Source · Select Committees · Home Affairs Committee
Fifth Report - The Windrush Compensation Scheme
Home Affairs Committee
HC 204
Published 24 November 2021
Recommendations
52
Rejected
Para 192
Increase general award for lost earnings to at least next year's National Living Wage.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response 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.
Home Office
View Details →
71
Rejected
Independently review future decisions on Windrush awards reduced due to previous criminality.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response 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.
Home Office
View Details →
83
Rejected
Para 273
Establish an independent single-stage review process for Windrush Compensation Scheme claims.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response 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 the proposed feedback mechanism.
Home Office
View Details →
Conclusions (3)
57
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 203
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 …
Government Response 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.
58
Conclusion
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 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.
85
Conclusion
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)
Government Response 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 payments do not affect review rights.