

His team says they wouldn’t turn it down out of hand for ideological reasons. But the nature of these contracts tells us that a £1bn investment expects a handsome payback in solid long-term contracts guaranteeing fixed tariffs and supply of patients. That sounds mightily like a new PFI straitjacket; on PFI, Streeting’s team says: “We learned our lesson last time.” Streeting has red lines: no contract with any private hospitals poaching NHS staff, a tall order since only the NHS trains staff; intensive care beds for difficult cases, no more cherrypicking the easy ones; and any deal must be value for money, which they say “it wasn’t in Covid”. Most private hospitals are in affluent areas: they must treat those in hard-pressed places. While the NHS still has capacity to do more if it gets the money, private care would only be short term in some places. There are myriad issues here, not least that locking into long hospital contracts defies Streeting’s plan to shift patients out of beds and into the community.

Advertisement

Tony Blair used private treatment centres to help cut waiting to its lowest ever, but in dealing with orthopaedic services the private sector charged 11% more, treated younger, richer patients and filled fewer beds than NHS rapid throughput centres, according to the BMJ.

Against this backdrop comes another self-interested bid to profit from the NHS in distress. The British Chambers of Commerce has appealed to the chancellor for tax breaks for private health insurance offered by employers, now taxed as a perk. It is dressed up as a way to stop people falling into sick leave, to “end the worklessness crisis”, but the answer is a flat no. “All public money goes to NHS patients,” says Streeting’s team. Still, they expect the Tories to campaign for it anyway.

To see how private healthcare can undermine the NHS, the fate of ophthalmology under the Tories is a salutary warning: the Centre for Health and the Public Interest finds that outsourcing cataract operations left many NHS eye departments barely viable, losing profitable, less complex operations while left with the complex, expensive work. Staff were stolen and too few routine operations remained to train new eye surgeons.

But there is a great example of reversing that trend. The Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust is one of several hospitals now insourcing from the private sector. Its chief executive, Miles Scott, has just bought a local Spire Healthcare private hospital, renamed Fordcombe hospital, to treat all long waiters in a region that has one in eight people on waiting lists, including thousands waiting more than a year. He persuaded NHS England to pay the £10m. What’s the advantage, I asked? “It was staffed mostly with our doctors, taking simple cases, but sending us back any that went wrong, as they had no critical care. Now we can take 2,500 long waiters. It’s cheaper and better,” he says, with all the staff reemployed by the NHS.

Advertisement

Bath is one of several others that are insourcing private facilities. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she would unleash the “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”, while Streeting warns of a “broken” NHS reduced to a “poor service for poor people” if too many go private. How afraid should we be? So long as he sticks to his red lines, not very.

Private healthcare talks a big game, but it’s a minnow alongside the NHS. Despite Tory intentions, NHS cases sent to private hospitals for elective procedures such as hip and knee replacements only rose modestly from 8% pre-pandemic to 10% last year, says the HSJ, and patient flight to the private sector is less than feared.

The Health Foundation charity reports minor increases in people buying private health, mostly for hip replacements. Despite soaring waiting times, there was no “major surge” in private procedures, which only rose from 7.4% pre-pandemic to 8.3% last year. Nor is there a “statistically significant change” in numbers saying they might pay for private healthcare or insurance, consistently less than one in four people. The number of people actually buying care or insurance “has remained relatively stable, at around one in seven people”.

Wooing the government, the Independent Healthcare Providers Network website boasts, “Going private is becoming the new normal”, but it really isn’t. If Labour greatly improves the NHS, as every Labour government has, if all extra funds go to extra NHS work, the private sector will fail to undermine the ethos and values of the NHS. The public holds on to them with remarkable determination. It always has, it always should.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

London mayor halves transport funding request from Budget

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
Getty Images Headshot of Sadiq Khan with neutral expressionGetty Images

Sadiq Khan says the reduced amount is due to a “black hole” in public finances

London mayor Sadiq Khan has halved – compared to last year – the minimum amount of money he is asking from the government to fund major transport projects.

The Labour mayor had asked the last Tory government in 2023 for a minimum of £569m to pay for a range of infrastructure upgrades, and complained after receiving only £250m.

Khan told the Local Democracy Reporting Service he now believes it would count as “a win” to receive “anything more than £250m” from the Labour government.

City Hall Tories said the mayor was “watering down” what they claim were “exaggerated financial demands”.

