THE compensation scheme for victims of the Windrush scandal risks becoming a source of injustice itself, the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, has said.
Speaking in a debate within the House of Lords on the Windrush scandal and the next compensation scheme, Dr Hartley said that it was “deeply distressing” that 53 people had died while waiting for compensation.
“In 2023, there have been greater than 2000 claims where victims received a zero payment, greater than double the number in the identical period in 2022,” she continued. “It isn’t hard to see or understand the impact of delays, and it isn’t surprising that claimants distrust and feel suspicious concerning the Home Office. They must feel that they’re being retraumatised. They are being retraumatised by being asked for documents and proof in the identical way that they were asked to attempt to prove their residency in the primary place.”
Dr Hartley said that legal aid needs to be provided to eligible claimants, and called on the Government to offer this or no less than a system to get better legal costs. “I fear there may be a risk that the compensation scheme meant to redress injustice is becoming a part of the issue and a source of injustice in itself.”
Responding for the Government to the talk, Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the Home Office, said that 16,800 people had been supplied with documentation that confirmed their status or British citizenship. “Our experience has been that lots of them haven’t suffered losses or detriment owing to being unable to display their lawful status within the UK, so that they haven’t needed to say compensation.” The scheme had no end date, he said, “and there isn’t any cap on the amount of cash the department can pay”.
On Wednesday of last week, Dr Hartley also spoke through the Second Reading of the Media Bill (Comment, 19 January). She drew attention to “the absence of clear statutory provision for languages on this Bill, specifically for Gaelic”. She called on the Government “to strengthen language provision within the Bill, moderately than have it left within the moderately precarious state it now finds itself in. Leaving it to Ofcom to evaluate —through counting objections to the absence of language provision, for instance — is an unhelpful consequence of a scarcity of statutory recognition.”
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, welcomed the “timely and needed” Bill. “The regulatory framework that governs public-service media, not only broadcasting, is in urgent need of updating, given the accelerating changes in technology, media consumption, and the broader media ecosystem within the 20 years for the reason that Communications Act 2003.”
Bishop Baines expressed concern, nevertheless, concerning the Bill’s dropping of “specific reference to genres that may be described as ‘minority interest’, resembling children, the humanities, science, and religion”.
He continued: “Guaranteeing space for religion isn’t about propaganda for any particular faith or religion. The point is solely that you just cannot understand the world should you don’t understand religion. Religion isn’t about worldviews or beliefs alone, but about prime motivators for individual and communal decisions and behaviours, about how and why people see the world as they do and the way their priorities, rituals, and communalities shape our societies.
“In broadcasting terms, that embraces drama, comedy, and current affairs; it isn’t all about Songs of Praise. This isn’t trivial. The fragilities of our world at present make attention to religion more essential than ever, not less.”
Responding to the talk for the Government, Lord Parkinson, a minister within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, said that the Bill introduced “a recent, modernised remit”, intended to offer a clearer sense of purpose for public-service broadcasting. “Should Ofcom discover an issue with the spread of genres, including in relation to spiritual programming . . . then the Bill allows for the remit to be updated, and indeed for the creation of additional quotas for underserved content areas.”
