Windrush commissioner: Apprehension and suspicion remains towards Home Office
Last month just ahead of announcing his appointment, immigration minister Seema Malhotra confirmed around 64 claimants had died after applying for payouts, as she set out the Government's wish to speed up 'justice'.
On Wednesday, she will attend an event with Mr Foster where people affected by the scandal, which erupted in 2018 when British citizens were wrongly detained, deported or threatened with deportation despite having the right to live in Britain, will hear from the commissioner on his aims for his role.
A total of 10,326 claims had been made under the scheme as of May this year, according to the latest Home Office data.
The figures also showed that just over £112 million has been paid out so far, covering 3,334 claims.
In an interview with the PA news agency ahead of the event, Mr Foster said he will be advocating for a 'fair, accessible and trauma-informed' compensation scheme.
While some campaigners have called for the scheme to be moved out of the Home Office altogether, due to applicants' lack of trust in the department, Mr Foster appeared to disagree with such a change.
He told PA: 'I think what I will be pushing for is to make sure that this compensation scheme must be seen to be fair, accessible and trauma-informed, and I will be pushing to get swifter outcomes.
'I know there's been a call for movement into another area (out of the Home Office), but I think we should be careful what we wish for.
'I think it's important that we make the scheme workable.'
Asked if he felt moving it to another department might risk further delays to payouts, he said: 'I think that is a possibility.'
He said the Home Office would not want a situation where it has 'further 'reasons why it cannot be giving out fast decisions and compensation to people who have been terribly affected as a result of the scandal, and so this movement, I think, would inevitably cause some of that slowing down, and I think that is something that we have to be aware of'.
He said he had already pressed on the minister the need for guarantees around pension losses being covered by the scheme.
Ms Malhotra has previously said officials in her department are 'reviewing the current exclusion within the rules of compensation for private and occupational pensions'.
Mr Foster said he will work with 'like-minded campaigners' to address problems with the scheme and 'to inform the Home Office where they're getting it right and where they're getting it wrong, without fear or favour'.
Asked to describe the level of trust in the Home Office currently among those affected by the scandal, he said: 'I'm afraid I still feel that there is apprehension and some suspicion with regards to, 'is this working towards better outcomes?'
'What we need to accelerate is the actions and activities that are going to build trust. I always say 'you can't cross a bridge until you've built it.''
He said the department must show through actions rather than only words 'that there is going to be a culture change'.
Mr Foster, a senior pastor at the Pilgrim Church in Nottingham and the son of parents who migrated to the UK from Jamaica in 1959, said he will 'be reaching out to communities and acting as that advocate and trusted voice, as it were, going forward'.
Among his top priorities will be ensuring people are comfortable to come forward and get the correct documentation to ensure they have settled status and are not 'wrongly classified as illegal'.
He said: 'People still need to feel that they can be respected and accepted to come forward without that fear of being penalised as a result of not having (the right documentation).'
Meanwhile, Mr Foster said he will also be working to ensure the legacy of the Windrush generation is celebrated in the future, including through the annual Notting Hill Carnival.
Campaigners last month called on the Government to step in to protect the future of the west London carnival, which they said was in jeopardy, as they asked for urgent funding to save the world-famous event.
Mr Foster said carnival 'brings so much to the country, and I think that is an expression of the Windrush generation legacy'.