Advertisement

Khan said the reduced funding demand was due to the “£22bn black hole” in public finances cited by the chancellor.

Ahead of the last government’s autumn statement in November last year, Khan had said in a letter to then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt that Transport for London (TfL) “needs £569m in capital support for 2024/25 to support critical network upgrades and investment in critical road assets”.

He added: “Failure to secure this funding would put vital upgrades at risk and be detrimental to long-term infrastructure investment in the capital’s transport network, with consequential negative impacts on the wider UK economy.”

Jessica Taylor/Reuters Rachel Reeves standing at the dispatch box in the House of Commons. She is changing pages in her documents. Labour politicians can be seen in the benches behind her.Jessica Taylor/Reuters

Rachel Reeves is set to deliver her first Budget on Wednesday

However, asked earlier this week what he will be requesting from the new government, Khan said: “I’ll be asking for north of £250m. The £250m we got last year was before the £22bn black hole in the government’s year-to-year expenditure.”

Advertisement

The chancellor’s claim that she had inherited a £22bn gap in the public finances was met with ridicule by her Conservative opponents.

Her predecessor, Hunt, said she would “fool absolutely no one” and accused her of a “shameless attempt” to lay the groundwork for tax rises in her upcoming Budget.

But Khan insisted Reeves had been forced to find ways to “make ends meet”, and said, in that context: “I’ll ask for as much as I can get. But what I’m saying is, a win is getting anything more than £250m.”

He said the “real prize” will be at the spring spending review where he hoped to secure a multi-year deal for funding after the 2025/26 financial year.

Advertisement

Neil Garratt, leader of City Hall Conservatives said: “Last year the mayor said that £500m was the absolute minimum to stop TfL collapsing, but this year he claims that anything ‘north of £250m’ is a win.”

“Consistently under Khan’s mayoralty he made exaggerated financial demands, which made it impossible for a Conservative government to work constructively with him.

“Now that he has a Labour government he can’t get away with that; he’s forced to be honest. What other demands are going to be watered down in the next few years?”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

A big week ahead and a chance for a government reset

Published

on

A big week ahead and a chance for a government reset

There is a big week ahead.

It will mark the end of the post-election chapter in British politics and the beginning of how the coming years are likely to feel.

A week on Saturday, the Conservatives will elect their new leader.

Rishi Sunak, a symbol of what went before, will finally exit the stage and his successor will enter it – and so become one of the central characters of the years ahead.

Advertisement

And on Wednesday, the highly anticipated and long talked about Budget will be published.

The Conservatives trying to sort themselves out in opposition and the Labour Party trying to sort themselves out in government have defined the four months since the general election.

Incidentally, in the interview I’ve just done with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, he was at his most animated when I put it to him that his party seemed to be struggling to adjust to the realities of government.

Sir Keir leant forward towards me as I read out this list:

Advertisement

“Can I address that head on?” he said, before pointing to the early work the government has done to try to kickstart the economy.

It felt like I had touched a nerve.

Privately there are Labour folk frustrated at what they see as a stuttery start to their time in power.

They hope the next week can reset things – and shape the political landscape ahead.

Advertisement

First, though, for the prime minister – and those like me reporting on him – a body clock-smashing, jet lag-inducing, totally exhausting 20,000-mile round trip to the tropical south Pacific.

Little wonder Sir Keir is the first sitting British prime minister to visit a small Pacific island nation – we were on a plane for 28 hours to get here, and we have still got to get back.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting happens every other year and is a staple for prime ministers.

Sir Keir told me it was an important event for the UK, with the King and Queen here too – and pointed to the collective economic might of the Commonwealth’s members: a combined economic output of $20tn (£15.4tn).

Advertisement

This region, the Indo-Pacific, is also seen as increasingly economically important to the UK, post-Brexit.

Before we know it, though, the long schlep home will begin – via Hawaii, California and Winnipeg – and Westminster’s tilt towards the Budget will become total.

The confirmation from the chancellor, long hinted at, that the government is re-writing its rules, its choices, on borrowing and debt isn’t a surprise.

Its formal announcement, after weeks and weeks of hints, is part of a strategy to avoid surprises that could spook the markets – remember that is exactly what happened two years ago and it finished off firstly the then-chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, and then the prime minister, Liz Truss.

