AMID all the fuss over the coronavirus, there was little media attention paid to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review published by Wendy Williams after 20 months of intense inquiry into the scandal and why it happened.
You may recall the original story – the Home Office wrongly decreed that thousands of UK residents were in the country illegally.
People were deported to countries they had left as children to come to the UK, many as much as 50 years earlier. Others were detained in immigration removal centres as a result of colossal errors by Home Office staff. Many of the Windrush people lost their jobs because they were wrongly told that they didn’t have the right to work. Then they were denied benefits, despite almost all having paid tax and national insurance for many years. Some ended up on the streets, and many were denied NHS treatment.
The scandal was exposed by the press in 2018 and then-home secretary Amber Rudd had to resign, although much of the “hostile environment” policy happened on former prime minister Theresa May’s watch.
WHAT DID WENDY WILLIAMS SAY?
AN Inspector of Constabulary, Williams was appointed as the independent reviewer to examine the main legislative, policy and operational decisions that led to the scandal of the Windrush injustice.
While finding that there was not institutional racism at the Home Office in the accepted sense of those words, Williams concluded a there had been a “profound institutional failure”.
She wrote: “When successive governments wanted to demonstrate that they were being tough on immigration by tightening immigration control and passing laws creating, and then expanding the hostile environment, this was done with a complete disregard for the Windrush generation …
“I have serious concerns that these failings demonstrate an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation within the department, which are consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.”
But she went further and spoke directly to people who suffered the horrendous consequences of the Government’s “hostile environment” immigration policies. These individual accounts have been largely ignored, but The National believes their stories should be read.
GLORIA’S STORY
GLORIA, a married mother of three, came to the UK from St Kitts on her own passport as a 10-year-old. Her mother died shortly after Gloria’s arrival and she was brought up by her older sister.
During this time, social services were involved with the family due to their ages and Gloria believes her passport was taken from them at this time and not replaced. She worked as a care worker for people with learning difficulties and mental health issues. In 2011, she lost her job when her application to renew her criminal record check failed because she didn’t have a British passport.
Despite letters from her MP and the Department for Work and Pensions, it took seven years for Gloria to establish her identity. When she went to the Windrush Taskforce, she was astounded when everything was sorted out within an hour. She wasn’t asked for any more documents to prove her status.
Now 59, Gloria has suffered from stress and can’t work. She has claimed benefits, but has come close to losing her home and relies on family handouts. Her daughter interrupted her university course to work to help pay Gloria’s mortgage.
MR A’S STORY
MR A spent two spells totalling around five weeks in immigration detention centres. In December 2017, he was scheduled to be removed to Jamaica, a country the now 61-year-old grandfather hadn’t seen for 52 years. In 2015, he had applied for leave to remain in the UK, but despite producing evidence of being in the country for 40 years, the Home Office refused his application in December of that year, and told him he could no longer work in the UK.
Because of problems with establishing his status, he lost his job as a decorator in 2015 and couldn’t work for nearly three years. The struggle to prove his legal status has left him and his family heavily in debt, as well as counting a heavy emotional and psychological cost.
PAULINE’S STORY
PAULINE came to the UK as a 12-year-old in 1961, joining her mum and step-dad. She settled in Manchester, married, had seven children and qualified as a social worker. In 2005, she and her daughter went on a two-week holiday that became an 18-month nightmare.
She was detained in Jamaica and refused re-entry to the UK. She’d always travelled on her Jamaican passport without any problems and never thought to apply for British citizenship, thinking of herself as British already.
While in detention, she nearly died after falling into a diabetic coma. She also lost her home and her livelihood. An immigration solicitor helped her get back to the UK in 2007, after her family helped gather the documents she needed.
MR B’S STORY
MR B, who’d been in the UK since 1968 and worked as a lorry driver for 40 years, lost his job in 2014 when he couldn’t produce the photographic driving licence his employer had asked for.
He needed a UK passport but couldn’t get one, despite providing his children’s papers, pension records and wage slips. After losing his home, he had to live in a factory unit. Four years without earnings have forced him to access his pension early.
Sadly, these stories are only the tip of the iceberg.
Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel