Written Evidence Submitted by The Windrush Commissioner (GTS0013)

As the independent Windrush Commissioner, my role is to serve as a trusted voice for those affected by the Home Office Windrush Scandal; to scrutinise and hold the Home Office to account for how it delivers the Windrush Compensation and Windrush (Status) Schemes; and to advise on the actions needed to prevent future injustices.

I am submitting evidence to support the Committee’s examination of how government compensation schemes can be made more effective, timely, fair, and centred on the needs of those harmed by institutional failure.

This submission draws on my extensive engagement with survivors and communities, as well as ongoing assessment of policy and operational practices.

Recent changes to the Windrush Compensation Scheme

There have been several recent changes to the Scheme, many of which reflect recommendations I have made to Home Office ministers. These changes represent welcome progress but also reflect flaws in the Scheme’s initial design:

• Up to 75% advance payment during reviews. This change offers faster access to compensation without prejudicing review outcomes.
• Compensation for private/occupational pension losses. This closes a major gap and reflects real losses people have experienced.
• Priority processing for over75s and those with serious health needs. This recognises urgency for people who don’t have time on their side.
• Updated methodology for employment losses. These changes better reflect real-world wage growth, though future earnings losses remain unaddressed.
• Broader reimbursement of immigration fees. Another change which reflects real losses.
• Advocacy Support Fund (£1.5m). This is a welcome investment, but capacity and capability varies between organisations and I have concerns about the long-term sustainability of the fund.
• Named caseworker model. This should mean more consistent decision making.

Since the Committee’s July 2021 report, I also note that the Scheme’s timeliness has improved. Over the past year, the time to allocate a claim for substantive casework consideration has fallen from four months to under six weeks, including essential eligibility checks and a Preliminary Assessment to make an initial £10,000 payment. Older cases have also reduced: cases over a year old are down 55% (from 89 in December 2024 to 40 in December 2025), and cases over 18 months are down 77% over the same period (from 47 to 11). To strengthen oversight, my Office is establishing an Assurance Board to scrutinise Scheme performance, compare current and past operations, and identify whether the delays described to my Office by many survivors still persist.

Survivor experiences and wider structural issues

Despite welcome changes to the scheme, many survivors continue to report that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is confusing, overwhelming, and re-traumatising, with limited proactive communication from the Home Office both in terms of case updates and a clear explanation of eligibility and entitlement to compensation.

My Office has observed a fading of knowledge and understanding of the Windrush Compensation Scheme including who is eligible. In my view, some of the confusion is related to the public perception that it is mainly a group of older black Caribbean people who are affected by the scandal. Yet the Scheme was explicitly created to provide redress for both the Windrush generation and affected communities from across the Commonwealth and beyond, including their descendants, in recognition of the intergenerational harm caused by the scandal. Consistent and mainstream advertising is vital to reset the narrative.

In addition to survivor experiences of the Scheme, there are structural issues which continue to limit the Scheme’s accessibility and credibility.

As the Committee itself stated in 2021, ‘many of the difficulties suffered by the Windrush generation were due to insufficient documentation, and yet the Department designed a scheme which demands evidence it acknowledges many claimants do not have’. Some survivors have reported to me that the evidential burden is exacerbated by inconsistent support from the Home Office to gather evidence.

In my view, the Scheme remains too complex for many survivors to navigate without expert support from advocates or lawyers.

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.

There is no agreed national framework to guide the work of advocates and ensure there is a consistent level of support, and training for advocates varies across organisations. Some advocates I have spoken to have not fully understood aspects of the scheme. There are gaps in the Windrush Compensation Scheme Advocacy Support Fund, particularly a lack of support for claimants seeking advice on reviewing Home Office decisions.

Comparable schemes have funded legal support, and I believe targeted support would benefit survivors, improve application quality, reduce nil awards, and limit costly reviews. My office is looking at delivery models and the cost-benefit case for funded legal support which we will share with ministers.

The high rate of nil awards - nearly six in ten decisions – suggests potential flaws in scheme design and delivery. The rate of nil awards continues to retraumatise survivors and undermine trust in the Scheme as well as raising concerns about the efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Lessons for the design of future compensation schemes

There are broader lessons from the Windrush Compensation Scheme that could be applied to the design of future schemes.

My view is that government compensation schemes should be governed independently from the department responsible for the original harm. Independence is essential to building trust. However, this principle must be applied from the outset as retrospective changes in how compensation schemes are governed risks causing unacceptable bureaucracy and decision-making delays.

Successive improvements and changes to the Windrush Compensation Scheme represent both welcome progress and reflect flaws in the initial design of the scheme. It is critical for government to work with trusted advocates and those who have been harmed by the state from the the onset in the design of any future scheme.

Applications, evidence requests, and correspondence must be simplified and designed around the real needs and capacities of survivors. Where historical government failings contribute to missing evidence, the burden must not fall as heavily on survivors.

Expert support for claimants to complex compensation schemes must be funded from the outset and maintained throughout the process rather than leaving voluntary support organisations to provide this.

Care and diligence must be given to the harm and trauma that the state has caused and the required support to mitigate this via the compensation application process. Schemes should be designed according to trauma-informed principles including considering funding that might be required to support applicants who have experienced trauma.

A strong communication plan which engages all possible recipients of future compensation schemes is vital from the outset. It must be simple and accessible and reflect clearly who is eligible and entitled to compensation.  

In my view, the government would benefit from a coherent model for designing and delivering government compensation schemes, avoiding ad hoc approaches that produce inconsistency and inequity. I welcome the Committee’s consideration of how such schemes can be made more effective, timely, fair, and centred on the needs of those harmed by institutional failure.

MARCH 2026