Corporate report

Cabinet Office quarterly feedback report: April-June 2026

Published 20 July 2026

This was published under the 2024 to 2026 Starmer Labour government

Introduction 

On 14 April 2026, the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) and the Cabinet Office were launching a new route to raise concerns about the design and delivery of the compensation scheme. This new route is in response to the Infected Blood Inquiry’s Additional Report Recommendation 2(e). 

Between 14 April and 31 May 2026, the Cabinet Office received 104 items for consideration. All of these related to the design of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. 18 of these items came through the new feedback mailbox. 

Everyone who raised a concern received an individual response. The Cabinet Office team then triaged the issues raised according to the following criteria: 

• Issues that were new to the Cabinet Office team (i.e. they have not been considered before, for example as part of the recent Government consultation); or 
• The same/similar concerns raised by a significant number of people.

The issues that met these criteria were then reviewed by the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the compensation scheme. Looking at each issue, the SRO made an assessment of whether a change to the scheme should be recommended to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, as a result of the feedback received. This report sets out the issues for which such an assessment has been made. It then explains whether or not the SRO has decided that a change should be recommended, as a result of the assessment process.  

Following this process, the Chair of the Cabinet Office Audit Committee provided assurance that an appropriate process has been followed. The Chair looked at the assessment of the community’s concerns against the criteria set out above, and the assessment of whether or not further escalation of an issue is recommended. 

The issues included in this report do not represent the full range of feedback that has been shared with the Cabinet Office over time. The report summarises the feedback received during the timescale stated above, according to the criteria above. Any feedback received after 31 May will be considered as part of the next quarterly report. 

If you have any feedback on how we can improve this report, please get in touch through the new mailbox, feedbackandconcerns@ibca.org.uk, using the title ‘Quarterly Report Feedback’. This feedback will be reviewed by the Chair of the Cabinet Office Audit Committee. 

Any feedback that relates to compensation delivery has been passed on to IBCA to consider and respond to. You can read IBCA’s quarterly report, which summarises the feedback received and what actions IBCA are taking as a result, here: Community feedback themes: (April - June 2026). IBCA discussed the issues raised with them at their Public Board meeting on 7 July. 

We are aware of two issues raised in IBCA’s report that are about the compensation scheme, rather than compensation delivery. These will be considered by the Cabinet Office in the next quarterly report, which we expect to be published in Autumn 2026. 

New issues raised and Cabinet Office responses

The following concerns were given further consideration because they are new: 

1. Concerns that the most recent changes to the compensation scheme will affect claimants’ previous decisions to take monthly or lump sum options. 

A new concern has been raised that the proposed changes to the compensation scheme, outlined in the Government response to the consultation, might change the amount of compensation a claimant is owed, and might affect those who had already decided how they wanted to receive their compensation, i.e. through periodic payments or in a lump sum. 

An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

• Claimants can receive their compensation as a single payment (lump sum), or regular, periodic payments over a period of 5, 10 or 25 years. 
• Additionally, where an infected person was registered with an Infected Blood Support Scheme (IBSS) before 1 April 2025, they can choose to continue to receive Support Scheme payments for life, in addition to their core award, which can be taken as a single or regular payment. This is the ‘IBSS route’. A bereaved partner of an IBSS registered infected person, who passed away before receiving their compensation, can also register with an IBSS to receive support scheme payments.
• As a result of feedback from the community, a change was made to Regulation 12 of the third regulations (which came into force in December 2025), which gave claimants a new ability to switch between from IBSS payments to a core award, and from periodic payments to a lump sum payment, after receiving their compensation from IBCA. You can read more about this change here: Infected Blood Support Scheme (IBSS) Payments. 
• The change made to Regulation 12 is unaffected by the most recent changes to the compensation scheme and the option remains available to claimants. This means that if the most recent changes to the compensation scheme change the overall amount of compensation that a person will receive, and this change in amount leads them to make a different decision on how they want to receive their compensation they will still be able to switch from IBSS payments or periodic payments to a lump sum, if they wish to do so. 
• The regulation does not allow someone who initially opted to receive their compensation as a lump sum payment to reverse this decision, and receive periodic payments instead, or to restart their support scheme payments. 
• For this to work, a claimant would need to return their lump sum compensation back to IBCA after payment, for IBCA to then administer it back to them over time through periodic payments, or for IBCA to then recalculate what ongoing support scheme payments should be as part of the adjusted route. The option to do this was not part of the community feedback that led us to make a change to Regulation 12 in 2025.
• It may be the case that some people who chose to keep receiving support scheme payments will have increased awards, as a result of the recent changes to the scheme. This is because of changes to how their past Financial Loss and past Care awards are calculated. These changes only affect the awards of those people who continue to receive support scheme payments. These changes were recommended by the Infected Blood Inquiry. 
• It is worth noting that no one is expected to receive less compensation as a result of the changes announced in the Government response to the consultation. 

