Ministerial Reasons for Disagreement
Infected Blood Inquiry · Infected Blood Inquiry Final Report · Issued 20 May 2024 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
If the minister disagrees with the recommendation, they must set out in detail and publish reasons for this disagreement which are sufficient to satisfy PACAC that the matter has been carefully and properly considered.
Infected Blood Inquiry, Infected Blood Inquiry Final Report · 20 May 2024 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- No published mechanism requiring ministerial publication of reasons for disagreeing with inquiry recommendations has been identified to March 2026.
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
UK Government
It is clear that blood products and blood were contaminated, and despite a wealth of evidence, no action was taken to spell out the risks, and insufficient precautions were taken. It is also evident that despite these failings, no proper action was taken to investigate and understand what had happened. Understandably, a number of participants to the Inquiry have called for a recognised process in deciding whether or not there should be a public inquiry into a matter which is potentially of public concern, or from which lessons might be learned.
The Inquiry recommends that the UK Parliament should have a role in recommending the establishment of a public inquiry, and that Ministers should set out the reasons behind a decision not to hold an Inquiry. The Government welcomes these recommendations, recognising that Parliamentary Select Committees already have the power to scrutinise departments and make recommendations, and it is for Parliament to consider these recommendations.
The Government also notes that the recent report by the House of Lords Committee on Inquiries recommends that "formal implementation monitoring should be undertaken by a new, joint, select committee of Parliament: the Public Inquiries Committee". Therefore while we note the recommendations made by the Inquiry, it is for Parliament to decide whether to accept these recommendations, and decide how to fulfil recommendation 11 alongside its existing scrutiny mechanisms.
Should Parliament decide to adopt recommendation 11, the Government accepts its obligation under 11d), to set out in detail and publish reasons when it disagrees with a recommendation to establish an inquiry.
Next Steps
The Government’s response to the recommendations of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was published on 10 February. In its response, the Government committed to providing a further update to Parliament on its intentions for wider reforms of the frameworks around inquiries.
UK Government · 14 May 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 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
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.