Government announces first Windrush commissioner
The government has announced the first Windrush commissioner - seven years after the scandal was first exposed and following the serious impact on thousands of Caribbean migrants in the UK.The Reverend Clive Foster, a senior pastor who works at the Pilgrim Church in Nottingham, will take up the newly created role on a three-year term.He is the founder of the Nottingham Windrush Support Forum and serves as vice-chair of the Windrush National Organisation, where he volunteers.A top priority will be looking at how to improve the Windrush Compensation Scheme which has been described by campaigners as "torturous".
It has been heavily criticised for taking too long to process claims, low offers and unfair rejections reversed on appeal.There are ongoing calls for the scheme to be run independently but the Home Office says it is "determined to ensure that victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal are heard, that justice is sped up, and that the compensation scheme is run effectively". Mr Foster said: "My aim is to deliver change that the Windrush generations can see and feel in their everyday lives, particularly in how the Windrush status and compensation schemes operate."He added: "I will carry out this role independently, without fear or favour, while creating a constructive relationship with government where challenge is welcomed and scrutiny leads to specific, transparent improvements."
The Windrush scandal was first revealed in April 2018 after it emerged that the Home Office failed to keep records of people with indefinite leave to remain and had not issued the paperwork they needed to confirm their legal status.Thousands of Caribbean migrants who came to the UK from the late 1940s legally had the right to remain in the UK.But they were wrongly classed as illegal citizens because of a hostile immigration policy which meant they were denied access to homes, jobs and NHS care.Some were detained and deported.In January 2023, the then-Conservative government decided to scrap three recommendations made in an independent review, including a new migrants' commissioner.When Labour came into power in 2024 it reversed that decision.
Earlier this week a new report by the charity Justice, the University of Sussex and a London law firm suggested two-thirds of Windrush claimants had not received any compensation, while others are getting significantly less than they may be entitled to due to the lack of funded legal assistance.Windrush is one of very few major state compensation schemes that does not provide legal assistance and the Home Office has so far rejected calls for it to be introduced.The new commissioner will be responsible for speaking up for migrants and those affected by systems such as the Windrush Compensation Scheme.So far the government has paid out nearly £110m towards more than 3,000 claims, according to latest Home Office data.But 15,000 people were thought to be eligible when it was set up in April 2019.A Home Office spokesperson said: "Earlier this year, we launched a £1.5 million advocacy support fund to provide dedicated help from trusted community organisations when victims are applying for compensation."Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: "The story of the Windrush generations is woven into the fabric of our nation and this government is absolutely determined to right the wrongs they suffered at the hands of the Home Office."This is why I am delighted to welcome Reverend Clive Foster as our new Windrush Commissioner. His deep understanding through his own connections and dedicated community work makes him the perfect champion for those affected by this historic injustice."The announcement comes in the lead up to Windrush Day on 22 June, which celebrates the contribution Caribbean migrants and their families have made to the UK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK attorney general concerns over Iran-Israel war
The UK government's top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel's actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government. The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer's thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK's potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. If the attorney general deems Israel's actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general's concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict "unless our personnel are targeted". US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily. This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow. These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran. The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland. Under a longstanding convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations. The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes. Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship. Israel's justification Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an "imminent" and "existential" threat to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country's own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel. They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been "less than satisfactory" in "a number of respects" on its international compliance over its nuclear activities. It is not clear what aspect of Israel's justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over. The Attorney General's Office has told Sky News: "By long standing Convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed. "The Convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice." The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year. 34:31 In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran. The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024. But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders. The UN's nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality. A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA's general conference has said "any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency". Israel believes that Iran's nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target. It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel's use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law. Interpretations of International Law Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks. The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats. The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent. The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred. That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad. The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of "imminent". The concepts of 'proportionality', 'necessity' and 'imminence' are key considerations. International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the 'proportionality' test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear. But whether there was the 'necessity' to attack Iran at this point is more questionable. The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the 'imminence' of the Iranian threat against Israel - and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was "imminent" - as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve. In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction - a claim that turned out to be wrong. The then-attorney general's advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair's decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq. The concerns of the attorney general emerged from enquiries by Sky News about whether the UK would help Israel to defend itself from attack by Iran. A separate source told Sky News that they would not steer us away from the claim over the attorney general's views. But the source said there is always nuance with legal advice and that it likely included other factors.
