Infected Blood Inquiry

The scheme be opened to registration to everyone who may be eligible.

In September 2026, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority stated that the fourth set of regulations for the compensation scheme became law in July 2026 and would be incorporated into its service from 1 October (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026). It confirmed in September 2026 that its website, calculator, and guidance were being updated to reflect the regulations for anyone entering the service after 1 October, while it was contacting previously paid applicants to review their claims (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026).

There be forms (devised by IBCA) for people to register and apply for a core award and the supplementary awards with/without the necessary evidence and with/without calculation of compensation, and as an intermediate step that IBCA provide the option to move straight to the declaration stage for individuals providing all the necessary information.

In a news release in July 2025, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority stated that it had given its response to the inquiry's additional report on compensation published on 9 July 2025, confirming, "We accept all recommendations in the report for IBCA" (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025). The record holds no update since the authority's response of July 2025 (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025).

IBCA include a prominent reference to the availability of legal support paid by IBCA on all registration and application forms and in public information about the compensation scheme and that the Solicitors Regulation Authority remind solicitors of their obligations.

In September 2026, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority stated that it can arrange legal support when a claim begins, provided through six independent legal firms that "offer impartial advice at no cost" (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026). It explained that it can discuss alternative arrangements if an individual wishes to use a different firm to support their claim (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026).

When IBCA opens up the service beyond people infected and registered with the support schemes, IBCA: (i) update the sequencing to three cohorts, people infected and never compensated, the deceased infected, and people affected and (ii) adopt a scheme of prioritisation within each cohort which can be objectively applied and is easily understandable and (iii) progress the cohorts in parallel not sequentially.

In September 2026, Baroness Twycross, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Cabinet Office, stated that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has opened its service to all cohorts and is contacting claimants across all groups in line with the Inquiry's prioritisation criteria for people at the end of life, with advanced liver disease, or aged 75 or over (Baroness Twycross, Sep 2026). Earlier that month, the authority announced an ambition to bring 5,000 claims to decision between April 2026 and March 2027, prioritising living infected and deceased infected cohorts (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026). Also in September 2026, Mark Ferguson, Parliamentary Secretary at the department, reported that 1,099 people acting for deceased infected individuals had been invited to claim, with over £65 million paid out (Mark Ferguson, Sep 2026).

IBCA consider making provision, either generally or in specific cases, for oral representations to be made where a decision is reviewed internally, and for the individual concerned and/or their lawyer to attend the review panel.

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority stated in July 2025 that it accepts all recommendations in the inquiry's additional report for the authority, including the recommendation to consider making provision for oral representations and for individuals and their lawyers to attend internal decision review panels (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025). The record holds no update since the Infected Blood Compensation Authority's response of July 2025 (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025).

Written reasons for the original decision must be provided so that the review process can operate fairly.

In a news release issued on 21 July 2025 regarding the Infected Blood Inquiry additional report published on 9 July 2025, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority stated that it accepted all recommendations in the report addressed to the organisation (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025). The record holds no update since the Infected Blood Compensation Authority's response of July 2025 (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025).

IBCA should publish: guidance, advice or instructions to claim managers; work undertaken by IBCA with the Cabinet Office's policy team to ensure that IBCA understands "in depth the policy intent behind each regulation"; the papers that have been produced by IBCA addressing specific issues within the Regulations – such as the "dating principles paper", the "paper on HIV infection dating" and the "Hepatitis B (post-1972) paper" – and any future similar papers; IBCA's approach to the Hepatitis severity bandings in Schedule 1 to the 2025 Regulations; minutes of the meetings of IBCA's Board (except where publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted, or for other special reasons stated by resolution of the Board and arising from the nature of that business or of the proceedings).

In a news release on 21 July 2025 responding to the Infected Blood Inquiry additional report published on 9 July, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority confirmed that it had given its response and stated, "We accept all recommendations in the report for IBCA" (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025). The record holds no update since the authority's response of July 2025 (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025).

In respect of any case in which the advice of a clinical assessor has been given, in relation to the person concerned (and no more widely except with the consent of that person): that person should be told the factual basis on which that advice has been given; and the reasons for that advice. Such information must be shared with the individual in writing in sufficient detail so that they, and where represented, their solicitor, can understand and where appropriate challenge the correctness of that advice.

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority stated in July 2025, in its news release responding to the inquiry's additional report published on 9 July 2025, that it had given its response and confirmed that "We accept all recommendations in the report for IBCA" (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025). The record holds no update since the authority's response of July 2025 (Infected Blood Compensation Authority response, Jul 2025).

A formal role be given within IBCA for an advisory body consisting of people infected and affected, covering a range of experience broadly representative of those groups, and (if those groups so wish) including clinicians covering the major relevant disciplines of hepatitis and liver disease, HIV, transfusion, haemophilia, psychosocial aspects and palliative care. The advisory body should choose its chair, and the chair should be formally invited to each and every meeting of the Board of IBCA, and be given observer status.

In September 2026, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reported that implementation remained in progress, noting that its Community Advisory Panel had recommended establishing an Ethics Advisory Panel (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026). In the same September 2026 update, the authority stated that the panel would advise on decisions raising ethical questions and confirmed that Professor Dave Archard had been appointed as interim chair (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026).

To build confidence that IBCA is actively listening to people infected and affected, IBCA adopt more of a structured response to contributions from people infected and affected. Consideration should be given, as a minimum, to making a contemporaneous record of IBCA's understanding of the matters that had been raised in meetings with people infected and affected and setting out IBCA's response to each point.

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority reported in its September 2026 community update that work on this recommendation was in progress (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026). Addressing community questions, the authority stated that people are welcome to have a friend, family member, or support organisation join calls to provide emotional reassurance and help them understand information (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026). It noted that these accompanying supporters can also help meet agreed communication needs and "ask for clarification" (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Sep 2026).

My principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be set up now

The Inquiry recommended the immediate establishment of a compensation scheme. In July 2026, Mabon ap Gwynfor, Cabinet Minister for Health and Care in the Welsh Government, stated that progress had been made establishing the scheme and beginning payments, but noted issues raised by beneficiaries regarding the pace of claims processing and payments (Mabon ap Gwynfor, Jul 2026). Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, reported in April 2026 that over 3,200 compensation offers had been made, with over £2 billion paid in compensation and £1.4 billion in interim payments (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Apr 2026). The National Audit Office found in April 2026 that scheme funding had reached £12.8 billion, following regulations in August 2024 that established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) to administer payments (Gareth Davies, Apr 2026; Gareth Davies, Apr 2026).

A permanent memorial be established in the UK and consideration be given to memorials in each of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The nature of the memorial(s), their design and location should be determined by a memorial committee consisting of people infected and affected and representatives of the governments. It should be funded by the UK government.

The Inquiry recommended establishing permanent United Kingdom (UK) and devolved memorials. In August 2026, the Infected Blood Memorial Committee stated that memorials will be established in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, agreeing that the overarching UK memorial should be in England with a working hypothesis of London (Infected Blood Memorial Committee, Aug 2026). The Committee noted that a decision is still needed on where in England the UK memorial should be (Infected Blood Memorial Committee, Aug 2026). In July 2025, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, announced the appointment of Clive Smith as chair of the committee (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jul 2025). In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it was following the recommendation to form a steering committee and that memorials would be provided primarily at public expense (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

A memorial be established at public expense, dedicated specifically to the children infected at Treloar’s school. The memorial should be such as is agreed with those who were pupils at Treloar’s.

The Inquiry recommended establishing a memorial for children infected at Treloar's School. In December 2025, the Infected Blood Memorial Committee reported that local council planning permission had been granted for a finalised bronze sculpture design at the school, with working with an artist and foundry to build it remaining outstanding, though agreement with former pupils was not mentioned (Infected Blood Memorial Committee, Dec 2025). Earlier, in July 2025, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, announced to Parliament that Clive Smith had been appointed chair of the memorial committee (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jul 2025). In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, confirming that a dedicated sub-committee would consider the memorial and that it would be funded primarily at public expense (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

There should be at least three events, approximately six months apart, drawing together those infected and affected, the nature and timing of which should be determined by a working party as described above, facilitated by some central funding.

