Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow three such powerful contributions in this debate. Along with others, I welcome the fact that we are talking about and providing compensation, but I am worried about the slow pace of the claims being made and the concerns which have been expressed about the details of this Bill, but of course this House has no power to change those details. What I want to do in this short Bill is to address four points, although of course we are to have a broader debate later. One of my points is the narrative around the Bill while another is about what actions have been taken following the Windrush scandal. I also have two pressing questions, which cannot wait until 6 May, about the risks of the next Windrush.

I turn first to the narrative. In introducing the Bill, the Minister did not really address the framework for how we got to the point of needing to pay compensation. If we go back to the Second Reading debate in the other place, we can see that the Secretary of State said that

“the whole country was shocked by the unacceptable treatment of … members of the Windrush generation by successive Governments over a significant number of years … yet they were … told that they were not welcome.”

I do not believe that anyone would challenge anything in that statement. The right honourable Lady went on to say

“This was a terrible mistake by successive Governments”.


Also from the government side in that debate, the right honourable Member for North Dorset said that the scandal

“was not a conspiracy but a cock-up of the most enormous magnitude.”—[Official Report, Commons; 10/2/20, cols. 618-20.]

That must be parliamentary language since it is in Hansard.

Since that debate was held, we have had the independent report about the scandal which says that the behaviour of the Home Office was

“consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.”

In her response to today’s debate, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that this was not a mistake or an accident but that there was racism behind the way the Windrush generation was treated, so it is very important that we acknowledge that.

The report says that the scandal was “foreseeable and avoidable”. That then raises the next urgent question: what direct action is being taken? The report quotes a Home Office official as saying:

“I think it is unfortunate that most of the policymakers were white and most of the people involved were black.”


What steps are the Government taking to address imbalances in the Home Office to ensure that its culture changes? These urgent questions cannot wait. We must acknowledge, accept and apologise for the treatment of the Windrush generation throughout their time in the UK, not just during recent immigration events.

The independent report was called the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, but we have to ask whether lessons have been learned. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, raised the issue that was raised this week by the3million, a group campaigning for the rights of EU citizens, and others about universal credit and people in the UK with settled status. This cannot wait. These people are at risk of being left destitute and penniless because of the colour of their passport, even though we have said that we accept them as a member of our society. That threatens to be one of the next Windrushes.

Another issue that has been raised today by people from a range of political groups, including the Mayor of London, is that of people in the UK who have the status of no recourse to public funds in the crisis caused by Covid-19. Many of these people will be working. Some of them may be dependents in households where they are at risk of domestic abuse. With that status attached to them, they may be forced to put themselves in danger or face starvation. Obviously, our treatment of them is a question of humanity; it is also a question of public health and safety. Will they be forced to drive a minicab? Will they be forced to work in a store, even if they are ill or have been exposed to illness, because they have no real alternative because of their immigration status and the way we are treating that status?

My underlying question concerns that horrendous phrase “hostile environment”. It was not the party of our current Government who invented the phrase, I am afraid to say—it was a preceding Government—but the party of the current Government has certainly ramped up its application hugely. Are we at a point where the hostile environment is utterly reversed and our Government are saying that migrants are welcome?