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
The Senedd passes a ban on plastic wet wipes
From December 18, 2026, it will be an offence in Wales to supply – or offer to supply – wet wipes containing plastic after the Senedd unanimously agreed regulations. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister of Wales, said: 'There should be no place for wet wipes amongst the pebbles and the sand and the seaweed on our beautiful Welsh coastline. Mr Irranca-Davies, whose responsibilities include the environment, said a survey found 22 per cent of people admitted to having flushed wet wipes into the sewerage system. He warned a large volume of wet wipes – which often contain harmful plastic – enter the natural environment due to inappropriate disposal. He stressed an exemption will be in place if they are designed or manufactured for care and treatment because some people rely on medical-grade wet wipes that contain plastic. He explained that the regulations, which were passed by Senedd members on June 17, add plastic wet wipes to a 2023 law prohibiting a list of single-use plastic products. Mr Irranca-Davies said: 'This pollution, as we all know, is visible, its impact is tangible, and it's long-lasting. Taking decisive action will encourage manufacturers, retailers and consumers of the need to continue our shift towards reusable and non-plastic products.' He told Senedd members the ban will not extend to business-to-business supply, only covering supply to consumers as with other single-use plastics. 'Wet wipes for specific industrial use, where plastic-free alternatives are unsuitable or do not exist, are not included,' he said. 'But we will encourage these sectors to innovate.' The UK-turned-Welsh minister told the Senedd banning single use products is part of an ongoing drive to reduce the damage caused by microplastic pollution. The Conservatives' Janet Finch-Saunders said: 'It's not often that I say this but thank you very, very much… for bringing forward your statement today and indeed this ban.' Mr Irranca-Davies said the 18-month transition period will allow manufacturers time to adapt their business as he welcomed the cross-party support for the ban.
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
The Senedd passes a ban on plastic wet wipes
From December 18, 2026, it will be an offence in Wales to supply – or offer to supply – wet wipes containing plastic after the Senedd unanimously agreed regulations. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister of Wales, said: 'There should be no place for wet wipes amongst the pebbles and the sand and the seaweed on our beautiful Welsh coastline. Mr Irranca-Davies, whose responsibilities include the environment, said a survey found 22 per cent of people admitted to having flushed wet wipes into the sewerage system. He warned a large volume of wet wipes – which often contain harmful plastic – enter the natural environment due to inappropriate disposal. He stressed an exemption will be in place if they are designed or manufactured for care and treatment because some people rely on medical-grade wet wipes that contain plastic. He explained that the regulations, which were passed by Senedd members on June 17, add plastic wet wipes to a 2023 law prohibiting a list of single-use plastic products. Mr Irranca-Davies said: 'This pollution, as we all know, is visible, its impact is tangible, and it's long-lasting. Taking decisive action will encourage manufacturers, retailers and consumers of the need to continue our shift towards reusable and non-plastic products.' He told Senedd members the ban will not extend to business-to-business supply, only covering supply to consumers as with other single-use plastics. 'Wet wipes for specific industrial use, where plastic-free alternatives are unsuitable or do not exist, are not included,' he said. 'But we will encourage these sectors to innovate.' The UK-turned-Welsh minister told the Senedd banning single use products is part of an ongoing drive to reduce the damage caused by microplastic pollution. The Conservatives' Janet Finch-Saunders said: 'It's not often that I say this but thank you very, very much… for bringing forward your statement today and indeed this ban.' Mr Irranca-Davies said the 18-month transition period will allow manufacturers time to adapt their business as he welcomed the cross-party support for the ban.
