First Windrush Commissioner vows cultural change, accountability, and action
The post was advertised earlier this year as a three-day week role with an annual salary of £130,000 and for a three-year term.
Mr Foster is a senior pastor at the Pilgrim Church in Nottingham and is the son of parents who migrated to the UK from Jamaica in 1959.
A founder of the Nottingham Windrush Support Forum and vice-chair of the Windrush National Organisation, the Home Office said he brings both lived experience and professional expertise to the role.
He vowed to work constructively with Government but to maintain independence in a role he hopes can bring 'change that the Windrush generations can see and feel in their everyday lives'.
Mr Foster said: 'I'm honoured to take on the role of Windrush Commissioner. I'm committed to ensuring justice is delivered for the Windrush generations – people who have given so much to this country and deserve better than the treatment they have received.
'The injustices they faced must never be repeated, and that requires more than words; it requires cultural change, accountability, and action.
'My aim is to deliver change that the Windrush generations can see and feel in their everyday lives, particularly in how the Windrush Status and Compensation Schemes operate.
'I will carry out this role independently, without fear or favour, while creating a constructive relationship with Government where challenge is welcomed and scrutiny leads to specific, transparent improvements.'
The Windrush scandal – which campaigners have since said should be known as the Home Office scandal – erupted in 2018 when British citizens were wrongly detained, deported or threatened with deportation despite having the right to live in Britain.
Many lost homes and jobs and were denied access to healthcare and benefits.
The compensation scheme set up for victims of the scandal has faced criticism from campaigners and those within the community as complicated and too slow.
Earlier this week Home Office minister Seema Malhotra said around 64 Windrush compensation claimants had died after applying for payouts, as she set out the Government's wish to speed up 'justice'.
She told the House of Commons on Monday that the new commissioner would look at ways to change the compensation scheme.
Ms Malhotra told MPs: 'In opposition, we frequently heard that the application process was too complicated with insufficient support for those wishing to make a claim.
'The Government is determined to ensure that the victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal are heard, that justice is sped up, that the compensation scheme is run efficiently and effectively.'
The Windrush scandal has become known as the Home Office scandal (Kendall Brown/PA)
Mr Foster has been appointed with immediate effect but will begin his formal duties shortly after Windrush Day celebrations on Sunday, the Home Office said.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has repeated her insistence that Labour is 'absolutely determined to right the wrongs they suffered at the hands of the Home Office'.
She added: 'This is why I am delighted to welcome Reverend Clive Foster as our new Windrush Commissioner.
'His deep understanding through his own connections and dedicated community work makes him the perfect champion for those affected by this historic injustice.
'I look forward to working closely with Reverend Foster as we continue our vital work to rebuild trust and deliver the justice that the Windrush generations so rightfully deserve.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ancient trees are shipped to the UK, then burned – using billions in ‘green' subsidies. Stop this madness now
How green is this? We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. Welcome to the scandal of Drax, where Britain's biggest polluter gets to play climate hero. The reality is that billions in public subsidies has enabled Drax to generate electricity by burning 300m trees. Now the government is trying to force through an extension that would grant Drax an estimated £1.8bn in public subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already pocketed, keeping this circus going until at least 2031. This isn't green energy. The mathematics alone should horrify anyone who cares about value for money or the environment. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. Even if you replant every tree Drax destroys, it takes up to a century for new growth to reabsorb the carbon released. We're supposed to reach net zero by 2050, not 2125. Yet through circus-trick accounting, all of Drax's massive emissions magically disappear from Britain's climate ledger. They've simply been wished away – counted as 'zero', while the company becomes our largest single contributor to climate breakdown. Extraordinarily, this scandal unites opposition across the political spectrum. From the Greens to Reform, from the Morning Star to the Daily Telegraph, there's rare consensus that Drax represents everything wrong with our approach to climate policy. The Labour-dominated public accounts committee condemned Drax as a 'white elephant' that's been allowed to 'mark its own homework' while claiming 'billions upon billions' in subsidies. A Lords committee agreed, saying parliament needs to see key documents before approving any more funding. I don't agree with Ed Miliband on everything – we clearly have different views on nuclear power. I respect the energy secretary's commitment to tackling climate crisis, and it is worth noting that the further subsidies are half of what was previously on offer for Drax. But that's exactly why continuing to subsidise Drax at all is so disappointing. When Miliband announced his plans to 'ramp up' biomass burning back in 2009, he was genuinely trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels. But 16 years on, this policy has gone badly astray. What was meant to be a bridge to renewable energy is actually making emissions worse. If, on Monday, the House of Lords votes to extend this unabated wood burning for another four years, what is to stop these subsidies being extended again and again? And why should the government deal with a firm as untrustworthy as Drax? Perhaps most damning is what Drax refuses to reveal. After the BBC's devastating Panorama investigation into the company's destruction of Canadian primary forests, Drax asked auditor KPMG to investigate, hoping for a clean bill of health. However, the evidence was so damning that the reports are still being hidden from the public. If Drax has nothing to hide, why not publish these reports? A former top Treasury official turned whistleblower accused it of deliberately concealing unsustainable practices to secure subsidies. The case, now settled, raises questions of dishonesty that should disqualify any company from public funding. The extra billions Drax is seeking could help build enough wind and solar capacity to power millions of homes. It could create permanent jobs in genuine renewable industries, not temporary employment destroying irreplaceable ecosystems. Every pound spent subsidising tree burning is a pound not invested in technologies that could actually deliver net zero. While other countries race ahead with wind, solar and battery storage, we're burning money on the most primitive fuel known to humanity. There's a huge loophole in the government's pledge to stop Drax burning trees from primary forest. Their restrictions on Drax only apply to subsidised electricity supplied to the grid. Drax wants to power private data centres but there is no plan that prevents it from destroying ancient forests to power 21st-century AI searches. That means Drax could be cutting down even more primary forests than it does today. MPs have lost trust in the government's ability to hold Drax to account – the criticism from parliamentary committees has been brutal. The environmental movement didn't fight to establish renewable energy so politicians could facilitate the burning of ancient forests that took millennia to grow. Real climate action means making hard choices, not hiding behind accounting tricks that make our emissions disappear on paper while making them worse in reality. It is time for Labour MPs to speak up; the fight for net zero is hard enough. More subsidies for Drax's wood burning in the name of sustainability is just more fuel on that fire. Dale Vince is a green energy industrialist and campaigner
Cambrian News
3 hours ago
- Cambrian News
Call for legal action over rail and NI funding
Mr Price asked: 'If the change was made without consultation or adequate reasoning, what legal hurdles would the Welsh Government face in bringing a case and what remedies might be available?'
