Completed
· Chair: Sir Brian Langstaff
· Established September 2018
· Commissioned by Cabinet Office
Examining how thousands of NHS patients were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.
More about this inquiry
Examining how thousands of NHS patients were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. Found the scandal could largely have been avoided and victims were failed by the NHS, government, and blood services. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) is administering compensation and publishes registration and payment progress statistics roughly every fortnight (see below). On 14 April 2026 the Government published its response to consultation on proposed changes to the Scheme (CP 1565), announcing approximately £1bn in additional compensation payments on top of the £11.8bn allocated in the 2024 Autumn Budget, with regulations to follow later in 2026.
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
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.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
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)"
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
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.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
"x" be removed from the equation set out in Regulation 7.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
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.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
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.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
When considering the evidence IBCA applies the wider definition of research explained in the Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report chapter on Unethical Research.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Accepted in part · Cabinet Office says in progress
Recommended
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.
Since then (summary written by this site)
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).
Cumulative total over 7 years. Investigation team (41.5% of total) includes paralegals, investigators and lawyers working on the Inquiry. Participant support includes travel and psychological support for core participants.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Annual expenditure. Inquiry Legal includes Counsel (barristers) and Investigation team (paralegals, investigators, lawyers). Other includes Hearings/Report publication, Travel, and Experts.
Cumulative total over 7 years. Investigation team (41.5% of total) includes paralegals, investigators and lawyers working on the Inquiry. Participant support includes travel and psychological support for core participants.
Written QuestionHouse of LordsLord Patten · Conservative
Asked: To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Twycross on 16 September (HL3026), when they last reviewed their decision to ask the Infected Blood Delivery Authority to decide the rate of compensation payments.
Answered by Cabinet Office: As recommended by the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) has operational independence from the Government. IBCA’s Board takes decisions on the organisation’s progress and performance, and publishes recordings and minutes of its meetings. Whilst the roll out of the Scheme is an operational decision for IBCA as an independent body, I fully support its commitment to …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsChris Coghlan · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Prevention of Future Death reports received by the government have outstanding responses.
Answered by Ministry of Justice: Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsChris Coghlan · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, a) if his Department plans to introduce a National Learning from Deaths Strategy, and b) if he will meet with Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London to discuss the work of the Preventable Deaths Tracker and …
Answered by Ministry of Justice: Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsChris Coghlan · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the recommendations arising from coroners' inquests.
Answered by Ministry of Justice: Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsChris Coghlan · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Prevention of Future Death reports the government has received since 2013 broken down by Department.
Answered by Ministry of Justice: Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsChris Coghlan · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps have been taken in response to receiving Prevention of Future Death reports.
Answered by Ministry of Justice: Coroners do not make recommendations as part of their inquest findings. However, where a coroner investigation gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future, and the coroner considers that action should be taken to prevent future deaths, they have a statutory duty to issue a …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsNick Timothy · Conservative
Asked: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many prosecutions have been brought in connection with the infected blood scandal; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Cabinet Office: Whether individuals are prosecuted is rightly a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and is independent of Government. Given the nationwide scope of the Infected Blood Inquiry, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has engaged experienced senior investigators to conduct a review of available evidence. Since the review began following the Infected Blood Inquiry’s May 2024 report, the NPCC has …
Written QuestionHouse of LordsLord Patten · Conservative
Asked: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the rate of compensation being delivered by the Infected Blood Delivery Authority to those affected.
Answered by Cabinet Office: HMG has regular engagement with IBCA to discuss progress. However, the delivery of compensation is a matter for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA), which has opened its service to all cohorts including affected people. IBCA is contacting people across all cohorts in line with the prioritisation criteria recommended by the Infected Blood Inquiry in its July 2025 Additional Report. …
Findings about the inquiry's recommendations as a whole
Sir Brian Langstaff (oral evidence to PACAC)(30 Jun 2026)
This site's summary of the finding: Giving oral evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 30 June 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff said of the recommendations that followed the Inquiry's second set of hearings, on compensation (the Additional Report): "We made recommendations that have all been accepted. Some are subject to consultation; they are really recommendations to be consulted about with a view to taking a different approach. That has been done."
Infected Blood Inquiry (Chair, Sir Brian Langstaff)(31 Mar 2026)
This site's summary of the finding: In the annex to his letter of 31 March 2026 to the Minister for the Cabinet Office notifying the end of the Inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, its Chair, wrote: "I acknowledge, here, that the Government accepted all the recommendations in the Infected Blood Inquiry Report, but some “in principle”, for just this reason."
Scottish Government (Oversight and Assurance Group minutes)(24 Mar 2026)
This site's summary of the finding: The minutes of the Scottish Government's Infected Blood Oversight and Assurance Group (meeting of 24 March 2026) record, under recommendation 6 (monitoring liver damage for people infected with Hepatitis C), progress in Scotland only: "The detailed case note review of these patients found they had all been appropriately assessed and followed up for liver damage, with the exception of where they had defaulted from follow up. As previously agreed at the OAG, officials asked the Viral Hepatitis Strategic Group to take forward a review of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) clinical guidelines. This was delayed due to clinician capacity, but is expected to be completed by the end of March 2026."
This site's summary of the finding: As of 13 January 2026: 3,721 people asked to start claims, 3,546 begun process, 3,074 received offers totalling £2.47bn, 2,861 paid totalling £1.89bn. Third compensation regulations in force 31 December 2025.