King's College London

Researchers from King’s College London say that victims of state scandals feel let down and dissatisfied with current compensation schemes which have “exacerbated the harm already suffered”.

They are calling for a new public body to ensure fair and independent outcomes for victims and for compulsory guidance to be created for setting up and operation of Redress Schemes. This would include ensuring those who caused the harm are not left to administer the compensation scheme and for all schemes to take a more collaborative and victim-centred approach.

The new report, which has been shared with the Home Secretary and other ministers, is based on insights shared at a recent roundtable involving academics, advocates and lawyers for victims of the Windrush, Post Office, Lambeth Children’s Homes and Infected Blood scandals.  It also draws on recent research  that revealed weakness and structural failings in all existing schemes that required urgent reform.

Shaila Pal, Director and a Supervising Solicitor at King’s Legal Clinic, who carried out that research and led the roundtable held at King’s in June, said victims’ voices are not currently being heard.

The new report from King’s echoes findings from the National Audit Office in July whose report  found there is no central coordinated approach when government sets up new compensation schemes resulting in a relatively slow, ad-hoc approach. It also follows a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking which identified systemic issues in the administration and regulation of redress schemes.

The new King’s Legal Clinic report highlights how victims are not at the centre of the mission of schemes when they are being set up – and each invents itself from the ground up rather than learning from previous schemes. The newly set up Infected Blood Compensation Scheme has sought to learn from the mistakes of previous schemes and potentially serves as a future blueprint for redress schemes.

Participants at the roundtable had differing views on how loss should be calculated but many felt non-financial redress was as important as financial compensation. They also wanted apologies that were timely, meaningful, personal and “not couched in the language of lawyers”.

They shared exasperation at the application process, said the amount of evidence expected of victims was excessive and found schemes adversarial in their approach. They agreed that accessible, good quality funded legal advice and support for victims was essential to a redress scheme. In this regard, participants from the Windrush Scandal highlighted the significant adverse impact on victims due to the absence of funded legal advice, which is the subject of an on-going legal challenge brought by Southwark Law Centre.

The report recommends a new public standard body is created to act as a compensating authority to enable fair and independent outcomes.

It also recommends new compulsory guidance around the setting up and operation of redress schemes which includes ensuring they:

• are set up without delay
• have a collaborative victim-centred approach
• are administered by a body separate to and independent of the original perpetrator
• have compensation framed broadly to reflect the harms suffered and are delivered in a fair, effective, timely, transparent and proportionate manner.