Transparency data

Minutes of a meeting with the Recognised Legal Representatives in relation to the public consultation on potential changes to the infected blood compensation scheme

Published 1 July 2026

RLR Meeting: Wednesday 11th February 13:30 - 15:00 

Attendees

Cabinet Office: James Quinault (Chair), Cabinet Office officials

External: Milners, Leigh Day, Thompsons Solicitors Scotland, Collins Solicitors 

Introduction

The Chair explained that the consultation closed on 22 January and the Cabinet Office was considering the responses. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss two topics covered in the public consultation: the awards for Exceptional Loss and Unethical Research.

The Chair said a record of the meeting would be taken and published in due course. 

Summary of Discussion:

Exceptional Loss

The Chair summarised the questions in the consultation relating to Exceptional Loss, explaining that in the meeting it would be most helpful for the group to discuss: i) how the scheme could recognise people who say they earned beyond the salary assumed by the core route but no longer have proof; and, ii) how the scheme could recognise people who never earned above the core route award, but who believe they would likely have done so if it were not for their infection. 

The following points were raised in discussion:

• The use of ONS data and ASHE tables was suggested as a helpful starting point in cases where a person had already reached a certain point in their career/education prior to infection. 
• However it was agreed that these could not help in cases where people had become unwell at an earlier point in their career journey (i.e. where it could not be said with certainty what kind of career the person was likely to pursue). In catastrophic injury cases, estimations of financial loss are made by experts. The Chair asked the group to consider if there was a way that a similar type of assessment could be replicated within the confines of a tariff-based scheme. It was suggested that this was easier where people had already started careers and were on a defined career path, but where this wasn’t the case, estimations would be necessarily speculative. 
• One group member suggested that if IBCA claim managers were legally trained they could tackle such judgements. 
• A suggestion was made that witness statements from family members could be collected about people’s qualifications and likelihood of progression. 
• Other members of the group did not support the idea of a broad IBCA discretion, expressing concern that this could create great inconsistency in the outcome of claims and that a standardised approach would be needed to avoid this.
• Other group members suggested that, rather than trying to arrive at a fully tailored judgement about how much a person would have gone on to earn, the scheme could concentrate instead on establishing whether on the balance of probabilities it was likely they would have gone on to be a high earner and provide additional compensation on that basis.. The group did not settle on specific criteria but suggested that there would need to be parameters and clear guidance so that the policy was applied consistently by IBCA. 
• The group further noted that a flat rate award or uplift could be used in other parts of the scheme where a claimant cannot evidence exact loss.

Unethical Research Awards

The Chair summarised the consultation questions relating to unethical research. The Chair explained it would be most helpful to focus on how the Government could best determine the award value, given that no one approach or amount had emerged as a clear preference from the consultation. The Cabinet Office would welcome the group’s advice on relevant legal cases that should be considered in attempting to determine appropriate benchmarks for the level of the award.

The following points were raised in discussion:

• The group noted that there were very few legal precedents that reflected similar scenarios, but that they would review potential parallel cases and provide any further advice to the Cabinet Office. 
• The settlement for veterans of Cold War chemical weapon trials at Porton Down was mentioned as one potential parallel.
• Group members noted that some of the experiences of Treloar’s pupils could have been shared by children who were subject to research in other settings, and that there was a case for another tier to the awards to recognise this, for those treated under 18.