6.Following weeks of increasing public awareness of the hardships experienced by many members of the Windrush generation and with further pressure coming from the build-up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, on 15 April 2018 the Government accepted that it had to respond to the crisis. The Minister for Immigration, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, wrote an article in The Voice to “dispel the myth that this Government is clamping down on Commonwealth citizens–particularly those from the Caribbean–who have built a life here”. In answer to an Urgent Question put down by Rt Hon David Lammy MP on 16 April 2018, the then Home Secretary, Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP told the House:
I recognise the concerns of some people in the Windrush generation, and I would not want anyone who has made their life in the UK to feel unwelcome or to be in any doubt of their right to remain here. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, there is absolutely no question about their right to remain, and I am very sorry for any confusion or anxiety felt.
7.The Home Secretary set out a number of steps the Government would take to help the Windrush generation. These were added to in a statement on 23 April 2018 in which the then Home Secretary also set out some broader policy responses to the crisis. In this chapter, we discuss the immediate action taken by the Government. We then go on to discuss in the next chapter wider policy change and lessons that need to be learned.
8.The Government is focusing its response on the cohort of Commonwealth nationals who arrived in the UK before 1973, whether on their own or on their parents’ passports, and who have remained in the UK since. The Government does not know how many people are affected. The previous Home Secretary told the House: “We do not have individual numbers for the Windrush generation, because they were not identified as such when they came here.”
9.The Office for National Statistics estimates that 599,000 people in England and Wales were born in Commonwealth countries (not just the Caribbean) and have lived in the UK since 1971 or before. The great majority (542,000) hold UK passports and so should not experience difficulties. That leaves 57,000 people who do not hold UK passports although, as the Migration Observatory points out, they may have documentation which demonstrates their legal status in the UK (such as immigration status documents or certificates of naturalisation).
In April 2018, The Guardian reported the case of an individual who arrived in London in 1972, aged 16. More than 40 years later, he was admitted to hospital with a brain aneurysm, where staff told him he may have to cover the £5,000 bill. While there, he lost his home because of his “illegal” residency status and he was ineligible for a bed in a state-funded homeless hostel so he was discharged to the streets. Eventually a bed was found for him, and he spent years trying to prove his residency, until in January 2018 the Home Office confirmed he had indefinite leave to remain.
10.However, it is not just people who arrived before 1973 who have been affected. Children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation born in the UK, and Commonwealth citizens who joined family in the UK between 1973 and 1988 and who have remained in the UK since, have faced similar difficulties.
11.Wives [not husbands] and children of a Commonwealth citizen who had settled in the UK before 1973 (and who remained here) were eligible for indefinite leave to enter (ILE) if they arrived between 1973 and 1988. However, where this documentation was not sought or has been lost people have found it difficult to evidence a right to be in the UK.
In March 2018, The Guardian reported the case of a man who arrived from Jamaica as a teenager in 1973, to join his mother. After 44 years working as a mechanic, he was denied cancer treatment when he could not prove that he was in the UK legally. He was also evicted and spent three weeks homeless. The article stated that “lawyers at the law firm Duncan Lewis are trying to help but because there is no legal aid for this kind of case, can only continue if exceptional funding is raised. His lawyer, Jeremy Bloom, said the firm had been contacted by a number of people encountering similar problems”
12.Children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation born in the UK before 1983 are citizens of the UK and Commonwealth at birth (reclassified as a British citizen in 1983). However, without proof of their parents’ arrival date or status they can find it hard to demonstrate their right to citizenship and access services. Children and grandchildren born in the UK after 1983 to parents who were not ‘settled’ at the time of their birth are in another difficult position as they are not automatically entitled to citizenship. We are not aware of any estimates of how many people may fall into these post-1973 categories.
In July 2017, Buzzfeed published an article about a woman who was 31, born in Hammersmith, has a British birth certificate and has lived in London all her life. The article reported that she recently discovered that she was not a British citizen, had her benefits stopped and was at risk of removal. She was encouraged to apply for indefinite leave to remain, but has not had access to legal aid and cannot afford the fee of more than £2000.
