Transparency data

Technical Expert Group roundtables: summaries of discussion

Updated 14 April 2026

The Technical Expert Group held roundtable discussions as a form of targeted engagement with the infected blood commnity, to help inform their advice to the Government. This was separate to the Government’s public consultation. As outlined in the background papers for the roundtables, in line with the Technical Expert Group’s commitment to transparency, this page contains the summaries of discussion at the roundtables held by the Technical Expert Group. These have been shared with participants prior to publishing to ensure accuracy. A final webinar was held by the Technical Expert Group to reflect on what they had heard in the roundtables. This is provided below for transparency purposes.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - Roundtable 1: Special Category Mechanism 

Date: 15 December 2025

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees from the Technical Expert Group: Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group.

Attendees from Representative Organisations: Contaminated Blood Campaign, Haemophilia Society, Hepatitis B Trust, Hepatitis C Trust, Mono-HCV Infected Haemophiliacs, Tainted Blood.

Cabinet Office attendees: TEG secretariat (Infected Blood Inquiry Response Team)

Welcome and introductions

The Chair opened the meeting by acknowledging that this engagement with community representatives regarding the Special Category Mechanism (SCM) was necessary. Participants said this was the first opportunity for meaningful engagement with the Technical Expert Group and emphasised their view that such a meeting was long overdue.

The Chair explained that the meeting would be recorded to ensure an accurate summary of the discussion, though specific points would not be attributed to individuals in the final published minutes.

Statement of views

The Chair explained that the TEG particularly welcomed views on the questions in the background paper provided prior to the meeting:

• How do we establish eligibility for SCM in the scheme for those not registered with an IBSS in line with the principles of a tariff based scheme? What evidence is likely to be accessible to people that would meet the other evidential criteria on which the Scheme is based?
• Can the existing SCM criteria be applied to cases of Hepatitis B infection, which was previously excluded by the support schemes, or do the patterns and causes of long-term disability differ in ways that require different eligibility criteria?
• How do we determine evidence that links SCM related impacts to impacts on an infected person’s ability to earn or care for themselves? 
• What observations do participants have on the TEG initial advice that, within the confines of a tariff based scheme, it would only be possible to assess long-term mental health impacts outside of the existing Severe Health Condition in relation to living victims?

Representatives each gave a statement of views, which are summarised by theme below.  

Concerns about previous process/engagement

Before providing views on the questions set out in the background paper, representatives expressed wider criticisms and concerns about the design of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme where they felt it was important for the TEG to understand these as part of their role to provide technical advice to the Government. 

They noted the difficulties in trusting those involved in the design of the scheme, and felt that, in the past, they had been presented with final decisions rather than being consulted during the design process. They noted in particular that the exclusion of infected and affected people from the previous Expert Group’s work programme was an enduring source of distress. They explained that this exclusion had led in some cases to uncertainty about the material and information that had informed the Expert Group’s advice, including about the existing support schemes, and the factors that the group had taken into account when it made decisions on the design of the scheme, including whether the cost of the scheme had been one of these factors.  

Eligibility and ‘passporting’

There was a consensus among representatives that all infected people currently receiving SCM (or equivalent payments in devolved nations) should be automatically ‘passported’ into the compensation scheme without requiring reassessment by IBCA.

In support of this view, representatives reported that the current SCM application process (under EIBSS) was rigorous and required consultant sign-off and, for that reason, requiring people to ‘re-qualify’ for support they already receive would be insensitive and re-traumatising.

Representatives also felt that:

• The Scheme should trust the information already provided by individuals to existing support schemes and recognise that many people lack the mental capacity to repeatedly provide evidence for the same conditions.
• Estates of deceased infected people who had qualified for SCM should also receive the relevant payments.
• If individuals choose to move away from ongoing payments, the SCM calculation should be included in any lump sum
• It was asked that evidence people provide that predates the support schemes be taken into consideration
• The SCM support schemes in devolved governments were shaped through direct engagement with the community. The Northern Irish equivalent of SCM went through a public consultation process.

