Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Woolf Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

Yes, you have me. I apologise, but the system went down. I welcome this debate and am delighted to take part. I refer to my entries in the register, which include my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired so well by the right honourable Harriet Harman. I also acknowledge the help I received from the excellent Library briefing for this debate.

The finding of the Joint Committee on the Windrush generation makes very sad reading, as confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. When something goes wrong in a society, it is very important that the society not only acknowledges that this has happened but makes sure that it is redeemed, in so far as that is possible. There are times when any Government can depart from the standards that the rule of law requires. I hope that the Minister will accept without reservation that this is such an occasion. If so, the state is under a clear obligation to remedy the situation. In doing so, it should adopt a generous and open approach.

Sadly, although the Government appeared initially to be adopting the correct approach, they have departed from it. It is worrying that the question of compensation has not been dealt with expeditiously. I cannot believe that more claims would not have been concluded if the Home Office had shown greater flexibility. I can understand why the former shadow Home Secretary said:

“The amount and the quantity of the payments are pitifully small”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/20; col. 626.]

I agree with Wendy Williams that a more personalised and sensitive approach to claimants should have been adopted. Even with my experience many years ago of acting in the courts for most government departments for five years, it takes my breath away that the Home Office, having failed to make or conserve any records, tries to rely on the inadequacy of the Windrush claimants’ efforts to produce records and establish the right to citizenship given to them by the Immigration Act 1971. Then, for a time at any rate, the Home Office turned on its head the burden of proof. A more appropriate approach would have been to give the claimants the benefit of any reasonable doubt. That is what should be done. It is not necessary for representation; what is needed for justice to be done to the claimants has not happened yet.