Her grandparents first moved to the UK from Barbados in 1956, and her mother joined them as a child in 1968. All her siblings are British because they were born before 1983–when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force. Prior to the Act coming into force, any person born in the United Kingdom (with limited exceptions) was entitled to British citizenship. After the Act came into force, it was necessary for at least one parent of a United Kingdom-born child to be a British citizen or “settled” in the United Kingdom. Though her mother arrived in 1968 and has leave to remain, she was still considered Barbadian. Her father is now British but was considered to be Guyanese at the time of her birth.
13.Home Office officials are in the process of checking whether any members of the Windrush generation have been wrongfully removed or deported. Over 8,000 files dating back to 2002 are being manually checked to determine whether any members of the “cohort of Caribbean nationals who are now aged over 45 have been removed or deported since 2002.” The Home Secretary told us:
[ … ] initial checks have identified 63 Caribbean individuals now aged over 45 who have been removed who could have entered the UK before 1973 and therefore might have been protected by the 1971 Act. There are 32 foreign national offenders and 31 administrative removals. The 31 individuals are being proactively contacted via the Taskforce where we have contact details. We have so far made contact with three and are asking High Commissioners to assist where we do not have contact details. When we reach these individuals, they will be invited to contact the Taskforce.
14.The Home Office does not yet know how many people have been wrongfully detained. The experiences of Paulette Wilson and Anthony Bryan demonstrate that some members of the Windrush generation have been in that position.
Anthony Bryan entered the UK from Jamaica on his brother’s passport in 1965 and had not left the country since. After he applied for a passport, he received a letter stating “I was illegal, I did not have any status and they [Capita on behalf of the Home Office] could not find any papers for me”. He was unable to satisfy the Home Office’s demands for evidence and was wrongfully detained far from his family on two occasions, once for three weeks and once for two weeks, an experience which he described as leaving him broken.
Paulette Wilson arrived in the UK in 1968 as a child, from Jamaica. Despite having 34 years’ worth of National Insurance records, in 2015, she received a letter telling her that she was an illegal immigrant, and another letter saying that she was not entitled to any benefits or healthcare. In 2017, she was taken into detention from a Home Office reporting centre and detained for a week (six days in Yarl’s Wood and one day at Heathrow airport). She was not eligible for legal aid, and thought that she was going to be removed to Jamaica, a country she had not been to in 50 years. Even after she was released from detention, she was told that she was liable to be detained and needed to continue reporting. Her case hit the national press in October 2017, six months before the Government took action to address the needs of the Windrush generation.
As with removals, Home Office officials are in the process of checking thousands of detention records, dating back to 2002, of Caribbean nationals now aged over 45 (i.e. born before 1st January 1973), to establish whether any could have entered the UK prior to 1973 and therefore might be protected by the 1971 Immigration Act. The Home Secretary has asked for the work to be completed by mid-July 2018 and committed to provide this Committee with a monthly update on the work of the taskforce. On 15 May 2018 the Home Office told us that they “did not believe” that anyone from the Windrush generation was currently in detention. The Permanent Secretary also confirmed that the scrutiny of historic cases would be subject to independent audit separate to the lessons learned review.
15.We asked the Home Office if it was also checking whether any children or grandchildren of members of the Windrush generation had been subject to wrongful removal or detention. Sir Philip Rutnam, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, told us that he “recognised the potential for a relationship between those two issues. I am afraid I cannot answer that now, but we will look into that.”
16.We also asked the Home Office how many people from the Windrush generation, if any, are currently subject to reporting requirements but we have been told only that “staff in reporting centres have been instructed to escalate, to senior managers, cases involving individuals who may form part of the Windrush cohort and will refer these to the taskforce where appropriate.”
