Debates between Lord Kamall and Lord Hanson of Flint during the 2024 Parliament

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Lord Kamall and Lord Hanson of Flint
Thursday 19th December 2024

(4 days, 15 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

If the individual mentioned has had that level of distress, I will apologise from the Dispatch Box for the intrusion into their private life and for the justification for a scheme for which there should have been automatic qualification. The purpose of the Windrush unit—it was disbanded but has been re-established by this new Government—is to tackle the very issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton and Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned. I will take those factors back and we will resolve them. I hope that this House can accept that this Government are committed to putting energy into the scheme, which we will deliver as quickly as possible, and that we will announce a Windrush commissioner shortly. That is a solid manifesto commitment, not just a whim from the Dispatch Box.

Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, the Minister rightly said that this scandal has plagued Governments of all colours. Can he explain some of the difficulties that the Home Office’s internal processes face when trying to identify the victims and prove that they are actually victims of this scandal? What is slowing down the process, and what are the Government doing about that?

Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have received more than 9,300 claims, and decisions have been made on 8,448 of them. Some claims have been turned down, which means that it is a bureaucratic process by its very nature. People have to prove, difficult though it is, that the issues that have driven them to apply to the scheme are valid, because ultimately this is about using taxpayers’ money for an injustice. There are a number of problems, but we are trying not to worry about what happened previously. We are trying to reset the relationship to ensure that—with the new Windrush scheme, with an independent commissioner and with energy from Ministers to get this driven through—we can resolve this issue in the interests of not only Windrush victims but wider society as a whole.