IR2-3 Accepted

Standard of Proof and Automatic Eligibility

Infected Blood Inquiry · Second Interim Report · Issued 5 April 2023 · Addressed to: UK Government

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

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.

Infected Blood Inquiry, Second Interim Report · 5 Apr 2023 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- The Government stated in December 2024 that the scheme had been designed to minimise the burden on applicants whilst protecting public funds, and that eligibility is automatic for individuals already accepted under an existing support scheme (Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Cabinet Office, December 2024).
- The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme regulations provide that eligibility information pointing towards eligibility is accepted where the opposite cannot be shown to be more likely (Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations, UK Parliament, 2024).

Response — verbatim from government

UK Government — initial response

The Government acknowledges the further distress and trauma that can be caused to those applying for compensation, and so the Scheme has been designed to minimise the burden on applicants whilst protecting against fraud. People registered on a current UK infected blood support scheme or predecessor Alliance House organisation scheme will automatically be eligible for compensation. However, they may need to provide further evidence to enable assessment of the compensation award amount. People not registered with a current or former support scheme who acquired infections within the time period where evidence from the IBI suggests contamination to be likely, will be asked to provide evidence to establish infection cause (i.e. evidence of infection and relevant causative treatment). This follows recommendation 3 of the Second Interim Report, which aims to avoid adversarial concepts of the burden of proof on applicants.

UK Government · 17 Dec 2024 Written response →

UK Government — follow-up

The scheme applies a sympathetic approach to evidence, with existing support scheme beneficiaries automatically eligible for compensation without need to re-prove eligibility.

UK Government · 14 May 2025 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

  • 17 Dec 2024 Automatic eligibility for existing support scheme beneficiaries implemented. 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
  • 31 Dec 2025 · UK Parliament Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 established IBCA. Three sets of scheme regulations in force (Aug 2024, Mar 2025, Dec 2025). First payments December 2024. £1.89bn paid to 2,861 people by January 2026. 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.