17.The Home Office has also not been able to answer our questions about how many people have been wrongly refused access to services such as healthcare, or who have suffered from losing their jobs or social security. The Home Secretary explained:
Many of the compliant environment checks are conducted by other agencies and bodies, for example landlords and letting agencies will conduct right to rent checks and employers or employment agencies will conduct right to work checks … . it is therefore not possible to say how many of the Windrush generation may have been inadvertently affected by the compliant environment.
18.It is vital that the country understands how many members of the Windrush generation and their children and grandchildren have been, or continue to be, wrongfully subject to immigration enforcement action. The Home Office must tell us how many people have been unlawfully subject to deportation, detention and reporting requirements. Given concerns that incorrect decisions may have been made due to incomplete information, the Home Office should provide more details of what evidence is being searched for in the files and more information on the independent audit promised by the Permanent Secretary. The Home Office should not limit its checks only to those who may have arrived in the UK before 1973. It should include those who arrived later or who were born here and may also be similarly protected.
19.Those wrongly affected must receive the apology and compensation they deserve. No-one with a legal right to be in the UK should still be subject to enforcement procedures and have to endure the anxiety of having to report regularly to the Home Office under threat of removal. We ask the Home Office again to guarantee immediately that no-one from the Windrush generation or their children or grandchildren are currently subject to reporting requirements.
20.The Home Office should set out whether the 32 individuals removed as foreign national offenders whom it has identified as potential Windrush cases were legally deported. We need to know whether any were in fact British—and so illegally deported—and the grounds for the decision to deport. Whilst the Home Office rightly has provisions in place to deport foreign national offenders, we do not believe that the Home Office can dismiss those Windrush cases where people have a criminal record without further investigation into the circumstances of their removal.
21.On 16 April 2018 the Government set up a helpline and dedicated taskforce of 150 officials to help proactively those from the Windrush generation to acquire a No Time Limit [NTL] document and, if sought, British citizenship. The Government committed to giving people a decision on their application within two weeks, when the evidence was provided. On 23 April 2018, the Home Office announced:
Members of the Windrush generation who arrived in the UK before 1973 will be eligible for free citizenship [ … ] The offer, which will be available to people from all Commonwealth countries, not just Caribbean nationals, will extend to individuals who have no current documentation, those who already have leave to remain and want to advance their status, and children of the Windrush generation.
22.The then Home Secretary stated that people who arrived after 1973 but before 1988 would also be able to access the taskforce, “so they can get the support and assistance needed to establish their claim to be here legally.” As of 8 June 2018 the helpline had taken 19,000 calls, 6,800 of them potential Windrush cases. By 21 June 2018, over 2,000 people from the Windrush generation had received documentation following an appointment with the taskforce, and 285 people had been granted citizenship. However, there are reports that the two-week deadline is being routinely missed, that there are delays in people received their biometric residence permits and that people stuck in the Caribbean are struggling to make contact.
23.It would be unacceptable if members of the Windrush generation found that they were subject to further bureaucratic obstacles after being promised an expedited resolution to applications for documentation. As part of its monthly update to this Committee, the Government must set out how many Windrush cases have not received decisions on their cases within the two weeks promised by the Home Secretary and the reasons for any delays.
24.It is clear that the evidential burden placed previously on people applying for NTL documentation had become far too high. We were told that it was “commonplace” to need to provide four different pieces of proof for each of the last 14 years of residence. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found examples of people who had National Insurance records dating back 35 years or more, yet who were still considered to be in the country illegally. The Home Secretary told us that,
The quality of evidence that they needed to provide in some cases was too high an ask. If someone is being asked for evidence and they have been here for 30 years and there is a gap of a few years in between, you can take a more common-sense approach to that and give them the benefit of the doubt. In many cases, that was not being done.
In April 2018, The Guardian reported on the case of a man who had lived in the UK for 45 years. However, his MP received a letter from the then Minister for Immigration in 2014, stating that he was in the country illegally, as he could not provide sufficient evidence that he had arrived before 1973 or that he had been continuously resident in the UK for the years 1989 to 1990; 1994 to 1995 and 1997 to 1998.