The Inquiry recommended at least three support events for those infected and affected. In July 2026, the Infected Blood Memorial Committee reported spending £169,525.88 on commemorative events, noting that the time and date of a third event remained to be determined (Infected Blood Memorial Committee, Jul 2026). In July 2025, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, announced that Clive Smith had been appointed chair of the committee (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jul 2025). In May 2025, the UK Government stated that a sub-committee would be established to organise biannual networking and support events (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

The General Medical Council, and NHS Education for Scotland, Health Education and Improvement Wales, Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency and NHS England, should take steps to ensure that those “lessons to be learned” which relate to clinical practice should be incorporated in every doctor’s training.

An action log owned by Emma Watson of NHS Education for Scotland, as minuted by the Scottish Government in March 2026, recorded that funding had been agreed with the body to take forward recommendation 3 (The action log, Mar 2026). In November 2025, she reported that a group led by NHS England to address the recommendations had been disbanded due to funding constraints (Professor Emma Watson, Nov 2025). Earlier, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that the General Medical Council was surveying educational institutions and working with four-nation leaders to identify training gaps (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

They should look favourably upon putting together a package of training materials, with excerpts from oral and written testimony, to underpin what can happen in healthcare, and must be avoided in future.

An action log for Professor Emma Watson of NHS Education for Scotland, minuted by the Scottish Government in March 2026, recorded that funding had been agreed with it to take forward the recommendation (The action log, Mar 2026). In November 2025, she reported that an NHS England-led group addressing the recommendation had been disbanded due to funding constraints (Professor Emma Watson, Nov 2025). In May 2025, the UK Government stated that the General Medical Council accepted the recommendation and was reviewing training arrangements while four-nation work identified gaps to implement educational resources (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

The Inquiry website is maintained online

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation and stated that it was taking forward work to ensure the website is maintained with full functionality after the Inquiry closes (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that a standard transfer to The National Archives leads to lost search engine capacity, but work was underway to keep all uncovered information easily publicly available (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Duty of candour: A statutory duty of candour in healthcare should be introduced in Northern Ireland.

The Inquiry recommended introducing a statutory duty of candour in healthcare across Northern Ireland. In September 2025, Mike Nesbitt, Minister of Health, stated in a written ministerial statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly that officials had been tasked with developing a bill for an organisational duty of candour during the current mandate (Mike Nesbitt, Sep 2025). Previously, in May 2025, the Northern Ireland Executive stated that it would advance an organisational duty first while considering an individual duty later, taking into account consultation findings and wider UK legislative work (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

Duty of candour: The operation of the duties of candour in healthcare in Scotland and in Wales should be reviewed, as it is being in England, to assess how effective its operation has been in practice. Since the duty was introduced in 2023 in Wales, the review there need not be immediate, but should be no later than the end of 2026.

The Inquiry recommended reviewing how healthcare duties of candour operate in Scotland and Wales. For Scotland, Lynne Nicol of the Scottish Government stated at a March 2026 meeting, in minutes published in May 2026, that its review was completed in December 2025 and a resulting programme of work is being developed for the new parliamentary term (Lynne Nicol, Mar 2026). For Wales, the Welsh Government stated in May 2025 that the duty introduced there in 2023 will be evaluated, with the recommendation integrated into a specification out to tender for an evaluation research programme (Welsh Government response, May 2025).

Duty of candour: The review of the duty of candour currently under way in England should be completed as soon as practicable.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that although findings from a November 2024 call for evidence showed the statutory duty was "underwhelming in totality", completing the review remained outstanding while it prepared a response to a related consultation on manager regulation to inform the final report (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Statutory duty of candour: The statutory duties of candour in England, Scotland, Wales (and Northern Ireland, when introduced) should be extended to cover those individuals in leadership positions in the National Health Service, in particular in executive positions and board members.

In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it was preparing its response to a consultation, held between November 2024 and February 2025 on options for regulating NHS managers, which sought views on whether to introduce a professional duty of candour for NHS leaders and hold them accountable for organisational candour (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Statutory duty of candour: Individuals in leadership positions should be required by the terms of their appointment and by secondary legislation to record, consider and respond to any concern about the healthcare being provided, or the way it is being provided, where there reasonably appears to be a risk that a patient might suffer harm, or has done so. Any person in authority to whom such a report is made should be personally accountable for a failure to consider it adequately.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that imposing personal accountability through secondary legislation is complex to implement and could be counter-productive to advancing a safety culture (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted in May 2025 that it was preparing a response to a consultation on regulating managers and that the Department of Health and Social Care was consulting on an accountability pledge for the NHS Constitution (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Cultural Change: That a culture of defensiveness, lack of openness, failure to be forthcoming, and being dismissive of concerns about patient safety be addressed both by taking the steps set out in (a) above, and also by making leaders accountable for how the culture operates in their part of the system, and for the way in which it involves patients.

In its response presented to Parliament in May 2025, the UK Government stated that this recommendation on organisational culture change and leadership accountability for patient safety was accepted in principle alongside the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Regulation: That external regulation of safety in healthcare be simplified. As a first step towards this, there should be a UK wide review by the four health departments of the systems of external regulation, with the aim of addressing all the points made earlier in this Report and in other reports since 2000.

In May 2025, the UK Government stated that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care had asked Dr Penny Dash to review patient safety across six core regulatory bodies to determine whether a different approach or delivery model could achieve greater value, adding that the review would be published shortly to inform its ten-year health plan and an NHS Quality Strategy (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Regulation: That the national healthcare administrations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales explore, and if appropriate, support the development and implementation of safety management systems (“SMS”s) through SMS coordination groups (as recommended by the HSSIB), and do so as a matter of priority.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that NHS England had established a coordination group in 2023 to explore adapting safety management systems for healthcare (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It added in that response that the group's work remained ongoing without reaching specific conclusions and was likely to report later in 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Patient Records: Before the end of 2027 there should be a formal audit, publicly reported, of the extent of success of digitisation of patient records in each of the four health jurisdictions of the UK, measuring at least the levels of patient access to their personal records, their ability to identify and correct apparent errors in them, their interoperability, and the confidence of health professionals in the detail, accuracy and timeliness of any record they enter, and that little material which should be recorded has been omitted. Next steps should be identified.

The Inquiry asked for a publicly reported audit of patient record digitisation by 2027. In minutes of a March 2026 meeting published in May 2026, Marion Logan of the Scottish Government stated that annual health board updates were being collected, a 2025 summary report was due, and Scotland would report on progress by late 2027 (Marion Logan, Mar 2026). In May 2025, the United Kingdom (UK) Government stated that National Health Service (NHS) England was using Digital Maturity Assessments to capture most audit elements for secondary care records, while planning how to capture professional views (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In the same response, the Northern Ireland Executive stated that continuous monitoring meant a formal audit was not required, while the Welsh Government detailed work expanding records access through the NHS Wales App (Welsh Government response, May 2025; Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

Coordination of patient records with devolved governments: Consideration should be given by the national healthcare administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to further coordination of their approaches particularly to ensure that patterns of harm, or trends, are identified and any response which for the sake of patient safety would be better coordinated than left to each individual administration can collaboratively be agreed and implemented.

