Recommendations & Conclusions
6 items
52
Recommendation
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensatio…
Rejected
We recognise that it might be possible to reflect better the losses incurred by some individuals by looking at pay levels in the sector they worked in, regardless of the direct evidence of the wages they can provide. The Government should consider this as an option in individual cases. However, …
Read more
We recognise that it might be possible to reflect better the losses incurred by some individuals by looking at pay levels in the sector they worked in, regardless of the direct evidence of the wages they can provide. The Government should consider this as an option in individual cases. However, given that this will not apply for many individuals, and given the risk of further delays, we recommend increasing the general award to at least next year’s National Living Wage of £9.50 per hour given that most people have still not yet received their payments and the 2019 minimum wage is an arbitrary figure to choose. Based on an average full-time working week of 37 hours, this would raise the general award to £18,278 per year, or £1,523.16 per month. Going forwards, the tariff used should be based on at least the National Living Wage being used when the payment is made. Loss of pension and loss of future earnings should be brought within scope of the scheme: a set award or general tariff would ensure all eligible individuals are compensated regardless of available evidence. The complexity of this issue should not preclude the Home Office from implementing a solution: at the very least, the Department should consider the legal minimum employer pension contribution, which is currently three per cent.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects increasing the general award to align with future National Living Wages, justifying the use of the 2017 National Living Wage for consistency and speed, and explicitly states the scheme excludes occupational pensions.
Read full response →
Home Office
57
Conclusion
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensatio…
Rejected
It is unfair that those who accessed legal advice should find themselves unable to receive compensation for their actual costs. The justification for limiting awards fails to recognise the particular difficulties the Windrush generation faced upon trying to confirm their lawful status with the Home Office. The reason people had …
Read more
It is unfair that those who accessed legal advice should find themselves unable to receive compensation for their actual costs. The justification for limiting awards fails to recognise the particular difficulties the Windrush generation faced upon trying to confirm their lawful status with the Home Office. The reason people had to resort to legal advice was because the Home Office was not treating them fairly or according to their rights and because the Home Office was imposing a huge injustice upon them. It is a double injustice for them then to be told there is no compensation for the attempts they were forced to make to defend their rights.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government maintains that legal fees will be compensated up to a value of £500 per immigration application, stating the system is designed so legal assistance isn't required.
Read full response →
Home Office
58
Conclusion
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensatio…
Rejected
The scheme rules should be amended so as to remove the £500 per application limit on compensation for past legal fees that were needed and paid because of the Windrush scandal. (Paragraph 203) Homelessness
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to remove the £500 limit on legal fees, stating that compensation will remain capped at £500 per immigration application because the immigration system is designed not to require legal assistance.
Read full response →
Home Office
71
Recommendation
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensatio…
Rejected
Given the concerns raised by the independent adviser on the design of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, as well as the risks of costly legal challenges, we recommend that future decisions on whether to reduce or decline an award because of previous criminality should be independently reviewed. This should be done …
Read more
Given the concerns raised by the independent adviser on the design of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, as well as the risks of costly legal challenges, we recommend that future decisions on whether to reduce or decline an award because of previous criminality should be independently reviewed. This should be done by referring the decision to the independent review panel we recommend should be established in paragraph 273 of this Report. (Paragraph 233) Non-financial remedies
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explains its existing policy on how severe criminal behaviour affects compensation, citing a duty to the public purse and precedent from CICA, and states decisions are signed off by Ministers, thereby rejecting the recommendation for independent review.
Read full response →
Home Office
83
Recommendation
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensatio…
Rejected
We call on the Home Office to establish a demonstrably independent single-stage review process in which claimants have greater confidence, such as a judge-led panel. The Home Office should accept and implement decisions of the independent review. Where an initial decision is amended, the Home Office should gather feedback on …
Read more
We call on the Home Office to establish a demonstrably independent single-stage review process in which claimants have greater confidence, such as a judge-led panel. The Home Office should accept and implement decisions of the independent review. Where an initial decision is amended, the Home Office should gather feedback on the initial decision-making process to share with caseworkers and, where appropriate, use this feedback to inform and update caseworker training and guidance to improve the quality of initial decision-making. All claimants should have the right to access the new review process irrespective of whether their claim has concluded or is ongoing. This approach would be consistent with the retrospective application of changes which have been made to the scheme previously.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects establishing a single-stage, judge-led review process, stating it already has a two-stage independent review process with Tier 1 internal reviews and Tier 2 reviews by the Adjudicator's Office. It notes that Adjudicator's Office recommendations are normally accepted but does not commit to …
Read full response →
Home Office
85
Conclusion
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensatio…
Rejected
The Home Office should work to establish an estimated timescale for reviews which can be shared with claimants. Wherever possible, claimants should receive preliminary or interim payments; such payments should not affect a claimant’s right to seek a review of their full and final offer. (Paragraph 274)
Read more
The Home Office should work to establish an estimated timescale for reviews which can be shared with claimants. Wherever possible, claimants should receive preliminary or interim payments; such payments should not affect a claimant’s right to seek a review of their full and final offer. (Paragraph 274)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it is very difficult to provide estimated timescales for reviews, effectively rejecting this recommendation, although it notes Tier 1 will work to resolve cases at pace. It explains the existing criteria for preliminary payments but does not explicitly commit to ensuring these …
Read full response →
Home Office