The prime minister has pledged that information received by a taskforce set up to deal with the fallout from the Windrush scandal will not be passed on to immigration enforcement.
In a letter received on Monday by David Lammy MP, Theresa May said the taskforce helpline has received more than 8,000 calls, of which more than 2,700 have been identified as Windrush cases.
If you have been affected by this story, you can share your experiences with us by using our encrypted form, here.
Your responses will only be seen by the Guardian and we will treat them confidentially. Your stories will help our journalists have a more complete picture of these events and we will feature some of them in our reporting.
More than 800 appointments have been scheduled and more than 200 people have had their cases processed and are in possession of the documents they need.
The taskforce was set up to help people find the evidence they need to prove their right to be in the UK and access public services, but concerns were expressed that the data would be sent to immigration enforcement.
“I want to reassure you that any information provided to the taskforce will be used for no other immigration purpose than that of helping people confirm their status, and it will not be passed to immigration enforcement,” the prime minister said in response to concerns raised by Lammy, seen by the Guardian.
But similar concerns have since been raised over the compensation scheme unveiled last week by Sajid Javid.
Before the scheme is finalised, Javid called for affected Windrush citizens and their families to come forward with their personal stories.
Among those caught up in the Windrush scandal are people forced out of work, in some cases for years, and unable to claim welfare support, as well as individuals wrongfully detained and in some cases deported. Lawyers have begun preparing group compensation claims on behalf of members of the Windrush generation.
Satbir Singh, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants charity, said: “Time and time again we see the data of vulnerable people being used by the Home Office to initiate immigration enforcement action.
“Promises to protect those accessing the taskforce are directly contradicted by the failure to provide similar guarantees for those giving evidence to the compensation consultation,” Singh said, adding that proposed data protection powers that could prevent people from obtaining information about their own immigration status also undermined their assurances.
Changes proposed in the data protection bill would deprive applicants of a reliable means of obtaining files on themselves from the department through what are known as subject access requests (SARs). The decision to grant the Home Office an exemption to such requests in immigration matters has already been criticised by campaign groups.
But the Home Office has denied the proposed exemption is an attempt to deny people access to their data.
