Classification of Infections and Severity
Infected Blood Inquiry · Second Interim Report · Issued 5 April 2023 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
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.
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 uses severity categories with associated award ranges (Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Cabinet Office, December 2024).
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government — initial response
The Government recognises the different levels of suffering from different infections and degrees of severity. Therefore, compensation will be available for all of the categories of loss recommended by the Inquiry - these are referred to as 'categories of award' within the Scheme, and further detail is available below. As per the Second Interim Report's recommendation 5, different amounts of compensation will be paid to those who are infected and affected, depending on the severity of the infection suffered or familial relationship. The range of awards have been developed by the Government's Expert Group under Chair, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, bringing together legal and clinical expertise, and assisted by social care specialists.
UK Government · 17 Dec 2024 Written response →
●UK Government — follow-up
The scheme uses a tariff-based system with defined severity levels for each infection type. Independent clinical and legal panels advised on the severity bands and award levels. The tariff structure provides awards based on infection type and severity.
UK Government · 14 May 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 17 Dec 2024 Tariff system with severity bands implemented. Additional Report (July 2025) made further refinements. 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
- 22 Jul 2025 · IBCA Community Update Infected Blood Compensation Authority established August 2024. First claims for deceased infected/affected opened December 2025. IBCA accepted all 11 recommendations directed to them. View source → Good 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.