This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/25/amber-rudd-deeply-regrets-failure-to-spot-scale-of-windrush-issue

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Amber Rudd 'deeply regrets' failure to spot scale of Windrush issue Amber Rudd 'deeply regrets' failure to spot scale of Windrush issue
(about 2 hours later)
The home secretary, Amber Rudd, has said she deeply regrets not spotting the problem of Windrush-generation Britons being wrongly targeted by immigration authorities, vowing there would be a culture change at the Home Office. Amber Rudd has been accused of protecting the prime minister over the Home Office’s failure to get to grips with the Windrush scandal, after she refused to identify the “hostile environment” strategy as a major factor.
Answering questions before the Commons home affairs committee, Rudd said she hoped to give immigration staff more discretion to assess people’s cases to prevent anything similar happening again. The home secretary said she deeply regretted not spotting the problem of a generation of Britons being wrongly targeted by immigration authorities, vowing there would be a culture change in her department.
However, there was immediate confusion over whether she had sanctioned regional targets for deporting migrants, with Rudd at odds with the head of immigration service union who claimed they appeared on posters across the Home Office estate.
Rudd came under continued pressure over the Windrush debacle at prime minister’s questions when Jeremy Corbyn accused her of inheriting a “cruel and misdirected” policy from Theresa May and making it worse.
The prime minister struggled to get the upper hand in a series of tetchy exchanges with the Labour leader during which she insisted the government was committed to making sure those who were entitled to be in Britain could remain.
May added that it was also right to clamp down on illegal immigration. “Up and down this country people want to ensure the government is taking action against those people who are here in this country illegally,” she told MPs.
The prime minister denied the hostile environment had affected the Windrush generation, saying: “The problem at the time is that they were not documented with that right, and that is what we are now putting right.”
Earlier this week, Rudd unveiled an emergency package of measures in an attempt to draw a line under the affair, but the Home Office has remained under pressure as new cases continue to emerge.
Under the government’s plans, thousands of people will be offered the chance to obtain British citizenship free of charge and without the requirement to take language tests. A compensation scheme for those affected by the failings will be introduced within weeks.
During her grilling from the home affairs select committee on Wednesday, Rudd remained steadfastly loyal to May.
The home secretary, who Tory ministers expect to survive in her role as long as no new scandals emerge, was accused of protecting the prime minister, her predecessor at the Home Office, after refusing to say whether May was responsible for the department ending up too focused on policy, rather than people.
“I think the Home Office needs to have a more human face ... I’m trying to look forward to make those changes now. I want the Home Office to have more personal focus,” she said.
However, asked whether the fault lay with changes that she had implemented, rather than her predecessor, she said: “That would be for others to judge ... I don’t think I can give a clear answer to that.”
Labour’s John Woodcock, who sits on the committee, told Rudd: “You could give a clear answer but you’re choosing not to because you’re choosing to protect the previous incumbent of the home department, who is the prime minister.”
The home secretary also refused to identify the so-called hostile environment immigration policy brought in by May – which requires people to proactively prove their status – as a specific failing.
Rudd again appeared to deflect blame from the current government, saying the Windrush problem had been around for decades, and it was “disappointing no previous governments saw this coming.”
Lucy Moreton, the head of the ISU immigration workers’ union, told the commitee that the changes introduced by May in 2011 had made a difference.
Before then, she told MPs, immigration case workers dealing with a Windrush generation person could assess their case by checking their knowledge of events such as the 1977 silver jubilee and the the 1976 drought, adding: “That level of discretion is no longer permitted.”
Rudd later said she hoped to give immigration staff more discretion to assess people’s cases to prevent anything similar happening again.
I bitterly, deeply regret that I didn’t see it as more than individual cases gone wrong that needed addressing
She also told the MPs that the government was still checking to confirm no Windrush citizens had been wrongly deported, and had not yet begun to assess how many might have been detained over their supposed immigration status.She also told the MPs that the government was still checking to confirm no Windrush citizens had been wrongly deported, and had not yet begun to assess how many might have been detained over their supposed immigration status.
Asked by the committee chair, Labour’s Yvette Cooper, when she first learned of the issue, Rudd replied: “I became aware over the past few months, I would say, that there was a problem of individuals I was seeing.Asked by the committee chair, Labour’s Yvette Cooper, when she first learned of the issue, Rudd replied: “I became aware over the past few months, I would say, that there was a problem of individuals I was seeing.
“This was covered by newspapers, and MPs bringing it forward anecdotally over the past three or four months, and I became aware that there was a potential issue.”“This was covered by newspapers, and MPs bringing it forward anecdotally over the past three or four months, and I became aware that there was a potential issue.”
She continued: “I bitterly, deeply regret that I didn’t see it as more than individual cases gone wrong that needed addressing. I didn’t see it as a systemic issue until very recently.”She continued: “I bitterly, deeply regret that I didn’t see it as more than individual cases gone wrong that needed addressing. I didn’t see it as a systemic issue until very recently.”