In May 2025, the UK Government reported that the recommendation was "accepted in full by the UK Government, the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive", pointing to NHS England's Learn From Patient Safety Events service as a model for recording incidents and issuing safety alerts (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

The Government should reconsider whether, in the light of the facts revealed by this Inquiry, it is sufficient to continue to rely on the current non-statutory duties in the Civil Service and Ministerial Codes, coupled with those legal duties which occur on the occasions when civil servants and ministers interact with courts, inquests and inquiries, as securing candour.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that the Prime Minister had committed to introducing legislation for a statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions for public authorities and public servants (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It reported that it was consulting widely and drafting the bill ahead of its introduction to Parliament, while noting that an updated Ministerial Code had also been issued to emphasize openness and candour (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

If, on review, the Government considers that it is sufficient to rely on the current non-statutory duties in the Civil Service Code, it should nonetheless introduce a statutory duty of accountability on senior civil servants for the candour and completeness of advice given to Permanent Secretaries and Ministers, and the candour and completeness of their response to concerns raised by members of the public and staff.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that the Prime Minister committed to introducing legislation for a statutory duty of candour covering public authorities and public servants, which will include criminal sanctions (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It added that it was consulting widely and drafting the bill ahead of its introduction to Parliament (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

The Government should consider the extent to which Ministers should be subject to a duty beyond their current duty to Parliament under the Ministerial Code.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that the Prime Minister had committed to delivering legislation for a statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions covering public servants and authorities (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It added in the same response that it was consulting widely and drafting a Hillsborough Law ahead of its introduction to Parliament, having already updated the Ministerial Code to emphasize candour (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those who have been diagnosed with cirrhosis at any point should receive lifetime monitoring by way of six-monthly fibroscans and annual clinical review, either nurse-led, consultant-led or, where appropriate, by a GP with a specialist interest in hepatitis

The Inquiry recommended lifetime six-monthly fibroscans and annual reviews for hepatitis cirrhosis patients. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it accepted the recommendation, balancing implementation against clinical guidelines and equitable access (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It described plans for consultant hepatologist oversight, a referral framework for fibroscans, and a new National Health Service (NHS) cirrhosis surveillance registry, though six-monthly fibroscans and annual reviews are not mentioned in the sources (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those who have fibrosis should receive the same care

The Inquiry recommended that transfusion-infected hepatitis patients with fibrosis receive the same care. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it accepted the recommendation, balancing implementation against National Health Service (NHS) England's role to promote equitable access and clinical guidelines (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that consultant hepatologists would oversee patient care, while a framework was being developed to identify individuals needing fibrosis staging and a cirrhosis surveillance registry would be introduced (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Where there is any uncertainty about whether a patient has fibrosis they should receive the same care

The Inquiry recommended that hepatitis patients with uncertainty about fibrosis receive the same care. In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that implementation would be balanced against clinical guidelines and the principle that care should not depend on how infection was acquired (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that National Health Service (NHS) England is developing a framework to identify bleeding disorder patients lacking fibrosis staging to refer them for scans, alongside introducing a cirrhosis surveillance registry (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Fibroscan technology should be used for liver imaging, rather than alternatives

The Inquiry recommended that patients infected with hepatitis through blood receive Fibroscan liver imaging. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it accepted the recommendation, though implementation would be balanced against clinical guidelines and equitable access across the National Health Service (NHS) (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that NHS England was developing a framework to enable referrals for Fibroscan testing for patients with bleeding disorders, while a cirrhosis surveillance registry remained to be introduced (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those who have had Hepatitis C which is attributable to infected blood or blood products should be seen by a consultant hepatologist, rather than a more junior member of staff, wherever practicable

The Inquiry recommended that patients infected with hepatitis C see a consultant hepatologist. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that all patients will have their care overseen by a consultant hepatologist, while balancing implementation against equitable access, practicability, and clinical guidelines (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It reported that National Health Service (NHS) England had audited current pathways and was developing a framework alongside a cirrhosis surveillance registry to identify and monitor affected individuals (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

All patients who have contracted hepatitis via a blood transfusion or blood products should receive the following care: Those bodies responsible for commissioning hepatology services in each of the home nations should publish the steps they have taken to satisfy themselves that the services they are commissioning meet the particular needs of the group of people harmed by NHS treatment

The Inquiry asked home nation hepatology commissioners to publish how services meet harmed patients' needs. In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating it would balance implementation against equitable access, and reported that National Health Service (NHS) England had audited care pathways (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It described developing a framework to identify exposed patients with bleeding disorders and introducing a cirrhosis surveillance registry, but publishing steps taken by commissioners across each home nation was not mentioned (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

In England, Hospital Transfusion Committees and transfusion practitioners take steps to ensure that consideration of tranexamic acid be on every hospital surgical checklist; that hospital medical directors be required to report to their boards and the chief executive of their Trust as to the extent of its use; and that the board report annually to NHS England as to the percentage of eligible operations which have involved its use. If the percentage is below 80% or has dropped since the previous year, this report should be accompanied with an explanation for the failure to use more tranexamic acid and thereby reduce the risk to patient safety that comes with using a transfusion of blood or red blood cells.

The Inquiry recommended surgical checklists and board reporting on tranexamic acid in England. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that an expert working group was considering plans to increase tranexamic acid use, though surgical checklists and board reporting were not mentioned, required funding had not yet been identified, and implementation would take several years (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In June 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, who chaired the inquiry, told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that discussions on tranexamic acid within the blood service were producing beneficial results, though these had not yet appeared publicly on the Cabinet Office dashboard (Sir Brian Langstaff, Jun 2026).

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland offering the use of tranexamic acid should be considered a treatment of preference in respect of all eligible surgery.

The Inquiry asked Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to prefer tranexamic acid for eligible surgery. Addressing Scotland, Dr Lorna McLintock of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS), as minuted by the Scottish Government in March 2026 and published in May 2026, reported that revised National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance broadening the drug's scope was issued in February 2026 and circulated to hospital transfusion teams (Dr Lorna McLintock, Mar 2026). In May 2025, the Welsh Government reported that phased implementation across national programmes, including a surgical checklist incorporating the drug, was expected to conclude by 2026 (Welsh Government response, May 2025). Also in May 2025, the Northern Ireland Executive stated that health trusts were asked to ensure the treatment was offered while it sought assurance on current practice across the system (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

Consideration be given to standardising and benchmarking transfusion performance between hospitals in order to deliver better patient blood management

In November 2025, Dr Lorna McLintock of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service reported that all Scottish health boards had confirmed using its clinical transfusion dashboard and that a UK-wide benchmarking group had been established (Dr Lorna McLintock, Nov 2025). Earlier, in May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that it had initiated a review of benchmarking practices, requested updated guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and was working with the Care Quality Commission, though developing new benchmarking categories and funding to expand the model health dashboard were still required (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Review of progress towards the Transfusion 2024 recommendations: Progress in implementation of the Transfusion 2024 recommendations be reviewed, and next steps be determined and promulgated; and that in Scotland the 5 year plan is reviewed in or before 2027 with a view to determining next steps.

In March 2026, Dr Lorna McLintock of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service reported, in minutes published by the Scottish Government, that progressing a Scotland-wide transfusion strategy was paused while a new Chief Executive for Public Services Delivery Scotland is onboarded (Dr Lorna McLintock, Mar 2026). Earlier, in May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that progress against Transfusion 2024 had been reviewed by NHS England and NHS Blood and Transplant, with a full report expected in early 2025/26 to inform a wider Transfusion Transformation Strategy (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The government noted that substantial funding would be required to design and deliver the transformation programme (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Transfusion laboratories: Transfusion laboratories should be staffed (and resourced) adequately to meet the requirements of their functions.

In March 2026, Dr Lorna McLintock of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service reported to the Scottish Government that a Strategic Needs Assessment for hospital blood banking had been completed and submitted to it for consideration (Dr Lorna McLintock, Mar 2026). Previously, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that work was ongoing to review staffing and build an evidence base, but noted that funding would be required to undertake full workforce modelling and develop minimum staffing level standards (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Training in Transfusion Medicine: That those bodies concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate training across the UK of those people who are, or intend to be, working in the NHS ensure that they are adequately trained in transfusion, that the standards by which sufficiency of training is measured are defined, and accountability for training in transfusion be defined.

An action log minuted by the Scottish Government recorded in March 2026 that funding had been agreed with NHS Education for Scotland to take forward parts of the recommendation (The action log, Mar 2026). Previously, in November 2025, Professor Emma Watson reported to that oversight group that an NHS England-led group addressing the recommendation had been disbanded due to funding constraints (Professor Emma Watson, Nov 2025). In May 2025, the UK Government had accepted the recommendation in principle, noting that curricula were undergoing review but funding was needed to address training gaps (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Implementing SHOT reports: That all NHS organisations across the UK have a mechanism in place for implementing recommendations of Serious Hazard of Transfusion (SHOT) reports, which should be professionally mandated, and for monitoring such implementation.

The Scottish Government reported in November 2025 that it had issued a Director letter and monitoring spreadsheet regarding recommendation 7(e) to NHS Board Medical Directors in August 2025, requesting that boards return the completed template by February 2026 (The Scottish Government action log, Nov 2025). Earlier, the UK Government stated in May 2025 that work was underway to develop governance practices for implementing Serious Hazards of Transfusion recommendations (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It added that accreditation for SHOT to issue patient safety alerts through the Central Alerting System remained under consideration and dependent on funding, while SHOT was developing safety standards for NHS provider organisations (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Establishing the outcome of every transfusion: That a framework be established for recording outcomes for recipients of blood components. That those records be used by NHS bodies to improve transfusion practice (including by providing such information to haemovigilance bodies). Success in achieving this will be measured by the extent to which the SHOT reports for the previous three years show a progressive reduction in incidents of incorrect blood component transfusions measured as a proportion of the number of transfusions given.

The Inquiry called for a framework to record and monitor blood transfusion recipient outcomes. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that implementation requires substantial cross-nation investment, with a design team mapping clinical pathways, digitisation requirements, and standards (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In the same month, the Scottish Government reported work to adapt its Account for Blood system, while the Welsh Government noted it had established a digital working group and roadmap (Scottish Government response, May 2025; Welsh Government response, May 2025). The Northern Ireland Executive stated in May 2025 that regional electronic pathology and tracking systems were being developed, alongside work to assess how far the recommendation is already being carried out (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

Establishing the outcome of every transfusion: To the extent that the funding for digital transformation does not already cover the setting up and operation of this framework, bespoke funding should be provided.

The Inquiry recommended bespoke funding to establish the outcome of every blood transfusion. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that implementation requires substantial investment across the four nations, reporting that a design team is mapping clinical pathways, digitisation requirements, and standards (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that interdependencies still need to be mapped against other large digital systems (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In the same month, the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Northern Ireland Executive each outlined regional work to identify digital gaps, map programme costs, and integrate electronic transfusion tracking systems (Scottish Government response, May 2025; Welsh Government response, May 2025; Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

Establishing the outcome of every transfusion: That funding for the provision of enhanced electronic clinical systems in relation to blood transfusion be regarded as a priority across the UK.

The Inquiry recommended prioritising funding across the United Kingdom (UK) for enhanced electronic transfusion systems. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that implementation requires substantial investment across the four nations, reporting that a design team is mapping clinical pathways, digitisation requirements, and standards (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that interdependencies with other large digital initiatives and systems must still be mapped (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In the same month, the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Northern Ireland Executive outlined regional work to update tracking systems, prepare business cases, and develop digital roadmaps (Scottish Government response, May 2025; Welsh Government response, May 2025; Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

When doctors become aware that a patient has had a blood transfusion prior to 1996, that patient should be offered a blood test for Hepatitis C.

The Inquiry recommended offering Hepatitis C tests to patients who had pre-1996 blood transfusions. In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that changes to the General Practice (GP) Online Registration service were ready to launch at the end of that month alongside supporting NHS England guidance (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In the same month, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government both reported issuing clinical circulars asking healthcare staff to question patients about previous transfusions and offer testing (Scottish Government response, May 2025; Welsh Government response, May 2025). The Northern Ireland Executive reported in May 2025 that circular guidance had been issued, while engagement remained ongoing to determine the registration approach for primary care (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

As a matter of routine, new patients registering at a practice should be asked if they have had such a transfusion.

The Inquiry recommended routinely asking newly registered patients whether they have had a blood transfusion. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it accepted the recommendation, noting that changes to the General Practitioner (GP) Online Registration service had been agreed for national rollout at the end of that month alongside supporting NHS England guidance (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The Scottish Government and the Welsh Government reported in May 2025 that they had issued circulars directing primary care staff to ask new patients about previous blood transfusions (Scottish Government response, May 2025; Welsh Government response, May 2025). The Northern Ireland Executive stated in May 2025 that engagement remained ongoing with primary care policy leads to determine the best approach for general practice registration (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

That peer review of haemophilia care should continue to occur as presently practised, with any necessary support being provided by NHS Trusts and Health Boards;

The Inquiry recommended that peer review of haemophilia care continue with health service support. In April 2026, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care Dr Zubir Ahmed stated that a five-year peer review cycle continues and a final report is expected imminently, alongside planned letters seeking commitment from local boards and an updated service specification undergoing final approvals following public consultation (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). In May 2025, the UK Government stated that the revised service specification was intended to proceed to public consultation that summer (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

That NHS Trusts and Health Boards should be required to deliberate on peer review findings and give favourable consideration to implementing the changes identified with a view to ensuring comprehensive, safe, care.

The Inquiry recommended that trusts and health boards act upon peer review findings. In April 2026, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, stated that a revised Haemophilia Service Specification requiring providers to act upon peer review findings was undergoing final approvals (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). The Minister added that publication of the final peer review report was expected imminently, alongside a letter asking integrated care boards and trust boards to confirm their commitment to implement findings (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). While the update described action regarding trust boards, health boards were not mentioned (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026).

A peer review of each centre should take place not less than once every five years.

The Inquiry recommended that each haemophilia centre undergo peer review at least every five years. In April 2026, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, stated that a formal five-year peer review cycle has operated since 2019 (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). The Minister added that publication of the final peer review report was expected imminently, while a revised service specification contractually requiring providers to participate was undergoing final approvals (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026).

The necessary administrative and clinical resources should be provided by hospital trusts and boards, integrated care boards, and service commissioners to facilitate multi-disciplinary regional networks to discuss policy and practice in haemophilia and other inherited bleeding disorders care, provided they involve patients in their discussions.

In April 2026, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, stated that work was in progress and that NHS England had drafted a proposed National Clinical Network Specification to establish multi-disciplinary regional networks (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). The Minister reported in that April 2026 response that the specification remains dependent on additional funding, which the UK Government previously noted in May 2025 had not yet been identified (Cabinet Office response, May 2025; Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026).

Recombinant coagulation factor products should be offered in place of plasma-derived ones where clinically appropriate. Service commissioners should ensure that such treatment decisions are funded accordingly.

In April 2026, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Dr Zubir Ahmed stated that all conditions with non-plasma alternatives are now addressed by commissioning policies or funding agreements, though funding required to implement a clinical policy for recombinant Von Willebrand factor prophylaxis across all ages has not yet been identified (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). The UK Government previously reported in May 2025 that NHS England had commenced funding recombinant Von Willebrand factor for managing bleeding episodes and surgical pre-treatment in August 2024 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

That the National Haemophilia Database, run by the UKHCDO, merits the support of additional central funding.

In an April 2026 parliamentary answer, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care Dr Zubir Ahmed stated that NHS England provides approximately 40% of the National Haemophilia Database's annual costs and continues to work with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centres Doctors' Organisation to assess requirements for increased funding (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026). The Minister noted in April 2026 that while stakeholders agreed the registry remains immensely valuable for clinical care, further progress is subject to additional funding that "has not yet been identified" (Dr Zubir Ahmed, Apr 2026).

A clinical audit should as a matter of routine include measures of patient satisfaction or concern, and these should be reported to the board of the body concerned. Success in this will be measured by comparing the measure of satisfaction from one year to the next, such that the reports to the board concerned demonstrate a trend of improvement by comparing this year’s outcomes with the similar outcomes from at least the two previous years.