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Are you ‘upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools
Ms McDonald also said in the letter that she'd spoken to her pupils and explained the symbolism and association of flags and symbols to different groups of people, and how using the pictures was contrary to the school values of respect and kindness. 'I hope this helps everyone understand where mistakes have been made,' she said, 'and we can move on enjoying the rest of the end-of-term celebrations.' The language, the tone, the phrasing – 'inclusion', 'acceptance', 'offensive', 'upset', 'I hope this helps' – is a good example of the way some people in the public sector have learned to talk, indeed feel they must talk: plaintive, patronising, passive aggressive. I also dread to think what Ms McDonald said to the pupils when she 'explained the symbolism and association of flags'; if her letter's anything to go by, she's the last person who should be explaining it. But as I say, the headteacher has now said sorry through her council, East Renfrewshire. A council statement said she'd never meant to suggest the union flag was sectarian and 'apologised for any offence and upset that has been caused' (more upset and offence you'll notice). The council issued its statement after the local MSP, Tory Jackson Carlaw, said he was angry about the head's letter and that equating the Union flag with sectarianism was deeply offensive (I think we may need to ban the o-word). We also need to put all the apparent offence and upset in perspective. It would seem that someone saw the pictures of the event, noticed the Union flags, and contacted the school to say they were upset. The headteacher then reacted in the way she did, writing her letter, which upset other people, meaning the headteacher then had to apologise to them as well and suddenly we're in a spiral of offence and apology. The problem is that, in a hyper-sensitive culture, we assume someone being 'upset' requires some kind of reaction: a there-there, a soothing letter or placating policy announcement. Consult your granny: it does not. Read more These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong? A Scottish legend says cancel culture is over. Yeah right The fact that someone was upset by the pictures of the event at Arthurlie Primary is also an indication of how flags work. Stick a flag up a pole – any flag, any pole – and you'll immediately please some people and upset others. The Union flag makes a particular type of Scottish nationalist puce with fury – God forbid any Scottish supermarket that puts it on British sausages – and increasingly the same applies to the saltire and a particular type of Unionist. The situation also got a lot worse after 2014, but we are where we are. What it means a decade on, in 2025, is that putting up a Union flag, or a saltire for that matter, in a school, or anywhere, is not a neutral act. Maybe there was a time, before the Scottish referendum, when flags went up without much comment; I also used to think, with some satisfaction, that a lot of Scots find naked patriotism and flags a wee bit embarrassing. But the referendum changed things, flags led to more flags (flagflation) and now there's anger because the flag you see isn't the 'right' one. Hence someone looking at a picture of an event at Arthurlie Primary and getting upset. There-there. The position the school takes now is that it was not their intention to imply the Union flag is sectarian but beyond that, it's unclear what their policy is. The council statement says the school should be 'focused on a diverse British society' and 'foster an ethos of respect for diverse perspectives and national identity'. So does that mean it's OK to put up Union flags to reflect one of the diverse national identities? Or does it mean it's not OK to put up Union flags because it only reflects one of the diverse national identities? They may have withdrawn the 'sectarian' accusation but where they actually stand on flags is uncertain. Jackson Carlaw (Image: PA) Perhaps if Ms McDonald had chosen her words more carefully, we wouldn't be in this position. The use of 'sectarian' was certainly ill-advised given its connection to the Troubles and traditional religious tensions which still bubble in parts of Scotland. She also failed to take into account that many Scots, including some of the parents of kids at her school, will feel positively about the Union flag and so ended up committing that most heinous of modern crimes: offending someone, while trying to avoid offending someone. She also appeared to be handing a kind of veto to people who get upset by the Union flag but get over-excited by saltires. You know the type. And why is it always me who ends up sitting next to them at parties? Anyway, expressed in a different way that didn't appear to single out the Union flag, perhaps the headteacher could have explained that there are dangers in all flags in schools. There will be some who argue that the Union flag is different and that it's the national flag of the UK and therefore represents everyone, but I'm afraid – given everything we've been through in the last ten years – that would be naïve at best or evasive at worst. Best, perhaps, for schools to just try to be neutral and, crucially, consistent: no Union flags, no saltires, no flags at all, not mine, not yours. The risk you run otherwise is that you start to introduce the kind of stuff that comes with flags. You may remember a few years ago Michael Gove suggesting 'British values' should be taught in English classrooms, no doubt draped with union flags. Some Scottish nationalists also talk about 'Scottish values' and maybe one day they'd like to teach them in schools plastered with saltires. But in this country, we're rather sceptical about all of that or used to be – it's something the Americans do, not us. And maybe that's something we should try to keep hold of. And maybe the best place to do it is in a classroom free of flags.
