A LONG-AWAITED report into the causes of the Windrush scandal has concluded that historic immigration laws were designed to reduce the proportion of non-white people living in the UK.
Between 1950-1981, “every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK”, the report said.
The Home Office previously refused to publish the Historical Roots Of The Windrush Scandal report after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Earlier this month, a First-Tier Tribunal judgment said the department must disclose the report to the requester, but Labour decided to go further and publish the report on the Government website.
READ MORE: Scottish health boards urged to step up on tackling racism
The report also concluded that the scandal had been caused by a “failure to recognise that changes in immigration and citizenship law in Britain since 1948 had affected black people in the UK differently.
“As a result, the experiences of Britain’s black communities of the Home Office, of the law, and of life in the UK have been fundamentally different from those of white communities."
“The work of various governmental bodies in combatting discrimination in the UK was separate from the task given to the Home Office to reduce immigration,” the report continued.
“This led to a paradoxical situation in which immigration policy assumed that too many immigrants from a minority ethnic background were bad for society, but race relations policy promoted the idea of racial equality.”
The Windrush scandal – which campaigners have since said should be known as the Home Office scandal – erupted in 2018 when British citizens were wrongly detained, deported or threatened with deportation despite having the right to live in Britain.
Many lost homes and jobs and were denied access to healthcare and benefits.
When the scandal was uncovered, the Conservative government promised to right the wrongs of what had happened but the compensation scheme has been repeatedly criticised for the speed at which claims are being processed and payments made.
During this year’s election campaign, Labour pledged to offer “a fundamental reset moment for the Windrush generation, with respect and dignity at its very core”.
Party leader Keir Starmer said in June that if elected he would ensure “urgent reform” of the compensation scheme to make it more efficient, a restoration of the Windrush Unit to the Home Office, and a Windrush commissioner “to be the voice of families affected”.
Responding to the report, Seema Malhotra, minister for migration and citizenship, said it was a “substantial piece of work that should support discussion on an important part of British history”.
In a letter to Windrush stakeholders, she continued: “Publishing this report is a small step, but it is a signal of our intention to be more transparent and to ensure victims get the respect and support they deserve from their government.
“This government’s message to the Windrush generation could not be clearer: we are grateful to you, and we will do right by you.”
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