In February 2018, The Guardian reported on the experiences of Hubert Howard, 61, who arrived with his mother in the UK aged three from Jamaica and who has never lived anywhere else. Because he had insufficient paperwork proving he had a right to be in the UK, he was told he was an illegal immigrant with no right to live here. He lost his job with the Peabody Trust, despite the fact that he was a highly regarded employee who had worked for the housing organisation for more than a decade. He told us that his problems first emerged when he wanted urgently to visit mother in Jamaica when she became ill. He was unable to get a British passport and his mother died without him seeing her. Unable to work, he was also told he was not entitled to benefits because he had no immigration status here. “They messed up my life,” he said. “I had a steady job. It broke my heart losing it. When my mum passed away, I wasn’t there, and I still haven’t been at her graveside.”
ILPA report the case of Mrs J. She was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2010 (having arrived in the UK in the early 1970s). She obtained ILR after having proven that she had been in the UK for over 14 years, however, when she applied for naturalisation in 2016 it was refused, on the grounds that could not show she had been legally in the UK before 2010.
25.The previous Home Secretary told the House that the burden of proof on some of the Windrush generation “was too much on the individual”. She explained that going forwards the Home Office would take a proactive and generous approach so that people can easily establish their rights, telling the House that the Home Office did not need to see “definitive documentary proof of date of entry or of continuous residence.” The guidance for the Windrush Scheme, launched on 30 May 2018, states that caseworkers must:
take a holistic view where evidence is not provided that proves matters of fact and decide the case on balance of probability, taking into account the picture of life in the UK, evidence in the round and criminality.
Lucy Moreton, General Secretary of the Immigration Services Union (ISU) told us how UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI), which is part of the Home Office, made decisions about people’s immigration status. She said that the balance of probabilities “had always been the burden of proof” in UKVI caseworking, but that the ability for caseworkers to use their discretion had changed “over a period of time” starting in 2011–12. Lucy Moreton told us, “There had been a shift in attitude from, ‘We will believe your primary evidence. We will believe it when we speak to you’” to a more sceptical approach. She explained:
There is a commonality of experience: if you talk to someone who grew up in London in the early 1970s, [caseworkers would ask] a few questions for things that they will immediately recognise, because they lived through it. The three-day week, the 1976 drought, the Jubilee in 1977—these are things that they will have childhood memories of. A very quick conversation can resolve that. That level of discretion is no longer permitted.
26.The Home Secretary told us that “taskforce staff are proactively helping individuals to build a picture of their life here, including by contacting other government departments on their behalf for information they may hold which helps support the case.” The Home Office have also promised that no information provided to the taskforce will be used for any other immigration purpose than that of helping people to confirm their status. This proactive gathering of information contrasts with evidence we heard prior to the Windrush scandal, in our inquiry, Home Office delivery of Brexit: immigration. We were told then that Home Office officials often rejected applications on the basis that it was unfeasible to request further or missing information. The Department’s enforcement of immigration rules against Tier 1 migrants shows that it has been able to proactively seek information from HMRC for some time. As the immigration lawyer Danielle Cohen explained to us:
If you [the Home Office] already have the applicant, why don’t you ask the Inland Revenue to provide you the printout [of tax records], that I can do myself and obtain a hardcopy within 20 days, and skip the applicant’s need to provide the information?
27.The previous Home Secretary told the House that Home Office caseworkers in the Windrush taskforce “will make a judgment based on all the circumstances of the case and on the balance of probabilities.” Adrian Berry, Chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, explained that ‘balance of probabilities’ was “extremely unhelpful as a term” in the context of the Windrush generation, as people were not seeking a grant of status but a document that enabled them to continue to lead the lawful life they already have in the UK. He suggested that the Home Office ought to be saying, “In determining whether to issue you with a no time limit stamp in a biometric residence permit, we will now listen to your account and if it is prima facie correct and there is no other reason to dispute your credibility, it ought to be accepted”.