Advertisement

What else can we expect? Some spending cuts and some tax rises, particularly on those seen by the government as relatively well off – some of those, perhaps, who pay capital gains tax, inheritance tax or have significant pension savings, for instance.

They want to take what they see as difficult decisions early, with the next general election miles away.

“I believe in running towards problems,” Sir Keir told me. “If you know what the problem is, what the challenge is, every business knows this, every family knows it, run towards it and fix it.”

The challenge for them will be how that dash towards perceived problems goes down. Does it solve political problems for them, even if someway down the track, or create more?

Advertisement

Is this next chapter in politics one the government can own, shape and dominate, or will they continue to be buffeted by missteps and a new-look but shrivelled opposition opposite them?

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Why the next Tory leader needs to go Cornish

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
Getty Images The Conservative election battle bus pictured in St Ives, Cornwall in 2015. It is blue and has the words "a better future for you, your family and Britain" written on it.Getty Images

The Conservatives won every seat in Cornwall at the 2015 election

Next Saturday we will finally find out who the Conservatives have chosen as their next party leader – and the leader of the UK government’s official opposition.

The two contenders, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, are both seen as being on the right of the party, and their core messages, on immigration and cultural issues, seem designed to win back support from Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

But the new leader will also need to do something about the votes the Tories lost to the Liberal Democrats and Labour in July’s general election, if they are going to restore their party’s battered fortunes.

Few parts of the country illustrate the challenge the new leader will face better than Cornwall.

Advertisement

The county used to be a sea of Conservative blue. Until recently, the party held all six Parliamentary seats.

But the tide turned in July’s election, and they were all washed away.

The Tories lost four seats to Labour and two to the Lib Dems, while Reform UK took votes across the board.

In the market town of Liskeard, which sits in a constituency the Tories lost to Labour, Richard Dorling chairs the South East Cornwall Conservative Association and spent time during the election knocking on doors and hearing voters’ concerns.

Advertisement

“They’re looking for people to take charge and reduce immigration and stop the boats, and Reform have a very strong story for that,” he said.

“Whoever gets into the leadership position is going to have to come up with a new plan to tackle that, and get the voters back.”

Shoppers in Liskeard, Cornwall, with a young man and women dressed in casual clothing in the centre of the frame

Liskeard is now in a Labour constituency, after the party overturned a big Tory majority

While some Tories argue addressing the concerns of voters attracted to Nigel Farage’s party is crucial, others have warned against tacking to the right to counter the threat posed by Reform UK, for fear it will permanently alienate more centrist former Conservative supporters who turned to Labour or the Lib Dems.

When Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick became the final two candidates, it was widely seen as a signal the party would shift to the political right.

Advertisement

Connor Donnithorne, who stood for the Conservatives in Camborne & Redruth but lost to Labour, said focusing on the party’s position on the political spectrum was the wrong approach.

“You need to be in the common ground of British politics if you want to win,” he said. “That doesn’t mean you have to be in the centre, or the left or right.

“If we go down that path over the next five years, we’re not going to win again because you’re too focused on the internal politics of parties that the overwhelming majority of people in this country don’t actually care about.”

Head and shoulders image of Conservative councillor Nick Craker

Councillor Nick Craker is worried the ECHR issue will be divisive

He argues that the party needs to focus on “common ground” issues such as “controlled immigration, lower taxes for working people, and supporting small businesses to create jobs”.

Advertisement

“It’s about having credibility, it’s about being in touch with what people want and it’s about delivering what say you say you’re going to deliver,” he adds.

It’s not just their fractured voting base the new Conservative leader will have to win round.

Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick will have to unite a parliamentary party that’s been publicly arguing over its differences for years – and has been pretty adept at ousting leaders.

In reaching the final two, neither candidate won support from a majority of MPs, so whoever wins will do so knowing only around a third of the parliamentary party backed them.

Advertisement

Nick Craker, a Conservative councillor in Cornwall, said the leadership candidates need to focus on policies that unite the Conservatives rather than those that have the potential to divide them, including Robert Jenrick’s plan to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and “culture wars” confronted by Kemi Badenoch.

“The idea of leaving the ECHR, for example, makes me very nervous,” said Mr Craker.

“I just see that as a really divisive issue that’s going to cause infighting. I just think if you bring something like that forward, there’s going to be at least 50 MPs who are going to be very concerned about it.

