Ministerial Reasons for Disagreement
Infected Blood Inquiry · Infected Blood Inquiry Final Report · Issued 20 May 2024 · Addressed to: UK Government
Government responseUK Government: Accepted in part (May 2025)
DeliveryNo statement from UK Government found
Recommendation, 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
AI-generated evidence summary
The Inquiry recommended that ministers publish detailed reasons if they disagree with a recommendation. The UK Government stated in May 2025 that if Parliament adopts the recommendation, it accepts its obligation to publish detailed reasons when disagreeing with a proposal to establish an inquiry, and committed to update Parliament on wider inquiry reforms, though satisfying the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) was not mentioned (Cabinet Office response, May 2025). In March 2026, Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, welcomed the Government's acceptance in principle and its commitment to provide a further update (Sir Brian Langstaff, Mar 2026).
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026.
Government response
●UK Government · Accepted in part · 14 May 2025
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.
Extract from: Full Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry's May 2024 Report
Delivery
No statement on delivery from UK Government has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.
What other bodies have found
●Infected Blood Inquiry · 31 Mar 2026
I welcome the Government’s acceptance in principle of Inquiry Recommendation 11 about responding to calls for a public inquiry and the commitment to provide a further update to Parliament.
From: Letter from Sir Brian Langstaff to the Minister for the Cabinet Office
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.