28.The burden of proof demanded by the Home Office for people wishing to evidence their right to be in the UK has become too high over a number of years. We welcome the change to a more common-sense and proactive approach for the Windrush generation, who are long-term residents with a deep commitment and connection to the UK, who have done nothing wrong and who the state has a moral obligation to help. We also agree that the Windrush taskforce should exercise greater sensitivity and give proper credence to people’s primary evidence. It is disappointing that the Home Office has only adopted such an approach, which we called for in our report ‘Home Office delivery of Brexit: immigration’, after the Windrush scandal and only for those specific cases. We call for the Home Office to change their approach to include routine gathering of supporting evidence from HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, across the full range of UKVI caseworking. The balance of probabilities should also be reaffirmed as the standard of proof across UKVI.
29.We welcome the Government’s statement that no information provided to the Windrush taskforce will be used for immigration enforcement purposes. However, the Government should clearly and urgently set out what will happen to the data, for example, if it will be retained or destroyed.
30.During our inquiry, concerns were raised with us that the Home Office had not published any guidance setting out the criteria by which caseworkers’ decisions would be based. Satbir Singh, Chief Executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, warned that, given the current situation in which 50% of appeals go against the Home Office, there is “no reason at this stage to assume this taskforce will not have incorrect decisions at certain points.” He explained that “We cannot challenge decisions appealing purely to a speech made by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. That is not law”. We heard that “Any new guidance for decision-makers, because these are essentially going to be decision-makers, has to be codified and that has to be made public both to applicants and to their representatives.” On 24 May 2018 the Home Office finally published the Windrush Scheme Guidance, which sets out the approach to be taken by caseworkers and which Satbir Singh and others had been calling for. A third of the guidance was redacted. The Home Office has since shared an unredacted version with us following a request from the Chair.
31.The unredacted version of the guidance provides a useful summary of those who will and will not be covered by the taskforce. At the time of producing this report we have not yet had a chance to review the approach proposed for each category of case, but we believe the guidance should be made public so that we and others can scrutinise it further. We recognise that government should be allowed space to advise its staff in confidence but we see no reason why the unredacted Windrush Scheme Guidance that we have seen should fall into that category. In fact, we argue its publication would be actively helpful both to members of the Windrush generation and their advisers and as an aid to transparency and accountability. We recommend the Government publish the Windrush Scheme Guidance in full, as soon as possible.
32.In order to meet the pledge for free citizenship for those who want it, on 24 May 2018 the Government laid a statutory instrument (SI) to enable Commonwealth citizens who were settled in the UK before 1973 to apply to become British citizens more easily. The SI sets out that fees would be waived, as would the tests of English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK. However, the Home Office states that applicants will still need to pay the standard fee for passports:
The Windrush Scheme does not cover applications for a British passport. British citizens must pay for a passport and it would not be fair to existing British citizens to provide a free passport to those applying for British Citizenship under the Windrush Scheme.
33.The Windrush Scheme Guidance states that, where people do not wish to apply for a passport and do not have a foreign passport in which to place a Right of Abode vignette, they can be issued with a nationality status document. The Guidance advises caseworkers:
You must ensure that the person is aware the status document will not be accepted to prove a person’s right to work, rent or access services and benefits in a compliant environment, but can be used at a later date as part of a UK passport application, which would be at their own cost.
34.This approach suggests that, having identified people who may struggle to evidence their lawful status in the UK—some of whom we know to be in acute financial difficulties—the Home Office is still insisting that they pay a fee in order to access services to which they are legally entitled.
35.We welcome the steps the Government has taken to make it easier for people to apply for the documentation they need to evidence their lawful status in the UK. However, it is not acceptable that members of the Windrush generation—some of whom have been made destitute—are still expected to pay fees for passports which may be crucial to them being able to access services to which they are entitled. The Windrush generation often do not have documents which might otherwise prove their right to work, rent or hold bank accounts in this country; therefore they have an even greater need for a passport to prove their rights. Waiving fees for passports for members of the Windrush generation and their children is also an obvious gesture of goodwill which the Government should make immediately.