“Similarly with some of Kemi’s ideas around gender and race and the culture wars, that makes me a bit nervous, because again she may have some really sound arguments to make on that, but there another 50 MPs at least that have probably got very different views to her and that’s going to just sow a bit more division and infighting.

Advertisement

“And what have we learnt from the last election? Divided parties don’t win.”

Man stands alone on a rocky outcrop above Cornish shoreline

Cornwall’s dramatic coastline was once ruled over by the Conservatives

Badenoch and Jenrick are currently pitching to the party membership who are casting their ballots in this contest, but it will not be long before one of them will have to start pitching to the country.

In Cornwall, one message reflected by activists is the need for the party leadership to talk to grassroots members of the party who, they say, understand the issues in their communities.

Alison Hernandez, the Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, said: “I think they’ve lost their way with being able to connect with members and activists in the party, and I think that needs to change – that connection.”

Advertisement

Of course, whoever leads the Conservative Party after 2 November will do so as a party of opposition – something neither Robert Jenrick or Kemi Badenoch have experienced as MPs.

That makes fighting for relevance harder when airtime and attention doesn’t come as easily.

Ms Hernandez added: “It feels like we’re invisible at the moment on the national stage, and it’s really important we’ve got someone who can embody the values of Conservatism and communicate that to the wider public.”

The Conservative Party is wrestling right now with what those values are, but the bigger question will ultimately be what the public makes of them.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

‘We can’t change our history’ on slave trade, says Keir Starmer

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
BBC Keir StarmerBBC

The UK “can’t change our history”, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC when asked about paying reparations to countries impacted by the transatlantic slave trade.

His comments come after diplomatic sources told the BBC that Commonwealth heads of government want to start a “meaningful conversation” about an issue that could mean the UK paying billions of pounds for its historical role in the trade.

Sir Keir, who is currently in Samoa for a meeting of Commonwealth countries, said the trade was “abhorrent” and that it was important to “talk about our history”.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves ruled out making payments, in an interview earlier on Thursday, saying “that’s not something that this government is doing”.

However, he added that the focus should be on “today’s challenges” including resilience in the face of climate change and boosting trade between Commonwealth nations.

Advertisement

He added he wanted to help member countries work with international financial institutions to “unlock money that might help them” in relation to climate change.

Leaders from 56 countries are attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place in Samoa on Friday and Saturday.

Commonwealth leaders are expected to defy the UK and debate ways of securing reparations for historical slavery. At its height, Britain was the world’s biggest slave-trading nation. Downing Street has the issue is not on the agenda for the summit.

Reparatory justice for slavery can come in many forms, including financial reparations, debt relief, an official apology, educational programmes, building museums, economic support, and public health assistance.

Advertisement

In the run-up to the summit, there have been growing calls from Commonwealth leaders for the UK to apologise and make reparations.

King Charles will formally open the summit and is expected to use his opening speech to pay tribute to his mother the late Queen Elizabeth II and her connection to the Commonwealth.

He will also say the Commonwealth’s scale and diversity allows it to “discuss the most challenging issues with openness and respect”.

During the gathering, a new Commonwealth secretary general will be elected. All three of the candidates – Shirley Botchwey of Ghana, Joshua Setipa of Lesotho and Mamadou Tangara of Gambia – back reparatory justice.

Advertisement

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas, said he believed the UK would change its stance, saying: “It may take a while for people to come around but come around they will.”

During the interview with the BBC, Sir Keir was also asked about a complaint Donald Trump’s team has filed against the Labour Party objecting to its staff and activists volunteering for Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

“I think this needs to be seen for what it is,” the prime minister said, adding: “It is some Labour Party members and staff in their free time campaigning.

“It’s happened in every election in different parts of the world. All political parties do it… I think it needs to be put in it’s proper perspective.”

Advertisement

Sir Keir added that both he and Trump wanted to have a “good working relationship” and that the pair recently had dinner together.

He dismissed suggestions that his party were still adjusting to being in government, saying he had “absolute clarity” on his “number one mission” of economic growth.

Next Wednesday Chancellor Rachel Reeves, will set out the government’s tax and spending plans in the Budget.

Ahead of this Reeves told the BBC she would be changing the government’s self-imposed debt rules to free up money for infrastructure spending.

Advertisement

Asked about the Budget, Sir Keir said the economy barely grew under the Conservatives and that he wanted to “clear the decks” and “clear up the mess”.

