In her report on the Windrush scandal, Wendy Williams does not quite brand the Home Office institutionally racist – but she comes close.
Williams’ finding that failings within the department amounted to an “institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race” that was consistent with “some elements of the definition of institutional racism” should prompt some significant soul-searching.
The home secretary, Priti Patel, has pledged to review the recommendations and pay close detail to the way her department “views the communities it serves”. Crucially, she has committed to looking at the government’s “compliant environment policies”, more often known as the “hostile environment”.
The Home Office is already facing mounting calls to scrap the policies, which, if not the cause of the Windrush scandal, undoubtedly compounded it.
Introduced by Theresa May as home secretary in two immigration acts in 2014 and 2016, the policies essentially empowered a range of figures across society to become immigration enforcement officers. Landlords were required to conduct right-to-rent checks, doctors were asked to assess the immigration statuses of the sick before they were treated, and checks by banks and employers were also demanded.
In her review, Williams makes clear that the hostile environment evolved under the Labour, coalition and Conservative governments successively and does not pin the blame on the 2014 and 2016 acts exclusively.
However, those powers remain, and dismantling or reworking them would be a significant step forward in aiding the cultural change that Williams is calling for.
Yvette Cooper, the chair of the home affairs select committee, said: “We need to see urgent action now on the hostile environment, on overhauling casework culture and the culture of targets in the Home Office, to ensure that the same cultural and organisational concerns we have previously raised do not lead to more scandals like this in the future.”
On the issue of race, Williams is clear that the Home Office needs to review its diversity, inclusion and unconscious-bias awareness training, and tackle its lack of senior figures from minority backgrounds.
But she goes beyond classic HR solutions. She suggests new Home Office staff should be educated on the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, including Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons.
Ultimately, Williams says this goes to the heart of what the Home Office stands for. What is its purpose? Her answer is to say that the home secretary should set a clear mission statement that has at its core “fairness, humanity, openness, diversity and inclusion”.
Patel committed to clarifying the department’s purpose in this spirit, adding: “I want to make the Home Office a better place to work.”
But as far as the immigration directorates work, the proposals come at a complicated time. The home secretary has tasked her officials with overhauling the immigration system for post-Brexit Britain, with a point-based system focused on skilled workers to be introduced.
Overhauling the department’s culture while implementing one of the biggest policy shifts in recent times will be a significant ask.
