It’s 75 years since the arrival of the Windrush – what happened to the families that it brought to the UK?

On 22 June 1948, the HMT Empire Windrush docked in Tilbury, Essex, bringing 1,027 passengers to the UK from Caribbean islands such as Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. They had been encouraged to come to the UK because of post-war labour shortages. These arrivals were the first of the ‘Windrush generation’, people who came from the Caribbean and other parts of the Commonwealth to the UK, between 1948 and 1971, when immigration laws changed. One of two people still living who were on the Windrush, Alford Gardner, who was 22 at the time, described his experience for Sky News. Children of the Windrush generation, born in the UK, naturally assumed they were British. Indeed, the 1971 Immigration Act gave Commonwealth citizens already living in the UK ‘indefinite leave to remain’.

When, decades later, the ‘Windrush scandal’ began, it had two main causes. One was that the Home Office had no proper records – because it had thrown away the landing cards of those arriving. But for many people this didn’t matter until they – or their children – had to prove their right to be here. Some were affected by ‘right to work’ checks introduced in 2006, but far more discovered their unclear status when the government toughened up immigration laws by creating the ‘hostile environment’ as an attempt to curb ‘illegal’ immigration, starting in 2016. As Wendy Williams said in her official review of the scandal, this change was made ‘with a complete disregard for the Windrush generation’.

Media stories highlighting the problems began to appear in 2017. By April 2018 the scandal had become a political crisis leading to the resignation of the then home secretary, Amber Rudd, and in May a review was announced, to ‘learn the lessons’ from the scandal. Williams presented her report in March 2020. Among 30 recommendations was a call for a full review of the ‘hostile environment’.

Among the many disastrous consequences for the Windrush generation, one that Wendy Williams focussed on was the loss of their homes, often because of the imposition of ‘right to rent’ rules – the document checks on people applying for rented accommodation. These were the focus of a 50-page case study in her report. Williams said the Home Office didn’t properly consider the scheme’s risks for ethnic minorities; it went ahead after the CIH and others pointed out the risks and it ignored the evidence presented to it. I recall going to a meeting with the Home Office to express our concerns that the scheme would be discriminatory and that many people would not be able to produce the required documents.

The right to rent began in the West Midlands in December 2014 and – despite objections – was extended to the rest of England (but not so far the other UK countries) in February 2016. Since it began, there has been consistent evidence of discrimination by landlords on race or nationality grounds. While in some cases the reason may be racism, undoubtedly many landlords simply prefer applicants with British passports because of the difficulty of checking other, more complicated immigration documents. Landlords face stiff fines and even jail sentences if they knowingly fail to make the checks.

Exactly how far the rent checks affected the Windrush generation is unknown, because the Home Office does not monitor the scheme’s effects (one of the criticisms of it made in the Williams report). One specific case was reported to Williams of a Windrush generation member who lost their home because of fire and was unable to rent a new one, because they had no passport (and until then they had had no need of one).

In 2020, the Guardian newspaper, largely responsible for uncovering the Windrush scandal in 2017 and 2018, published 50 brief case studies of the scandal’s victims. Many of these had become homeless, whether because of the right to rent or as a result of similar rules in the social rented sector. Bevis Smith, now aged 64, lost his home when he was admitted to hospital with a serious heart condition, and had to sofa-surf after he was discharged. Winston Robinson (62), Renford McIntyre (66) and George Poleon (66) became homeless when they lost access to benefits. Edward Bromfield (64) lost his council tenancy because of his unclear status.

While finally, and slowly, the victims of the Windrush scandal are being compensated and their immigration status regularised, there remain perhaps half a million people in the UK who face similar problems but receive little help. For example, many older people have no passport and might find it difficult or costly to prove their entitlement to be in the UK. Warnings have been made about another Windrush-scale scandal that could affect people from the European Union who have long been resident here. Most will have been aware of the need to regularise their status but a proportion may not, or may have been too scared to declare their position to Home Office staff. They may own their homes and face no problems, but what if their circumstances change and they suddenly need to rent?

One of the key issues highlighted by Wendy Williams was the lack of sympathy she found among the staff who had dealt with the Windrush generation’s traumatic experiences. It was the then home secretary, Theresa May, who dubbed the legal framework she began to develop in 2012 the ‘hostile environment’. But the hostility had been growing for years and continues today. If the current home secretary, Suella Braverman, can talk about migrants not sharing our ‘values’ and ‘abusing the generosity of the British people’, there seems little prospect of the fundamental changes demanded by Wendy Williams taking place. The lessons of the Windrush scandal may have been learned, but many of them look set to be ignored.