“I believe in running towards problems. If you know what the problem is, what the challenge is, every business knows this, every family knows it, run towards it and fix it.”

The Conservatives have challenged Labour’s argument that they created a £22bn black hole in the economy and questioned the chancellor’s decision to change the debt rules.

The party’s shadow Treasury minister Gareth Davies said “uncertainty over additional borrowing risks interest rates staying higher and for longer.

Advertisement

“It’s families up and down the country who would pay the price.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

What could reparatory justice for slavery look like?

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
Getty Images A statue of an enslaved person breaking their shackles.Getty Images

Calls for the UK to provide reparations for its historic role in the slave trade have reignited ahead of a meeting of Commonwealth countries on Friday.

While Sir Keir Starmer said reparatory justice would not be on the agenda, Commonwealth leaders have defied the prime minister and plan to move towards a “meaningful conversation” on the issue.

The UK has long faced calls to provide reparations for its role in the Atlantic slave trade which saw millions of Africans enslaved and forced to work, largely on plantations in the Caribbean and Americas.

The chancellor told the BBC the UK would not be “paying out” reparations – but might there be other forms of reparations to consider, and how likely is it that the UK would commit to them?

Reparations are measures to make amends for past actions deemed wrong or unfair.

Advertisement

From 1500, the British government and the monarchy were prominent participants in the centuries-long slave trade, alongside other European nations.

Britain also had a key role in ending the trade, through Parliament’s passage of a law to abolish slavery in 1833.

As part of that law, British plantation owners were paid for the loss of their slaves, to the tune of some £20m.

The UK only finished paying off the debt it incurred to cover the payments in 2015.

Advertisement

Reparations for the benefit of those who suffered as result of slavery can take many forms, from financial to symbolic.

The United Nations says they must be “proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered”.

Here are some of the forms they can take.

Money

Advertisement

This is the most commonly understood form of reparatory justice – where a state gives money to a country whose communities it enslaved.

A 2023 report co-authored by a United Nations’ judge concluded that the UK owed more than £18tn to 14 countries in reparations.

The difficulty is that most European countries would struggle to find sums as astronomic as that.

The UK government, for example, spends a total of about £1.2tn every year.

Advertisement

Even if governments could find the money, it would be politically unpopular to spend so much on reparations and consequently less on schools and hospitals at home.

Some campaigners answer these points by saying reparations could be paid over time.

But many demands for straight cash payments are considered unfeasible by Western governments.

So for others, the debate about financial reparations often focuses instead on the question of debt relief.

Advertisement

Many developing countries which suffered from slavery owe large sums to Western countries.

The cancellation or reduction of that debt could lift a massive economic burden from a developing country at little political cost for a donor country.

Apology

On the face of it, this could appear relatively straightforward.

Advertisement

It does not cost anything, just a public act of atonement for past sins.

Some institutions – such as the Church of England – have apologised for links to slavery.

The difficulty, though, is that apologies can sometimes act as a declaration of legal responsibility for which there could be a financial cost.

Which is why states are often reluctant to take that step.

Advertisement

Earlier this week, former Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested it was wrong for states to apologise for historic wrongs – despite himself saying “sorry” in 2007.

“You can go back over history, and you end up in a completely absurd position”, he told Newsweek on Wednesday.

“The most important thing we can do for countries that have been marked by colonialism is to help them now.”

Few states that played a historic role in the slave trade have taken steps towards reparations.

Advertisement

Education

This includes educational institutions acknowledging their own connection to slavery and how they might have profited from the slave trade.

It can also involve teaching the history of slavery, as well as creating institutions for the study of slavery.

There are also calls for supporting schools to tackle low literacy levels and other issues that some argue date back to the slave trade.

Advertisement

Some campaigners say school exchanges and cultural tours would also be beneficial.

The countries pushing hardest for reparatory justice from the UK are in the Caribbean – and their collective organisation, known as Caricom, has its own reparations commission with 10 demands.

Three of these deal explicitly with education and culture, saying a “restoration of historical memory” was required.

Caricom said states involved in the slave trade had a responsibility to “build educational capacity and provide scholarships”.

Advertisement

Health

Some argue that reparatory justice should also include health – where European countries fund clinics and hospitals.

Medical evidence shows a high rate of type 2 diabetes in the Caribbean which some suggest is associated with centuries of poor nutrition due to past enslavement.

