Select committee: Home Affairs Committee

Conclusion 6

Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensation Scheme Published 24 Nov 2021 Paragraph 37 Addressed to Home Office
Conclusion (the committee's words)
It is clear from the low level of claims submitted to the compensation scheme to date, and from evidence we have received, that there is considerable work to be done in order to rebuild trust and confidence in the Home Office to deliver the Windrush Compensation Scheme, and to demonstrate to people both that it is safe to seek confirmation of their lawful status and that it is worthwhile to make a claim for compensation.

From: Home Affairs Committee, Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensation Scheme (HC 204), paragraph 37, 24 November 2021

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 7 February 2022 (deadline 24 January 2022).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government's response to the Committee's Windrush Compensation Scheme report sets out mixed positions, declining a transfer to an independent body while describing changes already made to the scheme and some further work it is taking forward.

  • On moving the scheme to an independent organisation, it says this would bring "more delays in issuing payments", and points instead to the Adjudicator's Office review process and an Independent Person advising on the scheme.
  • It does not widen the historical cases review, calling that approach "costly, inefficient" and unlikely to locate affected people, and says it has focused on outreach and engagement instead.
  • On the £10,000 preliminary award, it says it will process and offer it where "it is clear that the Home Office has wrongly enacted an immigration enforcement action", and that it cannot identify those who have not made contact with it.
  • On caseworker capacity, it says the team has 80 caseworkers, with 24 more due to join over January and external recruitment under way to reach 120.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error