The UK Government accepted the recommendation in principle in May 2025, stating that NHS England was reviewing clinical audits to clarify gaps in patient involvement and satisfaction reporting (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted in May 2025 that this work involves interdependencies with wider patient voice strategies and policy developments that require careful consideration (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

That the following charities receive funding specifically for patient advocacy: the UK Haemophilia Society; the Hepatitis C Trust; Haemophilia Scotland; the Scottish Infected Blood Forum; Haemophilia Wales; Haemophilia Northern Ireland; and the UK Thalassaemia Society.

In July 2025, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds stated that the Department for Health and Social Care was re-examining advocacy funding for that year and exploring options for the future after charities raised issues regarding their allocations (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jul 2025). The UK Government had previously announced in May 2025 that £500,000 would be provided across named charities, with meetings taking place to determine individual grant awards (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

That favourable consideration be given to other charities and organisations supporting people infected and affected that were granted core participant status (as listed on the Inquiry website) to continue to provide support for at least the next 18 months. Further support should be reviewed at that stage with a view to it continuing as appropriate.

The Inquiry recommended continued support for core participant organisations helping infected and affected individuals. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that "consideration is being given as to how to best support organisations and charities" covered by this recommendation (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It affirmed that it remained committed to supporting these organisations as appropriate (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The recommendation's provisions for at least 18 months of support and a subsequent review were not mentioned in the response (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

Particular consideration be given, together with the UK Thalassaemia Society and the Sickle Cell Society, to how the needs of patients with thalassaemia or sickle cell disease can best holistically be addressed.

The Inquiry recommended addressing the holistic needs of thalassaemia and sickle cell disease patients collaboratively. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that National Health Service (NHS) England established a programme reviewing care pathways and created advisory groups to work with the UK Thalassaemia Society and the Sickle Cell Society (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that while initial funding supports acute crisis care, additional funding needed to fully implement the programme has not yet been identified (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). Also in May 2025, the Scottish Government reported engaging networks under its Rare Disease Action Plan, the Welsh Government outlined existing hereditary anaemia services, and the Northern Ireland Executive reported exploring screening options while using London specialists (Scottish Government response, May 2025; Welsh Government response, May 2025; Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of May 2025 (Northern Ireland Executive response, May 2025).

Steps be taken to give greater prominence to the online Yellow Card system to those receiving drugs or biological products, or who are being transfused with blood components.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency had begun regional awareness workshops and that Yellow Card platform changes were undergoing user acceptance testing for delivery by September 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted in May 2025 that a scoping meeting for final delivery of the changes was to be arranged alongside further promotional activities (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

That a minister should retain the power to call an inquiry as the minister sees fit, in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005 – but where a minister does not choose to do so, then:

The Inquiry recommended ministers retain powers to call inquiries, with alternatives if they decline. The UK Government stated in May 2025 that Parliament must decide whether to adopt the recommendation, adding that if the recommendation is adopted, it accepts its obligation to publish detailed reasons when disagreeing with establishing an inquiry (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In March 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Inquiry, welcomed its acceptance in principle and commitment to provide a further update to Parliament (Sir Brian Langstaff, Mar 2026).

If there is sufficient support from within Parliament for there to be an inquiry, the question whether there should be one should be referred to PACAC for it to consider the question.

The Inquiry recommended referring supported inquiry proposals to a parliamentary select committee. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that while it welcomed the recommendation, it was for Parliament to decide whether to accept it and how to fulfil it alongside existing scrutiny mechanisms (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In March 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, welcomed the acceptance in principle and noted the commitment to provide a further update to Parliament (Sir Brian Langstaff, Mar 2026).

If it appears to PACAC that there is sufficient concern to justify a public inquiry, either because what happened and why has caused concern (as the committee sees it) or there are likely to be lessons learned which may prevent similar concerns arising in future, the committee may recommend to an appropriate minister that there be an inquiry.

The Inquiry recommended that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee propose public inquiries. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that select committees already possess scrutiny powers, noting that Parliament must decide whether to accept the proposal alongside its existing mechanisms (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In March 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, welcomed the Government's acceptance in principle and its commitment to provide a further update to Parliament (Sir Brian Langstaff, Mar 2026).

If the minister disagrees with the recommendation, they must set out in detail and publish reasons for this disagreement which are sufficient to satisfy PACAC that the matter has been carefully and properly considered.

The Inquiry recommended that ministers publish detailed reasons if they disagree with a recommendation. The UK Government stated in May 2025 that if Parliament adopts the recommendation, it accepts its obligation to publish detailed reasons when disagreeing with a proposal to establish an inquiry, and committed to update Parliament on wider inquiry reforms, though satisfying the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) was not mentioned (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In March 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, welcomed the Government's acceptance in principle and its commitment to provide a further update (Sir Brian Langstaff, Mar 2026).

Within the next 12 months, the Government should consider and either commit to implementing the recommendations which I make, or give sufficient reason, in sufficient detail for others to understand, why it is not considered appropriate to implement any one or more of them. During that period, and before the end of this year – the Government should report back to Parliament as to the progress made on considering and implementing the recommendations. This timetable should not interfere with earlier consideration and response to the Recommendations of the Second Interim Report of the Inquiry.

The UK Government stated in its May 2025 response, presented to Parliament by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, that its comprehensive document on the implementation of the recommendations by all of the UK's administrations replaced its December 2024 update and fulfilled the obligations set out in recommendation 12a (Cabinet Office response, May 2025; Cabinet Office, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

During that period, and before the end of this year – the Government should report back to Parliament as to the progress made on considering and implementing the recommendations.

The UK Government stated in its formal response of May 2025, presented to Parliament by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, that its December 2024 parliamentary update fulfilled the obligations set out in this recommendation, and it recorded the recommendation's delivery status as completed (Cabinet Office response, May 2025; Cabinet Office, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025; Cabinet Office, May 2025).

This timetable should not interfere with earlier consideration and response to the Recommendations of the Second Interim Report of the Inquiry.

In May 2025, the UK Government accepted the recommendation, stating that detail set out under recommendation 1 met its formal obligation to respond to the Second Interim Report, alongside its August 2024 summary of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It noted that its position on compensation was also informed by parliamentary debate and community engagement led by Sir Robert Francis (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (“PACAC”) should review both the progress towards responding to the Inquiry’s recommendations and, to the extent that they are accepted, implementing those recommendations.

The Inquiry asked that a parliamentary committee review progress on responding to and implementing recommendations. Nick Thomas-Symonds, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, stated to the House of Commons in July 2025 that he had asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) to scrutinise implementation of recommendations, describing action on implementation but not on progress towards responding to recommendations (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jul 2025). Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, stated in oral evidence to the committee in June 2026 that following up recommendations was a role for a body such as the committee rather than an inquiry itself (Sir Brian Langstaff, Jun 2026). The Minister stated that it is for the committee to outline how it will approach that work (Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jul 2025).

PACAC should accept the role in respect of any future statutory inquiry of reviewing government’s timetable for consideration of recommendations, and of its progress towards implementation of that inquiry’s recommendations.

The UK Government stated in May 2025 that it accepted the principles behind the recommendation, noting that the proposed role was for Parliament to consider (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It added that it was considering wider inquiry reforms to ensure effective transparency and accountability, and would update Parliament as this work progressed (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

The Government and IBCA establish a mechanism by which individuals or organisations may raise concerns which arise about any aspect of the scheme which from time to time is troubling them. The mechanism is intended to help continuous improvement of, and/or aid understanding of, any aspect of the scheme. It should involve identifying a person or body to whom any such concern should be expressed, whose role it is to consider the concern, log it, and ensure that a person of appropriate seniority either responds to it in writing, or ensure that it is placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the advisory body or IBCA's Board or is considered by the Cabinet Office and Minister as appropriate.

The Inquiry recommended creating a mechanism for individuals and organisations to raise scheme concerns. In July 2026, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) and the Cabinet Office stated that they had launched a new route to raise concerns, describing action on scheme design and delivery (Infected Blood Compensation Authority and Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). In June 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, told a parliamentary committee that he was satisfied sufficient processes existed to address issues before closing the inquiry (Sir Brian Langstaff, Jun 2026).

An amendment to the Regulations be made as soon as possible to remove the reference to 1 January 1982 from Regulation 3.

The Inquiry asked the UK Government to remove the 1982 start date for HIV compensation. In April 2026, the Cabinet Office reported that regulatory changes came into force in December 2025, ensuring anyone infected with HIV from infected blood treatment received before 1 January 1982 is eligible for compensation (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). The department had previously agreed in July 2025 to amend the scheme to remove the 1982 date, stating that for financial loss awards without a specific infection date, the calculation would mirror the 1952 start date used for hepatitis (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

People infected with Hepatitis B or C who have received a course of treatment with or based on interferon should be recognised as entitled to core awards at Level 3.

The Inquiry recommended Level 3 core awards for people treated with interferon. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that regulations would introduce a Level 2B award reflecting interferon side effects, with compensation provided for each round of treatment (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). This followed its April 2026 consultation response confirming that the new severity band would provide higher injury, financial loss, and care payments than Level 2 (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). The department had initially proposed creating Level 2B rather than adopting the recommended Level 3 band in July 2025 (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

The Government reconsider whether to maintain its rejection in February 2025 of the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis KC and advice from the Infected Blood Inquiry Response Expert Group of August 2024, which was expressly accepted at the time by the Government, to introduce (as one of six health impact groups which would justify a severe health condition award) the following for people infected with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C: "Other Hepatitis C associated extra hepatic disorders resulting in long-term severe disability. This includes those currently assessed as the following category on IBSS: Hepatitis Special Category Mechanism (EIBSS); 'Severely Affected' Hepatitis C (SIBSS); Hepatitis C Stage 1 Plus (WIBSS); Hepatitis C Stage 1 Enhanced Payments (NIIBSS)"

The Inquiry asked the Government to recognise Special Category Mechanism impacts in severe health condition awards. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office explained that regulations ensure anyone eligible for the Special Category Mechanism (SCM) or equivalent Infected Blood Support Schemes (IBSS) payments receives additional financial loss and care compensation backdated to 2017 (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). The department stated that living individuals not previously assessed as eligible can also apply, though Hepatitis B is not mentioned (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). Earlier, the department announced in April 2026 that it would create this supplementary route, following its July 2025 acceptance that the severe health condition award should recognise SCM impacts (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025; Cabinet Office, Apr 2026).

For the calculation of Financial Loss awards for Hepatitis B, people born after 1953 should be treated like those born in or before 1953 on provision of evidence that their health did not improve or that it remained difficult to find work from 2009. For the calculation of Financial Loss awards for Hepatitis C, people born after 1961 should be treated like those born in or before 1961 on provision of evidence that their health did not improve or that it remained difficult to find work from 2017.

The Inquiry recommended adjusting financial loss calculations for individuals with hepatitis B and C. In July 2025, the Cabinet Office accepted the recommendation and stated it will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route Exceptional Loss award so individuals can demonstrate an inability to return to work, though the birth year thresholds were not mentioned (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

Where the level of severity of a person's infection at Level 3 or more has been established to IBCA's satisfaction in relation to a given year, but it is not known when it reached Level 3 or more, the legislative provisions should apply to deem the level of severity in the years which preceded that given year.

The Inquiry recommended deeming infection severity levels for earlier years when timing is unknown. In April 2026, the Cabinet Office reported that provisions used by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) have changed to compensate anyone with a Level 4 Hepatitis infection for the period likely spent at Level 3 (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). In July 2025, the department had stated that it would amend regulations so those diagnosed with a Level 4 Hepatitis infection unable to evidence disease progression would be deemed to have spent up to six years prior with a Level 3 infection (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

Regulation 14(2)(c) be amended to remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis of Hepatitis B or C. An appropriate redraft to achieve this would be: "where the diagnosis mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) is one of HIV, the date on which it was given."

The Inquiry recommended removing the requirement to evidence Hepatitis B or C diagnosis dates. In April 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that "a date of diagnosis for Hepatitis B and C no longer has to be provided" when applying for the scheme (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). This followed the department's announcement in July 2025 that the Government accepted the recommendation to remove the requirement in order to aid quicker processing of claims (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

The approach of the Infected Blood Psychology Service is adopted so that both a diagnosis made by a psychiatric professional and a formulation-based opinion of all qualified psychological and counselling professionals are accepted as sufficient evidence of severe psychological harm and that such evidence should qualify a person for a supplementary Severe Health Condition award without the additional need to demonstrate a period of consultant-led secondary mental health treatment or assessment/treatment as an inpatient.

The Inquiry recommended accepting psychological formulations for severe health condition compensation awards. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that new regulations introduce an award enabling supplementary route applications for those experiencing psychological harm (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). The department previously confirmed in April 2026 that this award would provide additional financial loss and care compensation (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). It had committed in July 2025 to consult on evidential requirements and thresholds, but accepting psychological formulations without secondary mental health treatment is not mentioned in the sources (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025; Cabinet Office, Jul 2026).

"x" be removed from the equation set out in Regulation 7.

The Inquiry asked the UK Government to remove variable x from the equation in Regulation 7. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that amendment regulations would remove the 25 per cent deduction applied to past care compensation for individuals who choose to receive support scheme payments for life (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). The department had confirmed in April 2026 that it would remove the deduction following a consultation (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). In July 2025, it accepted the need for a change to the scheme but planned to consult, stating that the recommended alteration affected past care rather than past financial loss (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

The Cabinet Office consult on whether the evidential requirements for exceptional reduced earnings are likely to prove a barrier to people who have sufficient evidence that their eligibility for such an award could with confidence be established on a balance of probabilities, and if so to consider what if any provision might be introduced to enable them to access an award.

The Inquiry asked for consultation on evidential barriers to exceptional loss awards. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that it will work with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) to communicate the broad range of alternative evidence eligible people can use, ensuring that lacking historic payslips is not a barrier (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). The department previously announced in April 2026 that a new £60,000 award would be introduced for infected people who had entered or had an offer for a higher-paying career but lacked evidence of actual higher earnings (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026).

Where there is evidence that an individual was the victim of unethical research practices IBCA should be authorised to make an unethical research practices award to that individual.

The Inquiry recommended authorising compensation awards for victims of unethical research practices. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office explained that new regulations make anyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 eligible for an unethical research award without having to prove participation in a specific trial (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). This followed its April 2026 consultation response confirming broad eligibility for individuals treated in the UK before 1986 (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). The department had previously stated in July 2025 that it would consult on establishing an award requiring minimal evidence and consistent criteria (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

When considering the evidence IBCA applies the wider definition of research explained in the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report chapter on Unethical Research.

The Inquiry asked the UK Government to apply a wider definition of unethical research. In July 2026, regulations made by the Secretary of State and signed by Louise Haigh, First Secretary of State, established that an eligible person was subject to unethical research practices if treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 (The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2026, Jul 2026). The Cabinet Office had stated in April 2026 that people would not need to prove participation in a specific medical trial (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). The department previously announced in July 2025 that it would consult on an award requiring minimal evidence (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

The Minister consider whether the £10,000 (£15,000 for Treloar's pupils) should in justice be increased and further decides what sum he considers accords most closely with the general public's sense of justice and fairness in respect of an individual being subject of research without informed consent.

The Inquiry recommended reviewing and increasing compensation award amounts for unethical research. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that amending regulations increased awards for unethical research to £30,000 for adults, £45,000 for children, and £60,000 for former Treloar's pupils (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). The department had set out these increased values in April 2026 in response to a consultation on proposed scheme changes (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). It had previously committed in July 2025 to consult on awards that minimise delays and ensure consistency (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

The Minister give consideration to there being a supplementary route for people affected. This could include opening the supplemental award for severe psychological harm to people affected. He should involve parents, children, siblings, partners and carers, and their legal representatives if wished, in this consideration.

