Home Office forced to make radical changes to Windrush compensation scheme
Priti Patel says minimum sum paid out under scheme will increase to £10,000 - 40 times that which is currently available - following mounting criticism over long delays and low offers
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
The Home Office has been forced to make radical changes to the Windrush compensation scheme following widespread criticism over long delays and low offers.
Priti Patel said on Monday that the minimum sum paid out under the scheme would be increased to £10,000 — 40 times that which is currently available - with this sum to be offered to anyone as soon as they can demonstrate they have suffered as a result of the scandal.
The maximum payment a claimant can receive has also increased, from £10,000 to £100,000, with options for higher awards in exceptional cases, the home secretary said.
The scheme was set up to remedy the hardship suffered by those caught up in the Windrush scandal, which saw people living in the UK wrongly detained or denied legal rights such as work or healthcare because they could not provide documentation of their immigration status.
The latest figures show that since the scheme was opened in April 2019, 226 out of 1,641 applicants have so far received payments – 14 per cent – while just £2.2m out of the £200m promised to victims has been paid out to victims. At least nine people have died while waiting for compensation.
Campaigners said have said in recent months that the delays showed a “lack of compassion and competence” towards Windrush victims from government, and called for the scheme to be “redesigned from the ground up”.
In an article in The Times on Monday, Ms Patel and Bishop Derek Webley, who co-chair a cross-government working group on Windrush, acknowledged that some victims “suffered terrible treatment and were let down by successive governments over many years”.
Announcing the changes, they wrote: “We have listened to voices across the country, who have told us about the challenges they have experienced with the process. We recognise that it is crucial that we go further and faster to help those who need it.
“Together, we have always said that we will listen and act to ensure that those who suffered get the maximum compensation they deserve. And today we are fulfilling that promise by overhauling the scheme to speed up and increase payments.”
Jacqueline Mckenzie, a lawyer who has represented a large number of applicants, said the changes were “very much welcomed”, but that she “remained concerned” about the speed at which claims were being processed.
She highlighted the “onerous” requests for evidence - including repeated requests for information in the domain of the Home Office and other government departments - and the “lack of resources to provide professional assistance to enable people to make claims".
“The community fund of £500,000 thankfully restored, is earmarked for community engagement and not professional legal assistance. The Home Office needs to ensure that claimants are not hampered in making viable claims by the process,” Ms Mckenzie added.
Windrush campaigner Patrick Vernon said he welcomed the revision to the scheme, but said there was still a way to go to ensure Windrush victims were properly supported, noting the absence of free access to culturally sensitive mental health and wellbeing services to deal with post traumatic stress.
It comes after last month, Alexandra Ankrah, head of policy for the compensation scheme, told the Guardian she had resigned from her job because she felt that the programme was “not fit for purpose” and she was concerned that her Home Office colleagues were displaying a “complete lack of humanity” towards claimants.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments