Transparency data

Technical Expert Group roundtables: summaries of discussion

Updated 9 February 2026

As outlined in the background paper for the roundtables on the Special Category Mechanism, 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 on the Special Category Mechanism on 15 and 17 December. These have been shared with participants prior to publishing to ensure accuracy.

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.