Evidence requirements

Representatives noted the historical difficulties in accessing specialist psychological care. It was noted that support was often provided by haemophilia centres rather than clinical psychologists or psychiatrists. Consequently, representatives flagged that applicants may not have clinical records from mental health specialists. Similarly, they noted that haemophilia clinicians and units were trusted sources and that their records and knowledge of patients should therefore be accepted as evidence.

Representatives also suggested that the Scheme should accept evidence from other government assessment processes, such as Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) assessments for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or Disability Living Allowance (DLA), as a means for applicants to show care needs and financial loss.

Eligibility for people with Hepatitis B for SCM

Comments raised on the topic included that:

• Interferon is still used to treat virulent Hepatitis B and is not solely a historic treatment.
• There is no clinical or moral rationale for excluding people with Hepatitis B from an SCM-style award, and they should be placed on an equal platform with those who have Hepatitis C
• complexity of co-infection with Hepatitis D and the side effects of antivirals highlighted.
• Concerns were raised regarding the ‘acute’ Hepatitis B category
• The current criteria (requiring tests six months apart) does not reflect the reality of testing practices or the severity of the illness for some.

Financial loss 

Representatives discussed the way the Scheme currently compensates people for financial loss. Concern was also raised about the percentage of financial loss in the proposal for SCM (70% before effective treatment became available, and 60% thereafter). One participant said this should be assumed at 80% with a 10% uplift where a recognised severe health condition exists from the date of diagnosis. Participants raised a concern about the reduction in financial loss payments for Hepatitis C based on the introduction of ‘effective treatment’ (Direct Acting Antivirals) at a particular date. Specifically:

• It was argued that this deduction was unfair to those who had not received effective treatment or who had been treated with interferon, which has significant side effects. Many people underwent interferon treatment, often on multiple occasions, and did not go on to receive newer therapies.
• Comparisons were drawn with HIV awards, which do not carry a similar reduction based on treatment availability, the rationale for this difference was questioned 

Care awards

Regarding the proposed care award for those meeting SCM criteria, representatives suggested that an allowance for 6 hours of domestic support should be a baseline minimum, rather than a ceiling, and should remain flexible to individual needs.

Other matters

Other topics were raised by representatives in the discussion beyond the questions asked by the TEG in the background paper and these are summarised briefly below:

Start dates for awards

• Concerns regarding the start dates for SCM-related awards. It was argued that using an “arbitrary” date (such as 2017) or the date of assessment did not reflect the reality of when symptoms began.
• Suggestions for appropriate start dates included:
  • The date of symptom onset.
  • The date a health professional recognised the condition.
  • The date an original application was made (even if initially rejected).
• It was highlighted that symptoms often existed for many years prior to the introduction of the SCM payment category.

Clarification on core vs supplementary route

• Representatives requested a clear, definitive list of conditions and illnesses that are covered by the core award, and the reasoning as to why additional illnesses had not been added.
• It was noted that without this list, it is difficult for applicants to understand what constitutes an ‘additional’ condition eligible for a supplementary Severe Health Condition award.

Psychological impact of the compensation process

Roundtable participants also raised the ongoing emotional toll of the scandal and the compensation process, which they felt were important for the TEG to understand. In particular, they raised the complexity of the scheme and the length of time taken to deliver compensation and the pain this has caused. They also noted the difficulty in accessing trauma-based therapy.

Closing

The Chair thanked all participants for their contributions and confirmed that a record of the discussion would be circulated for accuracy checks. The TEG will consider the points raised, alongside the written submissions received, to inform their advice to the Government as it considers its further response to the recommendations made in the Infected Blood Inquiry’s Additional Report on Compensation following the closure of the live consultation.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - Roundtable 2: Special Category Mechanism 

Date: 17 December 2025

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees from the Technical Expert Group: Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group (TEG).

Attendees from Representative Organisations: Haemophilia Northern Ireland; Haemophilia Scotland; UK Thalassaemia Society; Haemophilia Wales; Scottish Infected Blood Forum.

Cabinet Office attendees: TEG secretariat (Infected Blood Inquiry Response Team)

Welcome and introductions

The Chair welcomed the attendees to the roundtable meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Special Category Mechanism (SCM) and its implementation within the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.

Statement of views 

The Chair explained that the TEG particularly welcomed views on the questions in the background paper provided prior to the meeting:

• How do we establish eligibility for SCM in the scheme for those not registered with an IBSS in line with the principles of a tariff based scheme? What evidence is likely to be accessible to people that would meet the other evidential criteria on which the Scheme is based?
• Can the existing SCM criteria be applied to cases of Hepatitis B infection, which was previously excluded by the support schemes, or do the patterns and causes of long-term disability differ in ways that require different eligibility criteria?
• How do we determine evidence that links SCM related impacts to impacts on an infected person’s ability to earn or care for themselves? 
• What observations do participants have on the TEG initial advice that, within the confines of a tariff based scheme, it would only be possible to assess long-term mental health impacts outside of the existing Severe Health Condition in relation to living victims?

Representatives each gave a statement of views, which are summarised by theme below.  

Concerns about previous process/engagement

Participants began by expressing concerns about the history of the previous Expert Group’s (EG) work, and the way the government had engaged with them on the development of the compensation scheme to date. They noted that whilst welcome now, this level of engagement was overdue. 

They separately raised concerns about whether the previous EG had been provided with all of the information it needed, particularly in relation to the approaches developed to SCM and its equivalents by the devolved nations. 

SCM eligibility and evidence

Representatives noted the difficulties in trusting those involved in the design of the scheme, and the pain caused for victims of infected blood who feel they must repeatedly prove their suffering. Because of this, representatives felt that any further medical assessment in order to access appropriate compensation would be traumatising, and that the scheme must be built on a foundation of trust.

Further specific points were made by participants:

Unregistered infected people

• For living people not currently registered with a support scheme, evidence could be sourced from medical centres (e.g Haemophilia centres), though representatives noted that some records may be inaccurate.
• Whatever criteria the support schemes would have applied should be applied to new applicants to ensure equality.
• People infected with Hepatitis B should be treated equally to those with Hepatitis C regarding eligibility for SCM-equivalent awards.

Eligibility and ‘passporting’

People already registered with a support scheme and receiving SCM or equivalent payments should be automatically eligible for (‘passported’ into) the new Severe Health Condition award, without the need to provide new evidence. The Chair clarified that the TEG’s emerging thinking aligned with the view that those already assessed should not be required to provide new evidence.

Evidence requirements

Representatives noted that a significant number of people apply for SCM due to the impact of the infection on their mental health. Concerns were raised regarding the scheme’s requirement for evidence from consultant psychiatrists, which was viewed as unfair and unrealistic. Participants explained that this was because many victims historically lacked access to such specialists due to the stigma surrounding their infection or the nature of their care through haemophilia units

People with Thalassemia

The specific challenges faced by people with Thalassaemia were highlighted. The TEG heard that people with Thalassaemia often suffer from iron overload caused by regular blood transfusions. When combined with a Hepatitis C infection, this significantly accelerates the development of cardiac and liver disease. The side effects of Hepatitis C treatments are often more severe for this group, leading to complex health needs that are not currently captured by the standard tariffs in the Scheme.

Importance of SCM

Representatives also provided their views on the overall importance of the SCM and its equivalent schemes across the UK, noting that it is a vital part of the structure of each support scheme. They noted that the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) is not always viewed as the sole model or ‘gold standard’ for the Compensation Scheme, and explained that the devolved schemes have developed different approaches. The Scottish and Welsh models of self-declaration were cited as particularly effective, relying on trust and reducing the evidentiary burden on applicants.

Deceased estates

Representatives fed back their views that estates of deceased infected people should be eligible for SCM-equivalent awards and that to do otherwise would be unjust. They acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining medical evidence for those who died many years ago, and suggested that witness testimony from family members, or the fact of the death itself, should be considered sufficient evidence to determine eligibility for SCM.

The Chair noted that the TEG was wary of creating criteria that people would be unable to evidence, but the TEG could explore the issue of deceased estates further after the consultation closed.

