Windrush Generation

The full report from Channel 4 Fact Check if anyone wants more information: it still doesn’t mention the Home Office whistle blower.
www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-who-destroyed-the-windrush-landing-cards

I am amazed the government does not have advisers responsible for the archiving of documents, who have to review and approve the wholesale destruction of any class of documents.

I have seen it said that the Data Protection thing is hogwash.

And full Fact don't mention the civil servants who said that they shouldn't be destroyed because they were still used.

But life is never perfect...

Channel Four fact checker

FactCheck verdict

Both Labour and the Conservatives have accused each other of being responsible for the destruction of Windrush landing cards. The decision to dispose of them was taken in 2009 under Labour (although the then-Home Secretary says he didn’t sign it off). The actual destruction of the documents took place under the Conservatives, when Theresa May was Home Secretary.

The documents were destroyed as part of the UK Border Agency’s legal obligations under the the Data Protection Act. At the time, the Border Agency didn’t consider the documents to be of sufficient value to keep hold of.

Only later – in 2013 – was the “hostile environment” policy introduced by the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition. Additional changes in 2012 added to the pressure on migrants in the UK.

Had they not been destroyed, the landing cards could now be used alongside other documents to help someone threatened with deportation to build their case for staying. It gets trickier when we talk about people who have no other record of their time in the UK.

The number of people for whom a landing card would materially alter their status now is very low – but not zero.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that the destruction of the landing cards would not be a significant problem for the Windrush generation if the “hostile environment” policy hadn’t been introduced

They can't have been digitised, can they, mostly. There wouldn't be this problem if they had been.

Yes. It is very odd that the decision was made to destroy them.

That really is one of the strangest parts of this story, Baggs. I wonder how many other valuable national records ('valuable' as per MOnica's post) are being merrily destroyed rather than archived?

The Border Agency recommended in 2009 that they be destroyed (to be transferred to digital) according to Alan Johnson who was Home Secretary under Labour.
But the Home Office didn’t authorise their destruction until Theresa May was Home Secretary.
Not sure if they were ever transferred to digital though?

MaizieD You are coming out all guns blazing on the ‘OMG it was all done deliberately’ front without a shred of evidence for that view.

Your lack of comprehension skills never ceases to amaze me, lemon. Perhaps you'd like to pinpoint the post where I have said it was deliberate.

I am pleased to see that others are saying just what I have said.

So why, according to Theresa May, did the Labour govt in 2009 make the decision to get rid of the cards?

Especially as te NA have records going back to the 1800s from the HO.

Yes. It is very odd that the decision was made to destroy them.

There is another side to the wanton destruction of the landing cards of the 'Windrush' generation.

These documents are an important part of our history giving information about all those who came over on an individual basis. They were part of our national heritage and should not have been destroyed but lodged with the National Archives in Kew as documents which could have been of enormous value to historians in the future researching this period and to those researching their family history.

But neither she nor TM are going to resign are they? The rule of this government is of course "Thou shalt not be found out, but even if you are. just apologise and carry on"

The result of the mess as far as most people (and I do mean most people) in the UK are concerned is disgust and a demand that wrongs be rectified. The ball is in Rudd's court now.

Even assuming it wasn’t deliberate baggs the Home Office have known about the problems created for the Windrush group for nearly eight years so could have chosen to rectify it before now.
They chose not to.

You are wrong there was a warning from the HO that the legislation would cause problems for long term residents. TM ignored it. That is creating an ethos that led to the present problem. And going "Oh dear I didn't mean it. I am sorry" is no excuse
In a second warning in 2015, while Ms May was still the home secretary, her department assessed how the new Immigration Bill could deny migrants housing and driving licences or see their bank accounts frozen.
The document also foreshadowed the current scandal over threats to deport people who were welcomed to Britain during the Windrush arrivals.
“Some non-UK born older people may have additional difficulties in providing original documentation,” it said. “Some may have had their immigration records destroyed. Some will have originally come into the country under old legislation but may have difficulty in evidencing this.”
The evidence is there. She ignored warnings. That isn't incompetence it's a deliberate strategy.

No way no how is anyone going to prove it one way or another.

You obviously think the mess was deliberate, mh. Fine. Some people disagree. Also fine.

The Windrush group were given “indefinite leave to remain” but were not given that in writing so could be classed as illegal.
The Home Office have had eight years to rectify this but chose not to until there was so much publicity (mainly from the Guardian) that they couldn’t avoid it any longer.

X posts Baggs you beat me to it.

The word mostly( above post) refers to posters name.

The ‘hostile environment’ was for illegal immigrants
mostly something which most other countries adhere to!
Nobody expected it to be a problem for the WG, ( so badly thought out) but it is a fact that most of them have not had any problems, because most of them had already become British citizens.I take issue with it being ‘a deliberate policy against them, or a racist one either, as illegal immigrants can be any colour at all.

And before anyone accuses me of defending incompetence and carelessness, I'm not. I'm pointing out a difference between deliberate and non-deliberate.

No, it was deliberate policy to make a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. That the Windrush generation were caught up in that was incompetence and carelessness in making policy, which isn't the same as deliberate policy.

Yes it’s good that there has been an apology and the Windrush Generation and similar groups will now be given British Citizenship free of charge.
But it was a deliberate policy from 2010/11 to create a “hostile environment” for immigrants and “deport first, appeal later” was clearly stated by Theresa May and was not an unintended consequence.