Source · Select Committees · Home Affairs Committee
Recommendation 44
44
Deferred
Paragraph: 154
Home Office's insistence on higher proof standards demonstrates failure to learn from Windrush.
Conclusion
We agree with Mr Forde that the higher standard of proof had no place in this scheme: its inclusion has damaged trust significantly and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding by the Home Office as to what caused the Windrush scandal in the first place. We are deeply concerned that, despite warnings from Wendy Williams and its then independent adviser, the Home Office has persisted in placing an undue burden on claimants to provide documentary evidence of the losses they suffered. This indicates a continued failure by the Department to learn the lessons from the Windrush scandal. It also reinforces our recommendation that the Windrush Compensation Scheme should be considered as part of Wendy Williams’ review of the Home Office’s progress on her recommendations (see paragraph 23).
Government response summary AI-generated
The government commits to working with data colleagues to publish Urgent and Exceptional Payment and Vulnerable Persons Team data, and will consider formalising customer feedback capture and clarifying the team's work, but does not address the issues of the higher standard of proof, undue burden, or the Wendy Williams review.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
154
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government · verbatim extract
Deferred
Changes made regarding standard of proof have been embedded across the case working operation. This has been delivered through workshops between operational and policy colleagues where case studies are considered and the approach discussed. This is designed to build capability amongst staff and ensure consistency in the decision making process. It also forms the basis of training for new staff members. Feedback is given to case workers by the Quality Assurance Team. This team hold regular case conferences to discuss issues, themes and analyse any trends that have been identified. The aim is to ensure the highest possible award can be given to the customer. Where a case worker feels that there is any inconsistency in the advice given, an independent escalation process has been put in place to resolve issues. Our Tier 1 reviewers provide feedback directly to both case workers and quality assurance team members. A review forum for both Tier 1 and 2 cases is also held, so lessons can be learned on recommendations made, and any errors can be addressed. Tier 2 review by the Adjudicator’s Office which is independent from the Home Office already follows the Ethical Decision-making Model.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