The Inquiry asked the Minister to consider a supplementary compensation route for affected people. In July 2026, the Cabinet Office stated that regulations introduced a 50% uplift to core injury awards for eligible bereaved parents, bereaved partners, and certain children and siblings, though carers were not mentioned (Cabinet Office, Jul 2026). This followed the department's April 2026 consultation response confirming higher compensation for some affected individuals (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). In July 2025, it had agreed to consult affected family members and carers on whether a route for severe psychological harm was feasible without causing significant delay (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

The Regulations be amended such that where someone who would be an eligible affected person dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 December 2029, their claim does not die with them but becomes part of their estate.

The Inquiry asked that deceased affected persons' compensation claims pass to their estates. The Cabinet Office stated in April 2026 that estates of individuals who died between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031 are now eligible to apply for compensation (Cabinet Office, Apr 2026). In June 2026, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reported that estates remain eligible where an affected person dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031 across the lifetime of the scheme (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Jun 2026).

The IBSS cut-off date of 31 March 2025 be reviewed, that the scheme should as soon as possible reinstate support payments to partners bereaved after 31 March 2025 until such time as they receive compensation and that they should have a continuation of those payments as an option in their compensation package.

The Inquiry recommended reinstating support payments for partners bereaved after 31 March 2025. In July 2025, the Cabinet Office stated that the government accepted the recommendation, allowing partners bereaved after 1 April 2025 whose partner had not received compensation while alive to join an Infected Blood Support Scheme (IBSS) (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025). The department confirmed that these partners would receive support scheme payments until receiving compensation, with the option to continue receiving them for life (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025). The record holds nothing dated later than the response of July 2025 (Cabinet Office response, Jul 2025).

An interim payment, of no less than £100,000, should be paid to all those infected and all bereaved partners currently registered with any of the four UK infected blood support schemes, as well as those registering ahead of the inception of a future compensation scheme.

In August 2022, Michael Ellis, HM Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, confirmed that the UK Government accepted the recommendation in full, stating that it was a priority and that it intended to make the interim compensation payments by the end of October 2022 (Michael Ellis response, Aug 2022). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of August 2022 (Michael Ellis response, Aug 2022).

I recommend that the scheme should offer redress to those infected with HCV and/or HIV, and/or HBV (limited to chronic HBV unless the infection has resulted in a fatality in the acute period), and to defined categories of persons indirectly affected by such infections.

In May 2025, the UK Government stated that both infected and affected individuals are eligible for compensation, covering direct or indirect infections of HIV, Hepatitis C, and chronic or fatal acute Hepatitis B, as well as partners, parents, children, siblings, and carers subject to certain criteria (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

I recommend that the conditions of eligibility for admission of relevant infected persons to the scheme should be that: a) they have been diagnosed as being infected with one or more of HCV (including natural clearers who have suffered loss), HIV, or HBV (limited to chronic cases of HBV unless the infection has resulted in a fatality in the acute period); b) they received a transfusion of blood or components of blood, blood products or transfer of tissue capable of transmitting one or more of the relevant diseases; and c) their infection was not unlikely to have been caused by administration of the relevant treatment, regard being had as to the available evidence as to the measures in place at the time to reduce the possibility of infection, including but not limited to the date of relevant effective screening tests or effective viral inactivation treatments; or d)(i) it was not unlikely to have been caused by transmission to them by a person who fulfils conditions (a) to (c) above, or (ii) by transmission to them by a person who fulfils condition (d)(i), such as a child or children infected by their mother who had previously been infected by her partner, who in turn had been infected as in (a)-(c).

In May 2025, the UK Government confirmed that it accepts the recommendation and is compensating individuals directly or indirectly infected through NHS blood, blood products, or tissue (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It stated in May 2025 that eligible recipients include living or deceased individuals with HIV, Hepatitis C, or chronic Hepatitis B, those indirectly infected through loved ones, and people who died from acute Hepatitis B (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

As above, save that (a) the last bullet point should read: "eligibility is accepted if the information available points towards eligibility and the opposite cannot be shown to be more likely" and (b) eligibility should be automatic for individuals already accepted under an existing support scheme.

The UK Government stated in May 2025 that people registered on current or predecessor support schemes will be automatically eligible for compensation, although they may need to provide further evidence to assess award amounts (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). It added that unregistered applicants must provide evidence of infection and causative treatment to establish eligibility while avoiding an adversarial burden of proof (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

I recommend that the following relevant affected persons should be admitted to the scheme: a) spouses, civil partners and long term cohabitees (for at least one year in the case of the latter) of living or deceased eligible infected persons; b) children of an eligible living or deceased infected person; c) parents of an eligible living or deceased infected person; d) siblings of an eligible living or deceased infected person; e) providers of care to an eligible living or deceased infected person, as a result of the infection; and f) members of the family, or friends of an eligible living or deceased infected person, whose relationship with them was so close that it could reasonably be expected that their mental or physical health would be seriously affected by the consequences of the disease, and who have suffered emotionally, mentally and/or physically as a result.

The UK Government stated in December 2024 that affected persons will be eligible under the scheme where their case is linked to that of an eligible infected person, encompassing affected partners, children, parents, siblings, and carers who cared for loved ones with an infection without reward or remuneration (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of December 2024 (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024).

I recommend that infections eligible for compensation should be classified in the following manner: a) there should be defined categories for each type of eligible infection, and the stages through which it progresses, and for each category defined degrees of severity to which a range of possible awards for the impact of the disease can be applied; b) the stages and degrees of severity for each disease should be defined by an independent clinical expert advisory panel, by reference to clinical professional consensus; c) the range of potential awards for the impact should be determined by an independent advisory panel of legal experts, taking account of but not limited by current practice in courts and tribunals across the UK.

In May 2025, the UK Government stated that compensation will be available for all recommended categories of award based on infection severity or familial relationship, with award ranges developed by an expert group under Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery bringing together clinical, legal, and social care expertise (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

I recommend that the appropriate award in any case should be composed under the following categories of loss, applicable to both eligible infected and affected persons: a) an Injury Impact Award for past and future physical and mental injury, emotional distress and injury to feelings caused by the infection and treatments for it, or (whilst not being personally infected) being affected by them or by the death of an eligible infected person (including, as part of this, an award for loss of society of the deceased); b) a Social Impact Award for past and future social consequences of the infection including stigma and social isolation; c) an Autonomy Award as additional redress for the distress and suffering caused by the impact of the disease, including interference with family and private life, including where relevant: personal autonomy, loss of marriage/partnership prospects, loss of chance to have children. It should include sums for the aggravated distress caused by interferences in their autonomy and private life such as lack of informed consent, lack of sufficient information about the risks of treatment, and about diagnosis, treatment and testing, or being the subject of research without their informed consent. It should include the effects of lack of candour and inadequate responses by authority. d) a Care Award for the future care needs of the eligible infected person, and to compensate for past losses in respect of care necessitated by their infection (to be paid directly to the infected person where they have paid for care, and/or directly to an affected person who has provided care); and e) a Financial Loss Award for past and future financial losses suffered as a result of the infection.

The Inquiry recommended structuring compensation awards across five specific categories of loss. In December 2024, the UK Government stated that it had accepted the recommended categories and designed the scheme to include injury impact, social impact, autonomy, care, and financial loss awards (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). It noted a slight deviation, routing the care award through the infected person or their estate to distribute for speed and simplicity (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). In April 2026, the National Audit Office found that the scheme uses a tariff payment system awarding set amounts across the five categories (Gareth Davies, Apr 2026).

I recommend that there should be no award for exemplary damages, though it should remain open to a claimant to pursue such a claim in the courts irrespective of whether they make a claim on the scheme.

In the Government response to the Infected Blood Inquiry in December 2024, the UK Government accepted the recommendation on exemplary damages and stated: "There is no award for exemplary damages, as recommended by the Second Interim Report in recommendation 7" (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of December 2024 (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024).

I recommend that the Government should approve a scheme setting out a framework of tariff based compensation for eligible infected and affected persons, at rates which broadly take account of but are not limited by current practice in courts and tribunals across the UK and sums payable in other UK compensation schemes, and allowing an assessed basis for defined financial losses. The rates of compensation should be based on the advice of the independent clinical and legal panels and set by the scheme.

