Tariff-Based Compensation Framework
Infected Blood Inquiry · Second Interim Report · Issued 5 April 2023 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
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.
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 affected persons are eligible for compensation with claims linked to an eligible infected person (Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Cabinet Office, December 2024).
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government — initial response
In line with recommendation 8 of the Second Interim Report, the Scheme will use a tariff-based framework to calculate the amount of compensation payable to those eligible. In practice, this means that compensation will be calculated based on set criteria and rates. Using a tariff approach will minimise the amount of information that people applying to the Scheme are required to provide. It will also help to ensure that compensation can be awarded more quickly than would otherwise be possible if all applications for compensation had to be individually assessed. The tariffs have been informed, but not limited by, current practice in UK courts and tribunals. The Expert Group has advised the Government on the tariff rates in the course of their work, which Ministers decided on and set in accordance with the principles on managing public money. This deviates slightly from the Report's recommendation, which advised that tariffs should be set by the Scheme.
UK Government · 17 Dec 2024 Written response →
●UK Government — follow-up
The scheme uses a tariff-based framework with rates informed by court practice and other compensation schemes. Independent panels advised on appropriate rates. The scheme provides both core tariff awards and supplementary assessed awards for financial losses.
UK Government · 14 May 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 17 Dec 2024 Tariff framework implemented with independent panel input. 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.