Unethical Research Award
Infected Blood Inquiry · Additional Report on Compensation · Issued 9 July 2025 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
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.
Infected Blood Inquiry, Additional Report on Compensation · 9 Jul 2025 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- The Government stated in July 2025 that it accepted this recommendation in principle and would consult on providing an award for unethical research victims requiring minimal evidence, minimising delays, and ensuring consistency (Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response, Cabinet Office, July 2025).
- A consultation on proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme was opened on 24 November 2025, covering the unethical research practices award (Consultation: Proposed Changes to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme, Cabinet Office, November 2025).
- The government stated that people treated for a bleeding disorder in the UK before 1986 would be eligible for an Unethical Research award (Government Response to Consultation on Changes to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme, Cabinet Office, 14 April 2026).
Sources
How was this evidence gathered?
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
The issue of unethical research is one of the most shocking areas of this scandal. In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, the Minister for the Cabinet Office agreed to look again at how the Scheme compensates victims of unethical research. As the Inquiry recommended, the Government will look to consult on the best way forward to provide an award that requires minimal evidence, minimises delays, and ensures consistency across awarding criteria.
UK Government · 21 Jul 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 14 Apr 2026 · Cabinet Office Anyone who received treatment for a bleeding disorder in the UK before 1986 will now be eligible for additional compensation through the Unethical Research award. Source →
- 21 Jul 2025 14 April 2026 update: Government response (CP 1565) expands the Unethical Research award: "As we proposed, we will change the eligibility criteria so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder within a specific time period will receive an unethical research award. They will no longer need to prove that this treatment happened at a specific haemophilia centre, or that they were part of a specific research trial. Following the consultation we will adjust the date range to make sure it captures the evidence of unethical research that respondents shared with us." Regulations to implement these changes will be brought forward later in 2026. Sources: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-to-infected-blood-compensation-scheme-will-improve-support-for-victims; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69ddf5fd7e2086c62da2f152/Government_response_to_consultation_on_proposed_changes_to_the_infected_blood_compensation_scheme__PDF_.pdf Source →
- 15 Jan 2026 · IBCA Community Update 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. View source → Good Progress
- 28 Oct 2025 · IBCA Independent Review IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin compensation claims; 1,934 started process. £812m+ paid via Horizon Shortfall Scheme. £11.8bn committed in Autumn Budget. View source → Reasonable Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.