Thank you for your email received on the 3 August 2026, in which you made a request for access to certain information which may be held by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.
As you may be aware, the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of access to information held at the time of a request, by a Public Authority (including the Infected Blood Compensation Authority), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.
We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and we provide a response for your attention.
Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Policy team of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. We can confirm that the information you have requested is partially held by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.
You asked the following
1) Does the IBCA hold any finalised operational policy, guidance, standard operating procedure or decision-making framework which authorises caseworkers to revisit, re-investigate or challenge the factual basis upon which an applicant was accepted into an existing Infected Blood Support Scheme?
2) If such a document exists, please provide a copy.
3) If no such document exists, please confirm that no finalised policy or operational guidance has been issued authorising the reopening of historical support scheme eligibility determinations.
4) Please identify any policy, guidance or operational document which explains how Regulations 3(1A) and 14(3) of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations are to be applied to applicants who are already recognised as infected recipients of an existing Support Scheme.
Our response
We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and have provided a response for your attention below.
1) Does the IBCA hold any finalised operational policy, guidance, standard operating procedure or decision-making framework which authorises caseworkers to revisit, re-investigate or challenge the factual basis upon which an applicant was accepted into an existing Infected Blood Support Scheme?
- No, this is not held.
2) If such a document exists, please provide a copy.
- N/A
3) If no such document exists, please confirm that no finalised policy or operational guidance has been issued authorising the reopening of historical support scheme eligibility determinations.
- No, this is not held.
4) Please identify any policy, guidance or operational document which explains how Regulations 3(1A) and 14(3) of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations are to be applied to applicants who are already recognised as infected recipients of an existing Support Scheme.
We have established that the information you requested is held by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Information you have requested is being withheld because it is exempt under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 42 applies to information that would be subject to legal professional privilege.
Legal professional privilege covers confidential communications between lawyers and clients. It is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and we recognise that openness in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s business may increase public trust in and engagement with the Authority. There is also a definite public interest in understanding the legal justification for decisions taken by the Authority.
Against this, there is an inherent public interest in protecting the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. This confidentiality encourages clients to seek legal advice and allows for full and frank exchanges between clients and their lawyers. It is particularly important for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to seek legal advice in relation to sensitive and difficult decisions, and for any advice given to be fully informed and fully reasoned.
Without confidentiality, clients might fear that anything they say to their lawyers, however sensitive or potentially damaging, could be revealed later. They might be deterred from seeking legal advice at all, or from disclosing all relevant material to their lawyers. Or the advice given may not be as full and frank as it ought to be. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we have determined that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this information.