He added: 'One of the things in my role would be to be looking to ensure that we continue to celebrate the legacy and the contribution of the Windrush generation, and carnival is one of those aspects, and I'll be happy to engage in conversations to look at that going forward.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
a few seconds ago
- New Statesman
Far-right memes are poisoning British politics
Illustration by Sergio Ingravalle / Ikon Images A black man harasses a white woman in a railway carriage, then a white man comes up and punches him. Christians passing through Jerusalem are spat on by Jews, who then boast of killing Jesus. A softly spoken British imam explains that Muslims must take over the West completely, or describes the proper way to stone a woman to death. Reset. Repeat. Westminster has one kind of political conversation. It's to do with economics, the role of the state, legislation. Elsewhere a very different kind of talk is happening, the viral spread of well-produced vertical videos and mobile graphics designed to make people furious, destroy trust and ultimately upend liberal democracy. Almost always, conventional politics looks the other way. It must not. These demonisation machines come from both the left and right – but mostly from the right – fashioned and circulated by hundreds of usually anonymous accounts with names like The West Rises, Radio Genoa, and Truth Will Prevail. It's part of the same 'conversation' that asserts a senior British politician is being pursued by rent boys he failed to pay off. It also allows for filming asylum hotels across Britain, a practice the police refer to as 'video auditing'. This has been going on for years. But most people interested in conventional politics are resting happily in a fools' paradise. We comfort ourselves with the spaces in which well-informed adults debate moral and economic dilemmas. I think of it as the political imagination of James Stewart. This is being blown apart by online hate and conspiracy. A new survey by the think tank British Future says the UK is a 'powder keg' of social tension with polarised communities, leaving us 'more fragmented, fragile and less resilient to internal and external threats… The very basis of our democracy is at risk.' James Ball, author of The Other Pandemic, a book on the rise of web-fuelled conspiracies, argues that to ask Louise Casey to do a national study on grooming gangs was a memorable puncturing of conventional politics. For that moment, you could give the credit to Elon Musk after his denunciations of Keir Starmer and the British state for hiding and protecting paedophiles. Musk has just lost his CEO at X, Linda Yaccarino, which may or may not be related to his chatbot, the horribly named Grok, which repeatedly referenced white genocide in South Africa, praised Adolf Hitler, and referred to itself as MechaHitler. As the Times reported, the senior tech people around Musk describe the fight for online political direction as 'the memetic battlefield'. Buy Twitter and turn it into X. Soon enough, you have changed the layout of that battlefield. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe But it is a battlefield where conventional politics doesn't turn up. Downing Street and Tory high command remains obsessed by feeding Westminster journalists and trying to 'get' front page stories in newspapers. They're fighting drone swarms with muskets. Meanwhile, on immigration, crime and identity, the country is being driven hard towards the right. I have written here recently about the likelihood of a Reform government coming next. Whether that happens or not, there are much more extreme possibilities ahead, including some kind of communal or race war. On bad days, it feels as if we may be living through the end times for civil democracy. But at this point, I should ask: is the above overwrought? After all, we have had big changes in communication in the past and they have often spooked society. And most of the population is probably dodging the racist harangues, the fist-fights and the invitations to hate Jews or Muslims. They may be with the cat-and-cucumber videos, the line dancing and conspiracy theories about ancient civilisations, not to mention the soft porn. Perhaps we are mature enough to screen out the bad stuff. Even if I'm poisoned by some online hatred, a short amble through the streets of the real world, surrounded by smiles and help, is often an effective remedy. But then there is the 'stuff itself'. Yes, it's crafted to make us angry, but we'd be foolish to blame 'algorithms' for material which interacts with our fellow citizens' genuine fears for the future. If there wasn't a grain of anxiety already, these videos would slide across our imaginations leaving no trace. We have been experiencing unprecedented levels of non-Christian migration and fertility decline across the West, at a time when many traditional communities are beaten-down and despairing. It would be surprising if there wasn't some kind of reaction, and, indeed, if 'invasion' videos shot in Leicester, Barcelona and East Germany did not essentially share the same narratives. We should not be calm about this memetic war zone. The material I am talking about is, over time, highly effective. It's rhetorical heroin heading straight for the amygdala. You may think you are a rational liberal but, I promise you, after an hour or so of exposure to 'hate the African, hate the Jew, hate the lawyer, hate the Muslim' propaganda, you will be subtly different. After a while, you need an awful lot of time in the neighbourhood to walk it off. Although we have lived through media revolutions before, their effects have often been dramatic. When Johannes Gutenberg brought to Europe the movable-type printing press, he also brought Luther's 95 Theses – eventually the catastrophic Thirty Years' War followed, killing an estimated eight million people. Nearer home, I cannot believe the violence and mutual hatreds of the so-called English Civil War would have been anything like as extreme without those early newspapers and broadsheets spreading fake news of atrocities – the reports of slaughters by Irish Catholics, for instance, helping provoke Cromwell's response. Early-20th century fascism, too, was made possible by the radio. This is bigger. And it is only