Benjamin: Shocking injustice
The Windrush compensation scheme is “too complex” for claimants without lawyers, a Liberal Democrat peer has told the House of Lords.
Referring to a report last year which found that Windrush awards were up to eight times higher when applicants had lawyers, Baroness Benjamin asked the government whether there could be more funding for legal support to “clear up this shocking justice”.
The peer, who grew up in Trinidad before becoming a children’s TV presenter, said Windrush victims had raised “serious ongoing issues around inconsistent decision-making within the compensation scheme, even between siblings, including misinterpretation of evidence, inadequate support and lack of independence”.
She said claimants with lawyers received “much higher awards – £11,400 compared with £83,200 for the same claim”, figures taken from last summer’s report on the scheme by JUSTICE, Sussex University and the law firm Dechert.
“Could more funding be directed towards legal support, as with other state compensation schemes, to clear up this shocking injustice?”
Home Office minister Lord Hanson said that, by March this year, the Windrush compensation scheme had paid out more than £127m.
The government had made “some significant changes” to it this year as a result of representations from the Windrush commissioner.
“We have a dedicated helpline. We give claim form guidance. We have free practical support for claimants’ assistance.
“We have put £1.5m into a free advocacy support system. We also have limited legal support of up to £1,500 to obtain probate to submit a claim as a representative of a Windrush claimant’s estate.”
Last summer’s report said the advocacy support service could not be a substitute for “independent, funded, expert legal representation, which is absolutely necessary for fair decision making”.
Responding to a further question from Conservative peer Lord Bailey, Lord Hanson went on: “There may be individuals who engage legal support and end up getting the claim they would have had anyway, whether they had that support or not.
“The scheme was designed not to have necessarily a barrier of legal representation; that is why we have put in help and support for claimants, but legal representation is not required.
“We are looking at all times at how we can simplify the scheme, but I caution the noble Lord against presuming that legal representation in this case means a higher claim. It may be that the claim was justified in the first place, as we view all claims on an individual basis for each claimant.”
Lord Hanson said 94% of all claims had now reached a final decision, and the time taken to process them had fallen from four months in 2024 to less than six weeks, while the review mechanisms had seen hundreds of decisions adjusted.
“We want to see people applying for the scheme. We continue to receive around 140 claims a month and there is no end date to the scheme, so we want to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.”
Crossbencher Lord Pannick KC asked whether the government had “actually conducted any research into whether unrepresented claimants receive lower awards than represented claimants”.
Lord Hanson said it had not, “but I am happy to look at the point he mentions. The key point is that the scheme is designed to be simple”.
Lord Hope, former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, said: “Proper training would be one way of ensuring that equality of treatment is achieved across the board.”
Lord Hanson replied that staff undertook “a rigorous training programme that provides a holistic view of the scheme and includes a module on the history of the scandal”.
Leave a Comment