The Inquiry recommended that the Government approve a tariff-based compensation framework. The UK Government stated in May 2025 that the scheme would use a tariff-based framework with set criteria and rates to calculate payments, but it did not mention clinical and legal panel advice or assessed financial losses (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The National Audit Office found in April 2026 that the scheme uses a tariff payment system awarding set amounts across five categories, including injury impact, social impact, autonomy, financial loss, and care awards (Gareth Davies, Apr 2026).

I recommend that, with reference to the status of awards: a) eligible infected and affected persons should not be required to accept the offer of an award in full and final settlement of any right to pursue legal actions related to the infection; b) any accepted scheme award should be set off against any entitlement to damages for the same subject matter; c) the availability of an award under the scheme should be a factor to which the court could have regard when determining liability for costs in any court proceedings related to the infection.

The UK Government stated in December 2024 that acceptance of an award does not require applicants to waive their right to pursue litigation, and that infected persons may return to IBCA for reassessment at any time if their condition deteriorates following an initial assessment (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of December 2024 (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024).

I recommend that: a) awards should be made in a lump sum in respect of an Injury Impact Award, Social Impact Award, Autonomy Award, and an award to compensate for past losses under the Care Award and Financial Loss Award for infected and affected persons; b) at the option of the applicant, for continuing future losses under the Care Award and Financial Loss Award, there should be paid either a lump sum award or payment by way of guaranteed periodical payments uplifted annually for inflation for life, or the predicted period of the loss, if earlier; c) an infected person should have the option of receiving a lesser lump sum as a provisional award (i.e. one assessed on the footing that as a result of receiving infected blood or blood products or tissue transfer there is a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future they will develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in their physical or mental health) such that in that case they may return to the scheme, or in accordance with arrangements to be made by the scheme, for further compensation then to be paid in respect of the newly developed disease or deterioration; and d) unless the option to have a provisional award is taken, all awards should be final.

The UK Government stated in December 2024 that acceptance of an award does not require applicants to waive their right to pursue litigation (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). It added that if an infected person's condition deteriorates, they will be able to return to IBCA at any time for reassessment to determine eligibility for an additional compensation payment, regardless of the time that has passed since their initial assessment (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of December 2024 (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024).

I recommend that interest be payable on awards for past financial losses and past provision of care, from the date of infection to the date of the award, in accordance with the practice in personal injury damages claims; alternatively, that such awards are uplifted for inflation during that period.

The UK Government stated in December 2024 that the compensation scheme "aligns with the spirit of the recommendation regarding interest payable on past financial loss" by applying the current median annual salary plus 5% to all past working years rather than historical rates, meaning interest is not payable (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of December 2024 (Cabinet Office response, Dec 2024).

I recommend that an interim payment of £100,000 should be paid to recognise the deaths of people to date unrecognised and alleviate immediate suffering. This should be done as follows: a) where someone infected died as a child or died as an adult without a partner or child, the interim payment should be made to their bereaved parents (split equally if separated); b) where someone infected has died and there is no bereaved partner but there is a bereaved child or children (including any adopted child), the interim payment should be paid to the child or children (split equally); and c) where someone infected has died and there is no bereaved partner, child nor parent but there is a bereaved full sibling or siblings, the interim payment should be paid to the sibling or siblings (split equally).

The Inquiry recommended £100,000 interim payments to bereaved parents, children, or siblings of deceased victims. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it had opened applications for £100,000 interim payments to the estates of deceased infected people to respect their wills, rather than paying bereaved parents, children, or siblings directly (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In July 2026, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reported that the Government committed under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 to make £100,000 interim payments to estates where no compensation had been paid (Infected Blood Compensation Authority, Jul 2026).

I recommend that, with regard to the relationship between compensation, support payments and benefits: a) in assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past payments made under the support schemes or their predecessors; b) the current annual payments under the support schemes should be continued (or merged into the compensation scheme) and guaranteed for life, by legislation or secure government undertaking; c) such continued payments should be taken into account in assessing awards for future financial loss or care provision; d) such deductions as would be made from damages under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, but no other, should be made in respect of equivalent awards under the scheme; e) awards of financial loss should be made net of tax, but the awards themselves should not be liable to taxation, and should be regarded for tax purposes as if they were support payments; f) any lump sum award under the scheme should be made exempt from inheritance tax by an equivalent addition to the inheritance tax free allowance of the recipient.

The UK Government stated in May 2025 that all payments made under the scheme, including those received via an infected person's estate, will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax, and disregarded from means-tested benefit assessments such as council tax and nursing home fees (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

I recommend that an Arms Length Body (ALB) should be set up to administer the compensation scheme, with guaranteed independence of judgement, chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session status as sole decision maker, transparent in its procedures so far as the law permits and accountable directly to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds and the fulfilment of its terms of reference. Appeals should be to a bespoke independent appeal body with a legal chair which will reconsider the decision of the scheme in any case appealed to it. The scheme should have procedures in accordance with the principles set out in this report and in particular which: a) have regard to the need of applicants for speed of provision, simplicity of process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency; b) involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory board, and in the review and improvement of the scheme; and c) permit the hearing of applicants in person. d) should have access to the records held by or on behalf of any previous publicly funded support scheme (subject to any necessary consents by the data subjects), and take into account the reasoning of any appeal from the decisions it takes.

The Inquiry recommended establishing an independent arm's-length body to administer the compensation scheme. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it had established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) to deliver compensation UK-wide, though a judicial chair and bespoke appeal body were not mentioned (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In September 2026, the Committee of Public Accounts reported that "only the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme is run independently of the department or organisation responsible for the original harm" (Committee of Public Accounts, Sep 2026). In June 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff told a parliamentary committee that the authority was designed without the involvement of affected individuals (Sir Brian Langstaff, Jun 2026).

I recommend that the scheme should include provision of the following support services to be provided without charge to the applicant: a) an advice and advocacy service, supplemented where necessary by discretionary access to independent legal advice and representation, where necessary and within a pre-authorised budget, to assist and advise applicants; b) a financial, insurance and benefits advice and support service, to assist recipients in accessing financial and insurance services and obtaining any relevant benefits; and c) advice and referral to appropriate specialist services, signalling or certifying access to any special arrangements.

The Inquiry asked the UK Government to provide free advocacy, legal, financial, and referral support. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that psychological support was available or expanding across the UK and that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) aims to ensure support is available for managing awards, accessing financial services, and benefits advice (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The response did not describe advocacy services or referral to specialist services (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In April 2026, the National Audit Office found that the authority covers the cost of legal advice for applicants throughout their claim (Gareth Davies, Apr 2026).

I recommend that the compensation scheme should be delivered by one central body, appropriately resourced and staffed. Current support schemes should however continue to be provided as at present by schemes local to each nation.

The Inquiry recommended that a single central body deliver compensation alongside local support schemes. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) had been established to deliver compensation across the UK and that support scheme payments would continue for life for those registered before April 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The National Audit Office reported in April 2026 that the government set up the UK-wide body in May 2024 under Cabinet Office sponsorship (Gareth Davies, Apr 2026).

I recommend that without delay steps be taken to provide a bespoke psychological service in England.

The UK Government stated in May 2025 that it was committed to offering psychological support, noting that bespoke services were already available in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while England's Infected Blood Psychological Service began seeing patients in August 2024 with capacity building toward nationwide coverage by spring 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). The record holds no update since the UK Government's response of May 2025 (Cabinet Office response, May 2025).

I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year.

The Inquiry recommended the immediate establishment of an operational compensation scheme. In May 2025, the UK Government stated that it had responded following the publication of the Inquiry's May 2024 report by establishing the compensation scheme (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In April 2026, the National Audit Office reported that regulations came into force in August 2024, establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) and enabling payments to infected individuals and affected estates (Gareth Davies, Apr 2026).