Historian Sir Hilary Beckles told the United Nations’s UN News earlier this year: “If you look at countries with the greatest incidence of chronic diseases, black people have the highest proportions of diabetic adult patients in the world.”

Advertisement

He argued high rates of diabetes on his own island of Barbados “cannot be a coincidence” given it was “the first island to have an African majority and an enslaved population”.

Barbados’ government has moved toward exploring the historic impact of slavery on its population’s health.

Caricom is calling for European countries to invest in science, technology and capital toward improving hospitals, healthcare, and mental health support for the descendants of enslaved people.

Is the UK likely to provide reparations?

Advertisement

The UK government has never formally apologised for slavery or offered to pay reparations – and Sir Keir Starmer has not shown any intention to break the mould.

It is not Labour Party policy to introduce reparations.

Ahead of the Commonwealth summit, the prime minister explicitly said he would not provide an apology or financial compensation for slavery.

He said he wanted to focus on present issues, like the climate, rather than the past.

Advertisement

Chancellor Rachel Reeves doubled down on Thursday afternoon, insisting the UK would not be paying reparations.

“I’d rather roll up my sleeves and work… on the current future-facing challenges than spend a lot of time on the past”, she said.

In 2023, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak likewise refused to provide compensation or an apology for the slave trade.

“Trying to unpick our history is not the right way forward”, he said.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Victims concerned over missing Windrush reform

Published

on

Victims concerned over missing Windrush reform

Windrush campaigners have expressed concern that the home secretary has yet to announce when she will implement a key recommendation from the government’s review.

On Thursday, Yvette Cooper announced an additional £1.5m of funding to help victims apply for compensation overseen by a Windrush Commissioner – but did not hand over recommended powers to a watchdog.

Campaigners told the BBC they were happy with Labour’s approach, but thought the new system lacked “teeth”.

A Home Office source described the changes as the “first set of announcements on Windrush since the election,” adding that the focus had been on priorities highlighted by campaigners and victims.

Advertisement

The Windrush Review’s report, published by Wendy Williams in 2020, made 30 recommendations which were all adopted by then home secretary Priti Patel.

But in January 2023, her successor Suella Braverman dropped three of them, including establishing a migrants’ commissioner role and giving the immigration watchdog – the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration – the power to publish its own reports.

The watchdog currently has the power to carry out investigations, but the findings can only be published by the home secretary.

Following a legal challenge by Windrush victim Trevor Donald, a judge in June condemned Braverman’s actions as “conspicuously unfair”.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Cooper announced a Windrush commissioner would be appointed, but did not mention the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

In February the then-chief inspector David Neal was sacked for leaking reports he had written that he claimed the Home Office was sitting on.

At the time, Cooper who was still in opposition said a “series of Conservative home secretaries have sought to bury uncomfortable truths revealed by the chief inspector”.

On Thursday, Cooper said she was “changing the government’s approach” to “ensure a scandal of this kind can never happen again and dignity can be restored to those so tragically affected”.

Advertisement

A Home Office source said this was the “first set of announcements on Windrush since the election” and said the focus had been on priorities raised by campaigners and victims.

They indicated that a new Windrush Unit, also announced today, could look at how to implement the final recommendation.

Following today’s announcement Cooper met representatives of Windrush campaign groups.

Some of those present welcomed the tone of the home secretary and said the new government appeared to “get” what it was that campaigners were looking for.

Advertisement

But they said there was no mention of when the Home Office would look at more powers for the chief inspector.

One said that the chief inspector needs to “have teeth” and be able to hold ministers to account “in a proper way”.

They said today’s meeting “marked the beginning” of relations between the new Labour government.

Campaigners said that Cooper had made it clear there were still parts of the Home Office that needed to change.

Advertisement

Another said the meeting was “uplifting” compared to ones held with Conservative ministers, but said the chief inspector “needs to be able to publish its findings” in order to prevent a similar scandal happening again.

The Windrush scandal emerged in 2018 when Commonwealth citizens, mostly from the Caribbean, were wrongly detained, deported or threatened with deportation despite having the right to live and work in the UK.

It was discovered that the Home Office had kept no records of those granted permission to stay and had not issued the paperwork they needed to confirm their status.

Many lost homes and jobs and were denied access to healthcare and benefits.

Advertisement

The government apologised in 2018, when it launched the Williams’ review.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com