36.On 23 April 2018 the then Home Secretary announced that people affected by the Windrush crisis would be compensated:
The state has let these people down, with travel documents denied, exclusions from returning to the UK, benefits cut and even threats of removal—this, to a group of people who came to help build this country; people who should be thanked. This has happened for some time. I will put this right and where people have suffered loss, they will be compensated.
37.On 10 May 2018, the Government issued a call for evidence, in preparation for a compensation scheme for those members of the Windrush generation who have suffered because of difficulties proving their immigration status. The call for evidence is described as:
an opportunity for those who have been affected and their families by their situation to tell us [the Home Office and UKVI] what happened, how it has affected you and what you believe the planned compensation scheme needs to address.
38.There are concerns that the scheme will focus solely on evidence of financial loss. Yet the costs incurred by members of the Windrush generation go beyond Home Office and lawyers’ fees and loss of earnings. The Guardian has reported stories of people unable to visit dying relatives or attend their funerals; being discharged from hospital onto the streets; being placed in immigration detention; and being refused essential health treatment.
In May 2018, Judy Griffith wrote an article for The Guardian explaining that she had joined her parents in the UK from Barbados in 1963. After 52 years, a jobcentre employee told her that she was an “illegal immigrant” and, because her passport with evidence of leave to remain had been stolen, she was unable to work or travel. She could not visit her sick mother in Barbados in 2016, nor attend the funeral. Without work she got into significant arrears on her flat in London, and narrowly escaped eviction. In her own words, “I do think that we deserve compensation. But there is no amount that can truly reflect the fear and anxiety, frustration and ill health we have suffered.”
In April 2018, The Guardian described the experiences of Sarah O’Connor, who moved to Britain from Jamaica 51 years ago when she was six, and has lived here ever since. When we met Sarah she told us how she was challenged by the benefits agency to prove she was here legally last summer, after losing the job in the computer shop where she had worked for 16 years. Although she has successfully interviewed for several new jobs, the employers have had to withdraw their offers when they discovered she has no passport. Unable to get work and told she is not eligible for benefits, she had to sell her car and was facing bankruptcy in March. She attended primary and secondary school in the UK, paid taxes, held a driving licence, was married for 17 years to someone British and has four British children. She told us she was devastated when her immigration status was questioned.
There is also evidence that when members of the Windrush generation applied to document their status they were not granted the settlement that was due but instead placed on expensive routes for indefinite leave to remain. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) report:
When the Home Office has eventually been satisfied about a period of residence, instead of recognising that the person originally entered for settlement and confirming this, the Home Office has either (before 12 July 2012) granted indefinite leave to remain from the date of decision or (after 12 July 2012) granted leave to remain for 30 months, on the 10 year route to settlement. This has entailed people paying Home Office application fees (four times over, at present prices £5488 per person to achieve indefinite leave) when none of these applications should have been necessary.
39.The call for evidence closed on 8 June 2018, and the Home Office intends that it “will be followed by a full consultation on the detail of the scheme”. It is likely, therefore, to be months before compensation is paid. On 13 June 2018 we published a short report recommending the Government set up a hardship fund for those among the Windrush generation who face destitution; are unable to settle legal bills; or are facing bailiffs due to debts run up when they were forced to give up work or had their social security payments stopped, through no fault of their own. The full compensation scheme, which must recognise both financial loss and emotional distress, should be established as soon as possible and payments made by the end of the year. Where UKVI has charged fees wrongly these should be refunded. In the meantime we urge the Government to act on our previous report and immediately establish a hardship fund for those in acute financial difficulty.