Rudd paid tribute to the “extraordinary job” done by the Guardian’s Amelia Gentleman, who had been highlighting the issue for more than six months. The home secretary paid tribute to the “extraordinary job” done by the Guardian’s Amelia Gentleman, who had been highlighting the issue for more than six months.
Rudd was accused of protecting the prime minister by refusing to say whether Theresa May, her immediate predecessor at the Home Office, was responsible for the department ending up too focused on policy, rather than on people. Rudd caused confusion over the existence of regional targets for deportations, which she claimed to be unaware of, prompting Cooper to suggest that she might “lack a grip” on the system.
“I think the Home Office needs to have a more human face ... I’m trying to look forward to make those changes now. I want the Home Office to have more personal focus,” she said. She confirmed she had asked for more removals to take place generally, of around 12,000 people a year, adding that there was “nothing wrong” with trying to remove people who were here illegally.
Asked whether the fault stemmed from changes she had made when she took over as home secretary in 2016, Rudd said: “That would be for others to judge ... I don’t think I can give a clear answer to that.” However, after the hearing, Moreton said: “Net removal targets certainly do exist, and I’m somewhat bemused as to why the home secretary would say they do not.”
Labour committee member John Woodcock pressed Rudd on the issue: “You could give a clear answer but you’re choosing not to because you’re choosing to protect the previous incumbent of the home department, who is the prime minister.” The home secretary denied that the Tories’ target to bring net migration below 100,000 – which she has previously refused to say whether she would stick to – had fuelled the saga.
Rudd replied: “I’m choosing to be very honest which is that I don’t have a straightforward to answer to that.”
The home secretary denied that the Tories’ pledge to bring net migration below 100,000 – which she previously had refused to say whether she would stick to – had fuelled the saga.
“I don’t think that’s got anything to do with it. It’s wrong to think the net migration target is the problem here. The problem here is that people were not properly documented,” Rudd said.“I don’t think that’s got anything to do with it. It’s wrong to think the net migration target is the problem here. The problem here is that people were not properly documented,” Rudd said.
Rudd said she had not discussed the net migration target in the context of the whole Windrush scandal with May, but refused to be drawn on private conversations they have had more generally. She denied she had discussed the net migration target in the context of the whole Windrush scandal with May, but refused to be drawn on “private conversations” they have had more generally on the issue.
Asked about cases including a man who moved to the UK in 1971 but was targeted because he could not prove he had lived in the country continually ever since, and another who was asked to show four pieces of residency proof for each year, Rudd promised a new approach. Satbir Singh, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, told the MPs there was now a “decision-making culture of suspicion”, based around “inflexible and unrealistic evidentiary burdens”.
“I would expect a case worker now to be able to engage with them personally, which is the sort of changes I’m putting in place,” she said. Singh said that even though he is a UK national born in the country, he was recently asked to prove his immigration status when renting a flat. As his passport was at an embassy to get a visa he missed out. He said: “That, for me, was a clear coalface indictment of how this works.”
“What’s different now is that I’m putting in place a more personal service at UKVI [UK Visas and Immigration] to ensure that where there are situations – and that may be an example – that individuals are able to engage with the case worker so that they can explain to them why this as the case.”
She added: “I hope that the changes I am putting in place will ensure that there is a culture change and that any future cohort of this type will be picked up much sooner or that we won’t get there at all.”
However, Rudd did not identity the so-called hostile environment immigration policy brought in when May was home secretary, which requires people to proactively prove their status, as a specific failing.
Quizzed on the issue at prime minister’s questions earlier on Wednesday, May had also denied the strategy had affected the Windrush generation, saying: “The problem at the time is that they were not documented with that right, and that is what we are now putting right.”
However, giving evidence before May, the head of the ISU immigration workers’ union, Lucy Moreton, had said changes introduced by May around 2011 had made a difference.
Before then, Moreton told MPs, immigration case workers dealing with a Windrush-generation person could assess their case by checking their knowledge of events such as the 1977 silver jubilee and the the 1976 drought, adding: “That level of discretion is no longer permitted.”
The home secretary appeared to be unaware of regional targets for net removals, which Moreton had said existed, prompting Cooper to suggest she may have a “lack of grip” on the system.
However, Rudd said it was correct that she had asked for more removals to take place generally, adding that there was nothing wrong with trying to remove people who were here illegally.
Satbir Singh, the chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, told the MPs there was now a “decision-making culture of suspicion”, based around “inflexible and unrealistic evidentiary burdens”.
Singh said that even though he is a UK national born in the country, he was recently asked to prove his immigration status when renting a flat. As his passport was at an embassy to get a visa he missed out.
He said: “That, for me, was a clear coalface indictment of how this works.”
Commonwealth immigrationCommonwealth immigration
CaribbeanCaribbean
Amber RuddAmber Rudd
Immigration and asylumImmigration and asylum
Yvette CooperYvette Cooper
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content