Closing

The Chair invited written responses from the representatives to supplement the discussion. It was noted that future engagement would cover the recognition of severe psychological harm in the scheme.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - Roundtable 3: impacts of interferon

Date: 16 February 2026

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees

• Technical Expert Group: Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group.
• Attendees from representative organisations: Hepatitis C Trust, Contaminated Blood Women, Blood Friends
• Cabinet Office attendees: TEG secretariat (Infected Blood Inquiry Response Team)

Also invited: The Birchgrove Group, The Forgotten Few, Contaminated Whole Blood, an independent longstanding campaigner

Welcome and Introductions

The Chair opened the meeting by acknowledging that the previous Expert Group did not have the benefit of direct engagement with the community. He expressed gratitude to the participants for sharing their time and noted that the series of roundtables were essential for ensuring the TEG advice is informed by lived experience.

The Chair clarified that this engagement is separate from the formal Government public consultation. The TEG is operating on a timeline to influence Government policy and welcomed further written comments by 2 March 2026.

Statement of views: Lived experience of interferon treatment

Representatives provided testimony on the physical, mental, and social impacts of interferon treatment. Key points raised by community representatives included:

• Interferon was gruelling, a “systemic toxin” whose side effects could be compared to “torture” and often caused people to feel worse than the original Hepatitis C infection. Side effects included uncontrollable rage, profound “brain fog,” severe depression, and physical symptoms like hair loss and exhaustion that rendered people incapacitated for years. 
• It is wrong to assume that side effects typically resolve quickly after treatment ends, instead lived experience suggests many have never fully recovered and have suffered lifelong psychological and physiological changes even after achieving a Sustained Virological Response.
• Interferon treatment caused a significant strain on family life, including the breakdown of relationships and the trauma experienced by family members who had to act as primary carers.
• It was difficult for those who have experienced interferon treatment to think about and describe the difficult experiences they lived through.
• There was a strong consensus that interferon treatment should be recognised at Level 3. Participants argued that the current proposal for Level 2B remains too “liver-centric” and fails to acknowledge the multi-organ damage and total systemic collapse caused by the treatment.

Discussion on evidence and practicalities

The group discussed the specific questions identified in the roundtable background paper regarding evidence and eligibility:

Evidence of treatment: - Participants noted that obtaining hospital records for treatments that occurred decades ago is often impossible. - The group suggested that personal testimony and witness statements from family members should be given weight, as interferon treatment was a memorable and life-altering event. It was also said that recounting the experience would be difficult and re-traumatise people. - While primary care records may exist, they are often incomplete. - Representatives encouraged an open and imaginative approach to evidence, such as accepting original medication packaging or clinical records of side-effect treatments (e.g. prescriptions for skin creams or anti-anxiety medication).

Care awards and financial loss: - It was noted that very few people “purchased” care during their treatment because they lacked the funds; instead, care was provided by family members who often had to reduce their own working hours or stop working completely. - Representatives challenged the assumption that people could sustain even part-time work during treatment. The unpredictability of “good days” made holding down a job nearly impossible, leading to significant career loss and loss of confidence. Some people never returned to work after interferon treatment.

Duration of treatment: While the proposed 48-week standardised period was seen as more generous for some, representatives argued that a 12-week minimum for eligibility would be unfair for those who were forced to stop early due to life-threatening side effects.

Concluding remarks

The discussion concluded with a focus on the erosion of trust and faith in the system. Participants expressed a desperate need for the system to listen to victims as “experts in their own bodies” and thanked the TEG for listening to their experiences in the meeting. The Chair noted that the TEG was currently considering its advice on the Special Category Mechanism (SCM) and would publish a further background paper on severe psychological harm ahead of the scheduled roundtable discussion. The Chair thanked the attendees for their contributions, which he promised would be considered alongside written submissions to help inform the final advice to the Government.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - Roundtable 4: severe psychological harm

Date: 24 February 2026 

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees

• Technical Expert Group (TEG): Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group.
• Former Treloar’s School pupils, Haemophilia Society, Haemosexual, Representative for Misdiagnosed Victims.
• Cabinet Office: TEG secretariat (Infected Blood Inquiry Response Team).

Also invited: Tainted Blood, Terrence Higgins Trust, Positive Women.

Welcome and introductions

The Chair opened the meeting, noting that this roundtable provided an essential opportunity for the Technical Expert Group to hear directly from representative organisations to help inform the group’s advice to the Government. It was clarified that this engagement is separate from the formal public consultation held by the Government. The Cabinet Office attended to provide secretariat support and record the meeting but does not influence the independent technical advice provided by the Technical Expert Group.

Statement of views 

Representatives provided statements regarding the impact of the infected blood scandal on mental health and the current structure of the compensation scheme. Key themes included:

• Attendees described the profound and lasting psychological damage of witnessing the illness and death of peers from a young age, particularly in institutional settings like Lord Mayor Treloar College.
• Representatives argued that while the core route acknowledges psychological harm, it assumes a 40% loss of earning capacity which does not reflect the full reality for many victims whose ability to function was completely destroyed.
• Significant concern was raised regarding the requirement for the Severe Health Condition award for severe psychiatric disorders, for six months of consultant-led secondary mental health treatment or inpatient admission. Participants emphasised that:
  • Stigma prevented many from seeking formal psychiatric help.
  • Access to such services was historically unequal and inconsistent across the UK.
  • Many people were supported by haemophilia centres or counsellors rather than psychiatrists.
• Representatives described the psychological toll of “hiding” infections for decades due to fear of ostracisation, and the trauma of discovering infections that had been documented in medical notes but not disclosed to the patient.
• Statements highlighted the “devastating” harm to women forced into difficult reproductive choices, or having choice effectively taken away from them in terminations, and the complex trauma experienced by children and parents within the infected blood community.

Summary of further discussion on severe psychological harm

The group discussed the technical questions set out in the roundtable background paper.

Barriers to evidence

• Some said using consultant-led treatment as a proxy for severity is fundamentally flawed. Absence of treatment records does not indicate an absence of severe harm; rather, it often reflects a lack of access or the impact of stigma.
• Participants stated that the institutions responsible for the original harm are often the ones holding the records required to prove that harm (the ‘gatekeepers’), which can be re-traumatising for applicants.
• It was suggested that the scheme should accept a wider range of evidence, including long-term use of antidepressants, GP records, and from haemophilia centres

Severity and functional impact

• Representatives argued that severity should be assessed by an individual’s functional inability to work or participate in daily life, rather than the level of medical intervention they received.
• The Technical Expert Group acknowledged the point that the severity of psychological harm does not always correlate with the severity of physical infection; for example, those with acute or chronic infections may still suffer extreme trauma and PTSD.

Fairness and equity

• One participant called for a process that includes individual assessments or from psychological professionals, to ensure those who did not enter the psychiatric system are not penalised.

Next steps

• The Technical Expert Group will review the written submissions provided by the representative organisations in response to the background paper
• A record of this discussion will be shared with participants to check for accuracy before being made public
• The evidence gathered will inform the Technical Expert Group’s final advice to the Government on how severe psychological harm should be recognised within the scheme.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - Roundtable 5: affected persons

Date: 3 March 2026

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees

• Technical Expert Group: Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group.
• Attendees from representative organisations: Hepatitis B Trust, Families of Deceased Infected Blood Victims UK, HaemAffected, The Fatherless Generation, Friends and Families of Haemophilia Northern Ireland
• Cabinet Office attendees: TEG secretariat (Infected Blood Inquiry Response Team)

Also invited: British Liver Trust, Bloodloss Families, Haemophilia Action UK 

Welcome and introductions

The Chair opened the virtual roundtable, expressing gratitude to the community representatives for their attendance. The purpose of the session was to facilitate targeted engagement to inform the TEG’s advice to the Government on affected persons.

The Chair outlined the meeting structure, noting that each participant would have five minutes to provide a statement of views before discussing specific questions from the roundtable background paper. It was noted that a summary of the discussion would be published, but opinions would not be attributed to specific individuals to encourage open dialogue.

Statement of views

Representatives provided statements of views based on the experiences of the groups they represent. Key themes included:

• The ongoing nature of trauma: Participants emphasised that the impact of the infected blood scandal is still unveiling. Affected people are continuing to develop new symptoms as they age, and the psychological impact can take decades to fully manifest.
• Access to specialist care: It was noted that many affected people have been supported by psychologists for several years. However, there was significant frustration regarding the requirement to prove this harm repeatedly. 
• The severity of bereavement: Representatives argued that the current framework does not sufficiently distinguish between the impact on those living with an infected person and those who have been bereaved. Death was described as the most serious outcome, permanently extinguishing relationships and future life.
• Intergenerational impact: The TEG heard moving testimony regarding children who were removed from family homes or placed in care following the death or mental breakdown of parents. These unique situations of displacement and family separation were cited as evidence of harm not currently captured by core awards.
• Stigma and milestones: Spouses and partners highlighted the lifelong impact of being unable to have children or having to undergo procedures like sperm washing. This resulted in a permanent loss of family milestones or worry about being cared for in old age. It was emphasised that the TEG should recognise this “never leaves until the day they die”.

Supplementary Route for People Affected

The Group discussed the implementation of the Inquiry’s recommendation for a supplementary route. The following points were summarised:

• Participants suggested that a supplementary route should be grounded in the proportionality of harm and consistency of evidence. There was a call for an automatic uplift for the affected of deceased infected people.
• Representatives expressed a firm view that there should be no “hierarchy of relationships” or distinction made between relative types. Siblings often feel “forgotten” in the current design. The question in the background paper on specific groups was “triggering”.
• The TEG was urged not to “relitigate” trauma through further intense assessments. Instead, the scheme should accept evidence of objectively verifiable events such as mental health detentions, medical crises, or suicide attempts.
• Discussion focused on the care element paid to estates. Representatives argued that care should not be interpreted narrowly (such as eligibility for a benefit) but should recognise the lived reality that family members provided care as a given, not a choice.
• The scheme should recognise where people have been treated by a psychologist for over 6 months, or been prescribed medications, as evidence for severe psychological harm of affected people.

Impacts Beyond Psychological Harm

The Group considered other impacts that should be compensated through a supplemental award:

• Participants identified social and financial impacts that “shape the life course,” including educational disruption, increased student debt, loss of housing, and “bureaucratic retraumatisation”.
• The TEG heard about the traumatic dynamic of family members infecting one another, particularly with Hepatitis B, leading to massive inter-family experiences of survivor guilt and transmission guilt.
• Representatives requested an audit of the “impactful journey” of providing care during a long-term illness, noting that the intensity of this experience often goes unrecognised.

Next Steps

• The Chair reminded participants that written responses to the background paper must be submitted by 16 March to be considered ahead of the TEG’s final advice to the Government.
• The TEG will review all roundtable discussions and written submissions to identify options for implementing the Inquiry’s recommendations.
• A record of this discussion will be shared with attendees to check for accuracy before being made public alongside the TEG’s considered advice.

The meeting closed with the Chair thanking the participants for sharing their deeply personal and insightful experiences, which would significantly help the TEG’s understanding of affected persons.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - Roundtable 6: SCM estates

Date: 4 March 2026

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees 

• Technical Expert Group: Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group.
• Attendees from representative organisations: Families of Deceased Infection Blood Victims UK, an independent longstanding campaigner, Tainted Blood Parents Support Group 
• Cabinet Office attendees: TEG secretariat (Infected Blood Inquiry Response Team)

Also invited: Tainted Blood Widows and Bereaved Partners, Terrence Higgins Trust, Independent Widows, and Factor 8

Welcome and objectives

The Chair opened the meeting, explaining that the purpose was to facilitate targeted engagement with community representatives to help inform the TEG’s advice to the Government on the feasibility of making estates eligible for the Severe Health Condition award recognising the Special Category Mechanism (SCM).

The roundtable sought views on whether a process can be designed for estates that is assessable and verifiable for people who were not in receipt of SCM payments through the support schemes.

Statement of views

Community representatives provided statements regarding the proposals and the questions set out in the background paper. The discussion is summarised by theme below:

Concerns regarding the design and engagement process

• Participants expressed profound anger and distress regarding the exclusion of infected and affected people from the initial design of the compensation scheme. This was described as an “abomination” and a form of malfeasance, leading to a significant collapse in trust.
• The current proposal to limit new SCM applications to living individuals was criticised as creating a “two-tier”, discriminatory system. Representatives argued that a victim’s status (living or deceased) should not deprive their estate of just compensation for injuries and suffering that occurred during their lifetime.
• The process was described as “torturous,” forcing bereaved families to relive trauma and “gaslighting” by repeatedly proving the suffering of their loved ones.

Legal and moral principles

• It was argued that according to established legal principles, evidential difficulties faced by a claimant should not deprive a deserving victim of compensation. Difficulty in assessment is not a valid reason for awarding no damages.
• Participants emphasised that the Government has accepted a moral case for compensation, which should not be limited by restrictive clinical markers or concepts of legal liability.

Evidence for estate claims

• Representatives disputed the assumption that clear evidence for deceased individuals is unavailable. They suggested that records from the Alliance House Organisations (AHOs) and existing support schemes already contain evidence of significant liver damage and treatment history.
• It was argued that eligibility should be established using a pragmatic and proportionate approach, including:
  • Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records for DLA or PIP assessments.
  • Employment records related to retirement or loss of work.
  • Police and social work records.
  • Family letters and witness testimony from relatives who provided informal care.
• To establish the date of eligibility, participants suggested using “proxy dates” such as the date disability benefits were awarded, the date work was lost, or the date a health professional first recognised a deterioration.

Recognition of death and severe health impacts

• Some argued that for people who have died, the fact of death itself should be sufficient evidence for an SCM-equivalent award, particularly as diagnostic tests (like blood samples) are often not the priority during end-of-life care.
• The devastating and life-changing effects of interferon treatment, including attempted or actual deaths by suicide, were highlighted as readily available evidence of qualifying for an SCM award.
• Participants noted that 40 years ago, there was no access to talking therapies or modern mental health facilities, and many people were never formally diagnosed with PTSD or depression despite suffering “gruesome” outcomes.

Technical Expert Group observations

The TEG listened to the contributions and noted the emotional impact on families and loved ones. The Chair acknowledged the value of the testimony and the need for dignity and compassion.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group - roundtable conclusion webinar

Date: 17 March 2026

Location: Virtual Meeting

Attendees from the Technical Expert Group: Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery (Chair) and members of the Technical Expert Group.

All of the community stakeholders the TEG  engaged with for the roundtables were invited to the webinar.  It was attended by representatives from: Tainted Blood; UK Thalassaemia Society; Hepatitis B Trust; Hepatitis C Trust; HaemAffected; Haemophilia Scotland; Haemophilia Society; Haemophilia Wales; Contaminated Blood Women; Blood Friends; Families of Deceased Infected Blood Victims UK; Former Treloar’s School Pupils; Mono-HCV Infected Haemophiliacs; Fatherless Generation; Contaminated Blood Campaign; and Scottish Infected Blood Forum.

In the webinar Sir Jonathan started with a short presentation, covering the following points:

• The role of the TEG and previous Expert Group, which remains advisory rather than decision-making, focusing on refining the compensation scheme’s “supplementary” awards to better reflect the lived experience. 
• TEG reflections from the roundtables which included: 
  • A recurring theme that the application process itself is often retraumatising. The TEG acknowledged that many individuals struggle to provide medical records that may no longer exist, particularly regarding psychological support or care needs from decades ago.
  • The TEG heard powerful testimony about the impacts of  interferon treatment. The TEG is now looking at how the scheme can better recognise not just the acute suffering during treatment, but the potential for permanent, long-term damage.
  • The discussions highlighted that mental health support has historically been difficult to access or unhelpful. Consequently, the TEG is exploring the overall impact on a person’s life from psychological harm, rather than relying solely on formal clinical diagnoses.
  • The Chair mentioned that certain groups, such as those with Thalassaemia or Hepatitis B, feel their unique experiences were undervalued by the Inquiry and need more recognition in the compensation tiers.
  • For those representing the estates of the deceased, there is concern whether awards for deceased persons were fairly assessed in comparison with those who were living, a point the TEG has promised to look at again against legal benchmarks.
• While he could not yet disclose final conclusions as the last written submissions were still being reviewed, he confirmed that the TEG’s independent advice will be submitted to the Minister shortly, with a final report expected to be published in the second half of April.

Sir Jonathan then invited Q&A from attendees. Community attendees were invited to ask questions of Sir Jonathan ahead of the webinar and there was also a live Q&A moderated by the TEG. The following topics were raised, which Jonathan addressed in turn (including explaining where he was unable to provide an answer in his capacity as Chair of the TEG). Questions were raised on the following topics. This is provided in a Q&A format for clarity.

1. Topics that related to areas in the TEG work programme

Q: There was concern over the lack of long-term studies on interferon side effects and asked if the TEG has updated its view after hearing directly from victims.  A: Sir Jonathan recognised the weakness of evidence in studies, and that there were long term effects of interferon the TEG had heard about in the roundtables. He confirmed the TEG wanted to address this in its final report

Q: Asked if every round of interferon would be recognised (due to varying dosages/Ribavirin) and worried that impacts higher than Level 2B would not be acknowledged. A: Sir Jonathan confirmed this would be addressed in the final report

Q: Asked for examples of what constitutes psychological evidence and how victims can provide it. A: The TEG have heard how unreliable evidence is to procure, and will say more on this in their final report.

Q: Asked if childhood trauma—specifically for children and siblings within infected families—is being taken seriously. A: The TEG have reflected both what we heard in the round tables and on consultation responses. They have looked again at the structure of the scheme. The conclusions we have reached will be set out in the final report.

Q: There were multiple questions regarding Hepatitis B on: The timeline for “acute” Hepatitis B being accepted for compensation; if there is an SCM for life-threatening HBV reactivations; and for recommendations for specific testing (cryoglobulinemia and Hep B panels) and asked if all non-Hodgkin lymphomas would be accepted. A: Sir Jonathan confirmed that there will be a section in the TEG’s report on Hepatitis B.

Q: Multiple concerns were raised regarding “arbitrary dates” (such as May 19, 2024 or 2017 for SCM) for deceased estates. A: Sir Jonathan could not say at that point what the TEG’s advice would be but that it would be commented on in their final report. It was noted that points of assessment are not regarded as arbitrary dates.

Q: Concern raised about people who died of HCV rather than HIV being “worth less”.  A: Sir Jonathan stated he did not recognise that as what the scheme considers, but will comment on this in the TEG’s final report

2. Topics that related to issues that are outside the TEG work programme (i.e. on which the TEG is unable to comment)

One attendee asked what will happen to those who have already gone through the scheme during these reconsiderations

One attendee asked why the Cabinet Office will not interfere with intestate law, which may lead to estates payments going to non-victims. 

Q: Questioned why there were no roundtables or recorded minutes for Unethical Research. Challenged the precedent for unethical award levels of compensation. Critiqued the TEG’s suggestion that victims retain the right to litigate in the scheme (which was an Inquiry recommendation), arguing this contradicts the goal of “justice for all” and ignores trauma. A: It was confirmed that the Unethical Research Award was not part of the TEG’s work programme

3. Transparency and process

Q: Asked if the roundtables focused on the multiple harms done specifically to children with bleeding disorders. A: The TEG had a limited amount of time to hold roundtables on the topics within its work programme

Q: Asked for full transparency regarding communications between the Cabinet Office and the former Expert Group, stating that only minutes have been provided so far. A: Sir Jonathan understands all documents have been disclosed to the Inquiry

Q: Sought clarification on whether further written submissions would be allowed or if a full report was the final step. A: The last date to submit written submissions was 16 March which was set out in the background papers on GOV.UK.

Q: Expressed distrust regarding the TEG “elaborating” on previous Expert Group recommendations, questioning if victim concerns were truly considered initially. A: the TEG has had to look at its previous advice and evaluate whether it was explained properly to the community

Next steps 

The TEG are now reflecting on what they have heard and received in writing from the roundtables to help formulate their final advice. At the same time as the Government response to the consultation, they will publish: the TEG’s final report; further minutes of TEG meetings; summaries of all roundtable discussions; and a summary of written responses to each roundtable.