40.It is not yet clear who might be eligible for compensation. The call for evidence seeks views from “those in the Windrush generation who have faced difficulties in establishing their status under the immigration system [ … ] The Windrush generation is generally taken to refer to those who arrived in the UK lawfully from Commonwealth countries before 1 January 1973.” However, the consultation also invites views from “any other interested organisations and individuals [ … ] anyone who feels they have been affected by this situation whether they fit that description [member of the Windrush generation] or not”. As we described in paragraph 11, members of two other groups have suffered from being unable to evidence their legal status: Commonwealth citizens who joined family in the UK between 1973 and 1988 and who have remained in the UK ever since, and children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation born in the UK. Like the Windrush generation, they have struggled to produce sufficient evidence of their status or pay the required fees, particularly if they have lost access to employment and social security.
41.The Government should immediately clarify the scope of the compensation scheme, particularly with regard to Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the UK between 1973 and 1988; and children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation born in the UK. As a minimum the scheme should be open to Windrush children and grandchildren who, on the balance of probabilities, were admitted for settlement before the 1988 Immigration Act came into force, and who have had to reapply for it.
4 The Voice, , 15 April 2018
5 HC Deb, , Col 27
6 HC Deb, , Col 31
7 Office for National Statistics, CT0801_2011 Census - COB (UK, Commonwealth, continent) by YR arrival by passport - Nat to region, published Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, website update on
8 The Guardian, ‘It’s inhumane’: the Windrush victims who have lost jobs, homes and loved ones,
9 Summarised from The Guardian, ‘’It’s like I’m being left to die”’, 10 March 2018
10 Buzzfeed, ‘ , 8 July 2017. Since publication of the article she has been able to successfully pursue citizenship.
11 Letter from the Home Secretary to the Chair of the Committee,
12 Letter from Home Secretary to the Chair,
13 Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on , HC (2017–19) 1034, Qq 1, 3, 6
14 Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on , HC (2017) 1034, Qq 1, 3, 11; BBC news website, , 25 October 2017; The Guardian, , 29 November 2017
15 Letter from Home Secretary to the Chair,
16 Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on , HC (2017–19) 1034, Q 26
17 Oral evidence taken on , HC 990 (2017–19), Q 265
18 Q 265 ibid
19 Oral evidence taken on Q269
20 Letter from Home Secretary to the Chair,
21 Letter from Home Secretary to the Chair,
22 Staff of the unit have been seconded from a number of areas of UKVI, including Premium Service Centre, Citizenship, Work and Study commands. Of these around two thirds deal with the casework elements of the process. The remainder run the helpline and associated outreach work. Source: Letter from Home Secretary to Chair,
23 HC Deb, , Col 27 [Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP]
24 Home Office and UKVI, ‘Free citizenship for the Windrush generation’,
25 HC Deb, , Col 619 [Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP]
26 Guardian, , 8 June 2018
27 Home Office, , 21 June 2018
28 The Guardian, , 8 June 2018
29 Q 3 [Lucy Moreton]
30 Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on , HC (2017–19) 1034, Qq 21-22
31 Q 219
32 Summarised from an article in The Guardian, , 23 April 2018
33 The Guardian, 21 February 2018
34 ILPA , 27 April 2018
35 HC Deb, , Col 620 [Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP]
36 HC Deb, , Col 620 [Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP]
37 Home Office and UKVI, , 24 May 2018, p12
38 Q 4
39 Q 4
40 Letter from Home Secretary to the Chair,
41 HC Deb, Col 353
42 Home Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2017–19, , HC 421, para 32
43 Oral evidence taken on , HC (2017–19) 421, Q 48
44 HC Deb, , Col 620 [Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP]
45 Q 39
46 Q 53
47 Home Office, , 24 May 2018
49 Home Office and UKVI, , 24 May 2018, p1
50 Home Office and UKVI, , 24 May 2018, p15
51 HC Deb, , Col 621 [Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP]
52 Home Office and UKVI, , 10 May 2018
53 The Guardian, , 20 April 2018
54 The Guardian, , 11 May 2018
55 The Guardian, , 15 April 2018
56 ILPA submission to the Home Office call for evidence on the Windrush compensation scheme
57 Home Office and UKVI, ‘Windrush Scheme and information’, published 13 April 2018, updated
58 Home Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC 1200
Published: 3 July 2018