just beginning. Many of the early attention-hogging online memes were made, Ball reminded me, in the real world with technological wizardry, actors paid to play their part for confrontations in the park, and even aircraft interiors hired to make viral images of fighting passengers. But AI allows amateurs to craft realistic narratives almost from scratch. As the software evolves and becomes more user-friendly, anyone will be able to take their paranoid fantasy and rub it into everyone else's brainpan. We know that the younger you are, the more online you are, and that our form of capitalism has robbed younger people of the chance to own property, and is increasingly robbing them of decent careers. They are being disinherited. Brace for their reaction. And again, it is soft to blame evil outsiders. Just as the Remainer left tried to blame Brexit on Cambridge Analytica, the belief that today's corrupted conversation is largely the fault of Russian agents is too easy. The West's enemies are working with what the West gives them. For the most malign actors, we go to the obvious culprits: the tech bros trying to reshape our politics. The influences on Musk and Peter Thiel are not St Petersburg trolls. They are men like Curtis Yarvin, a blogger turned premier public intellectual of the Trump age, who argues that democracy has failed and must be replaced by a semi-monarchy, and who once dabbled in ugly race science. His thought has been labelled the 'dark enlightenment'. In Silicon Valley's hands these ideas have accelerated fear and race-hatred across the West. This is a complex picture with a tangle of different views. Screenwriter Jesse Armstrong threw himself into the writings and interviews of key figures, including Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Bankman-Fried for his satirical film Mountainhead. As some fictional titans are relaxing and joshing with one another in a mountaintop winter sports retreat, watching the world burn below them under the influence of extremist memes, they have the 'are we the evil ones?' conversation. One says that the answer wasn't to stop making movies: 'We are gonna show users as much shit as possible till they realise: nothing is that fucking serious. Everything is cool. Have your say, scream your worst, but fucking chill. Nothing means anything and everything is funny and cool.' Armstrong tells me he was mimicking the affectation of nihilism that began in the chaotic, conspiratorial websites 4Chan and 8Chan, which developed the signature 'hey guys, it's all a provocation' trickster tone. But under the affectation of nihilism, Armstrong argues there is a strong ideology. And here comes the lesson. Relative economic decline and mass migration do cause social tensions, and there are difficult discussions to be had about how we handle them. It is neither conspiratorial nor paranoid to say that the state has failed to control migration or to keep the streets properly safe. But we should be in no doubt that we are under a sustained, intentional attack on liberal democracy which has already won victories while those allegedly in charge weren't looking. The battlefields are on the newsfeeds of voters' phones where conventional politics rarely even turns up. This is because of institutional paralysis. No one in the British state dares to take on Trump and the tech provocateurs he protects. Further, as was confirmed by the recent 'reset' summit at Chequers, this government sees AI as the prime solution to most of its problems. It has gone full Tony Blair Institute: this new media revolution is unique in that the same technology disrupting the state is also the tech being embraced by the state as its saviour. We have some useful (if outdated) regulation to protect children. But the chances of an effective British onslaught against misinformation and online hate are nudging zero. There are lesser responses, however. We could rip up the contempt of court rules, injecting a dose of free speech as in countries with a civil law tradition. If jurors are thought capable of sending someone to prison for life, surely they should be believed capable of ignoring online voices? That would squash the idea of there being secret truths 'they' don't want you to know about. Beyond that, the political class has to spend more time engaging on Instagram, TikTok and X, learning how to create memes, and never letting lies go unanswered. We need a frank, non-hysterical attitude to migration, community tensions and race in which the political class engages in a two-way conversation. And the best answer of all: we break our gormless couch-potato addiction to the phones. Easier said, I find, than done. [See also: Donald Trump can't escape Jeffrey Epstein] Related
Daily Mirror
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mirror
Urgent change for teachers demanded in disturbing Southport attacks report
A review into the Prevent programme recommended a string of steps to prevent more failings like those made with Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana and terrorist Ali Harbi Ali, who killed Tory MP Sir David Amess Frontline workers like teachers must get better training to spot dangerous extremists, a crucial extremism report has found. Authorities must also work with tech firms to identify would-be terrorists if lessons are to be learned from the Southport murders and the killing of Tory MP Sir David Amess, it said. Lord David Anderson said improvements must be made to the Prevent programme to help prevent similar tragedies. Both Axel Rudakubana, who murdered three young girls at a dance class in Southport, and Mr Amess's killer Ali Harbi Ali had previously been referred to the programme. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the Government would "immediately act" on the findings. Lord Anderson, the UK's Interim Independent Prevent Commissioner, concluded that several failures happened before Ali went on to kill in 2021. These included poor communication and lack of proper six-month reviews. And referring to the failure to escalate Rudakubana's case, he wrote: "It is hard to see how the test of 'reasonable grounds to believe that there are no Prevent concerns' could have been satisfied on the known facts of the case'." He called for urgent steps to make sure worrying online activity is better used to identify and investigate potential terrorists. And he said frontline public sector workers should be clear that those who show a fascination with "extreme violence or mass casualty attacks" must be referred to Prevent. The Commissioner upheld the findings of learning reviews into the two attacks, which found opportunities were missed to stop both Ali and Rudakubana. Lord Anderson said both had been referred to Prevent by their schools, but the programme "failed to provide what might have helped them". And he urged the Government to work with tech firms and social networks to strenghten methods of flagging dangerous fanatics. He wrote: "Whether different decisions might have spared their victims will never be known: both attacks came years later, and many imponderables intervened. But wrong decisions were taken; more should have been done; and from these failures, lessons must continue to be learned'" Rudakabana's trial heard he was not treated as a terrorist because there was no clear extremist ideology. This was despite him being fascinated with the Manchester Arena attack and an Al-Qaeda training manual being found at his home. Lord Anderson said Prevent must remain open to those who become obsessed with extreme violence, even if they do not have a clear ideology. He also called for a new task force to look into linking Prevent with a broader safeguarding and violence prevention programme. And the Commissioner said training for frontline workers must be rolled out for the end of the year. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the Government must look at how Prevent works "to stop further missed opportunities". She said progress has been made on a string of measures she announced back in December. These include a review into the way the programme treats people with severe mental health problems and provide improved support for those who do not qualify for Prevent intervention. Ms Cooper said: "Prevent training is being rolled out at pace to educate frontline professionals about the ideologies, such as Islamist extremism, that drive terrorism." In a statement to MPs, the Home Secretary said: "My department remains steadfast in its commitment to keeping the public safe and safeguarding people at risk of radicalisation. "The victims, their families and those who survived the Southport attack but continue to live with the physical and emotional pain, and Sir David Amess's family remain in our hearts and prayers."
Daily Mirror
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mirror
Afghan data leak scandal leaves 'serious questions' for Tories, Keir Starmer says
Tens of thousands of lives were put at risk when a database with details about thousands of Afghans trying to escape the Taliban were emailed out in a horrific MOD mistake Keir Starmer has said Tories have "serious questions to answer" about a shocking data leak put tens of thousands of Afghan lives at risk. The Prime Minister hit out over the "major data breach" after details of almost 19,000 people seeking to flee after the Taliban were released by a Ministry of Defence (MOD) official. It led to a secret £850million relocation scheme being set up to bring people to safety. On Tuesday a super-injunction which meant the scandal and its consequences were hidden from the public was lifted. Ex-Tory minister Johnny Mercer said it was the "most hapless display of incompetence" he had seen in Government and said he was "ashamed" of the MOD. An Afghan man who worked for the British military, told Sky News he felt betrayed and has "completely lost (his) mind" after his identity was part of the massive data breach. The man, who has not been named, said: "I have done everything for the British forces ... I regret that - why (did) I put my family in danger because of that? Is this justice?" Speaking at PMQs, Mr Starmer said: "We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy and yesterday, the Defence Secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited: a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds. "Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen." Former Tory veterans minister Mr Mercer, who lost his seat last year, wrote in The Telegraph that the incident shed light on "the true scale of the ineptitude of the British state". He said: "Even after the loss of 457 British personnel, and the billions of pounds it cost to prosecute, the war in Afghanistan reveals yet another cataclysmic skeleton in the cupboard when it comes to how we have treated our Afghan allies. "It is mind-boggling that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could email a spreadsheet of all those with ties to the British state to an Afghan national, over the internet, to post on Facebook for the Taliban to see." He said he was "furious, sad and bitter" about the failure. Tory former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for applying for the initial injunction and insisted it was "not a cover-up" but was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. A dataset of 18,714 who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. The MOD only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023. A superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. Defence Secretary John Healey said he was not going to "lead a witch hunt after a defence official". "This is much bigger than the mistake of an individual," he told the BBC. Asked why it had taken so long to lift the super-injunction, Mr Healey said: "Because we came into government a year ago and we had to sort out a situation which we'd not had access to dealing with before. "So that meant getting on top of the risks, the intelligence assessments, the policy complexities, the court papers and the range of Afghan relocation schemes the previous government had put in place. And it also meant taking decisions that no one takes lightly because lives may be at stake. "And in the end, we were able to do this because I commissioned an independent review, which I published yesterday as well from Paul Rimmer that took a fresh look at the circumstances in Afghanistan now, four years on from the Taliban taking control, and the important thing it said was that it is highly unlikely that being a name on this dataset that was lost three-and-a-half years ago increases the risk of being targeted."
