Funded legal support for victims and survivors of the Windrush Home Office scandal applying for compensation will result in fewer costly reviews, the Windrush commissioner has told an influential group of MPs tasked with holding the government to account on spending.
The public accounts committee is conducting a major inquiry on government compensation schemes, examining the challenges in planning and designing them, and how to ensure schemes are effective, timely and fair for claimants.
Ahead of his appearance at the committee on 1 June, Windrush commissioner Reverend Clive Foster has told MPs in written evidence that the Windrush scheme has improved, but many survivors still find it ‘confusing, overwhelming and retraumatising’.
Foster welcomed recent changes that reflected his recommendations to ministers, such as priority processing for over 75s, advanced payments and compensation for pension losses - but said these changes also showed that the scheme was poorly designed.
The scheme remained too complex for survivors to navigate without expert legal support, he added. ‘Until the introduction of the Windrush Compensation Scheme Advocacy Support Fund, support for claimants to navigate the complex application process was almost entirely reliant on volunteers and community/charitable organisations.’
Foster said comparable schemes have funded legal support, ‘and I believe targeted support would benefit survivors, improve application quality, reduce nil awards, and limit costly reviews’. Nearly six in 10 decisions were nil awards, which ‘continues to retraumatise survivors and undermine trust in the scheme as well as raising concerns about the efficiency and cost effectiveness’.
On lessons that can be learned from the Windrush scheme, Foster said government compensation schemes should be governed independently from the department responsible for the original harm - a recommendation echoed by Hackey council in its written submission.
Schemes should be designed according to ‘trauma-informed principles’, Foster added. Where historical government failings have contributed to missing evidence, the burden should not fall heavily on survivors.
The University of Leicester’s Legal Advice Clinic, which has supported Windrush compensation claimants, said an apology from the relevant government department is a ‘valuable aspect of the redress’ and should be considered in all cases.
The Parliamentary Health and Service Ombudsman has also submitted written evidence to the committee, highlighting the shocking findings of its own investigation into the Windrush scheme.
No comments yet