The Infected Blood Inquiry concluded that the harm caused by infected blood and blood products was systemic, avoidable and compounded by decades of institutional failure. Compensation was identified as a central pillar of redress. Whilst the Government accepted the principle of compensation at an early stage, a consultation sought views on how the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme could better reflect lived experience, particularly for groups whose harm was not adequately captured under the original tariff-based model.
Some changes were implemented in December 2025, including expanded eligibility for people infected with HIV before 1 January 1982, the removal of minimum earnings thresholds for exceptional loss claims and broader assumptions where medical evidence is incomplete.
On 14 April 2026, the government published its response to the consultation on proposed changes to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. The response follows the Additional Report on Compensation published by the Infected Blood Inquiry in July 2025 and addresses key recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff on how compensation should better reflect the experiences of those infected and affected by contaminated blood and blood products.
The government’s response confirms a clear intention to broaden access to compensation, reduce evidential barriers and increase awards across a number of areas. It represents a significant step in the evolution of the Scheme, although many of the changes will only take effect once legislation has been approved by Parliament.
Special Category Mechanism and severe impact
A central feature of the government’s response is the introduction of a new supplementary award for individuals who were eligible for the Special Category Mechanism (SCM) or its equivalents under the former Infected Blood Support Schemes. Those previously assessed by a support scheme will qualify automatically without the need for reassessment. All awards under this route will now be backdated to 2017 when SCM payments were first introduced.
This change addresses long‑standing concerns about inconsistency and perceived unfairness arising from differing access to SCM-style assessments across the UK and recognises the ongoing day-to-day impact of Hepatitis B and C that fell short of the most severe diagnostic categories.
Psychological harm
The government has chosen not to expand diagnostic criteria for severe psychiatric awards. Instead, it has confirmed that severe psychological harm will primarily be recognised through the new SCM-based supplementary route, which focuses on functional impact on work and daily life rather than formal psychiatric labels.
This sits alongside the existing severe psychiatric conditions award and the core route injury payments, creating a three‑tier structure intended to reflect differing levels of harm whilst avoiding intrusive and potentially re‑traumatising evidence requirements.
Interferon treatment
The response confirms the creation of a new infection severity category, level 2B, for people treated with interferon. Anyone able to provide evidence of interferon treatment will qualify automatically for compensation, regardless of duration. Enhanced injury, financial Loss and care awards will apply, reflecting both physical and psychological side effects commonly experienced during treatment.
Where individuals underwent more than one course of interferon, additional uplifts will be payable for each qualifying course, recognising repeated periods of disruption to health, work and daily functioning.
Financial loss and care awards
Two technical but significant changes have been confirmed in relation to financial loss and care awards. First, the 25% deduction previously applied to past care awards for individuals who continue to receive support scheme payments will be removed. Secondly, past financial loss will be calculated using whichever of the available methodologies produces the higher award for the claimant.
The intention is to ensure that no claimant is disadvantaged by the structure of the Scheme or by historical assumptions built into its calculations.
Exceptional loss and unrealised potential
The government has accepted that some individuals were prevented from progressing into higher‑earning careers as a result of infection, even where they lack evidence of historic earnings. A new flat‑rate £60,000 supplementary award will be introduced for those who had entered, or had an offer to enter, a higher‑earning career (defined as at least 10% above the national median salary) but were unable to do so because of their illness.
This represents a shift away from strict evidential requirements towards recognition of lost opportunity and career trajectory.
Affected people and impact on childhood
The government’s response introduces targeted uplifts for certain groups of affected people, reflecting evidence that some groups experienced disproportionate and lifelong harm. A 50% uplift to Injury awards will apply to:
- children and siblings affected under the age of 18;
- bereaved parents whose infected child died before the age of 18; and
- bereaved partners.
These uplifts are intended to recognise profound psychological harm whilst maintaining a group‑based, non‑intrusive approach to assessment.
In addition, individuals infected in childhood will receive a separate 50% uplift to their core autonomy award, reflecting loss of potential and long‑term disruption to education and development.
Unethical research
Eligibility for unethical research awards has been significantly widened. Any individual treated for a bleeding disorder in the UK before the end of 1985 will now qualify, without the need to prove participation in a specific research trial. Award values have been increased to:
- £30,000 for adults;
- £45,000 for those treated in childhood; and
- £60,000 for those treated while attending Treloar’s College.
The approach deliberately prioritises accessibility over strict proof, recognising the difficulty of evidencing unethical practices decades later.
What happens next?
The changes outlined in the government’s response will require amendments to the regulations governing the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme and parliamentary approval. Until that process is complete, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will continue to operate under the existing framework, with further guidance promised to explain how revised awards will be applied and, where necessary, recalculated.
Conclusion
The government’s response reflects a significant shift towards a more inclusive and experience‑led compensation model. By reducing evidential burdens, addressing childhood impact and correcting historic anomalies, the Scheme will move closer to the restorative aims articulated by the Inquiry. Whether the changes will deliver timely and effective redress in practice will depend on the speed of implementation and the capacity of the Scheme to reassess existing claims without further delay.
Weightmans acted for NHS Blood and Transplant and the former blood services in their response to the Infected Blood Inquiry.