The SRO has made an assessment of whether a change to the scheme should be recommended as a result of this feedback. For the reasons stated above, the SRO has decided not to recommend a change.

Issues related to the recent consultation on changes to the infected blood compensation scheme

Some concerns were raised that related to policy decisions outlined in the Government response to the consultation on changes to the compensation scheme, which can be found here: Consultation: Proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. The Cabinet Office ran this consultation between October 2025 and January 2026. The consultation was informed by the recommendations from the Inquiry’s Additional Report, and received 753 responses in total. 

The Technical Expert Group (TEG) convened a series of virtual roundtables to help inform their advice to the Government on changes to the scheme. The TEG’s final report of its advice to the Government, meeting minutes, summaries of roundtable discussions and summaries of written responses to the roundtables are here: Technical Expert Group report. 

The Government carefully considered every concern raised through the public consultation.

To explain the the policies in the Government response to the consultation, we have updated the following documents: 

• The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme explainer
• The scheme overviews and case study calculations

The following feedback relating to the recent consultation was given further consideration through the feedback mechanism. 

2. The eligibility requirements and amount of compensation awarded for the unethical research award 

Concerns were raised about the cut-off date, and the value of the unethical research award. 

The Government recently consulted on the compensation for victims of Unethical Research, and set out its position in the response to the consultation. For this reason, the SRO has therefore decided not to recommend a change to the scheme in this area. An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

Unethical Research Award eligibility 

• In light of the feedback from respondents to the consultation, we are updating the scheme so that anyone who received treatment for a bleeding disorder in the UK before 1986 will now be eligible for additional compensation through the Unethical Research award. 
• Evidence from the Inquiry has shown that 1985 was a major period of transition for bleeding disorder treatment. During this time, doctors were transitioning from older blood products to newer, safer heat-treated versions. Because both types were being used at the same time, some doctors may have compared the results of the two products on their patients without asking for permission. Since some specialists continued using the older products well into 1985, extending the date ensures that no one who might have been part of these comparisons is missed.

Award amounts

• In response to the public consultation, we announced that we are introducing a new unethical research award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood before 1986, at a flat-rate of £45,000. Additionally, we are tripling the award for those treated in adulthood to £30,000 for the general award, and increasing the award for those who attended Treloar’s School to £60,000.
• To do this the Government considered consultation responses and how a court would generally approach cases like these, within the framework of a tariff-based scheme. We have had particular regard to the higher end estimates of what a court would award in similar circumstances. 
• This award is part of a wider package of compensation. The Government recognises that no amount of compensation will ever truly rectify the wrongs done to those impacted.
• The Cabinet Office has published a readout of its meeting with the recognised legal representatives, relating to compensation for Exceptional Financial Loss and compensation for victims of Unethical Research. 

3. The long-term side effects of interferon treatment

Concerns were raised about the Technical Expert Group’s (TEG) conclusion that it could not say that most people who received interferon treatment were likely to suffer side effects lasting beyond two years. 

The recent Government consultation asked respondents whether they thought there were long-term side effects of interferon treatment not fully covered by the proposed Severe Health Condition award. The TEG also held a roundtable focused on the implementation of the Inquiry’s recommendation in relation to recognising harm caused by interferon treatment. The TEG advised that assuming a two year period of symptoms linked to interferon treatment would be appropriate for the majority of people. 

The Government has recently consulted on this issue, and the SRO has therefore decided not to recommend a change to the Minister. An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

• The TEG’s advice to the Government was based on clinical evidence about the side effects that the majority of people treated with interferon experience. While the TEG acknowledged that some people may have experienced side effects lasting longer than two years, the group concluded that there was insufficient clinical evidence to say this was the experience of most people.
• The TEG advised that where people do experience longer term impacts of interferon treatment, the scheme should compensate for the impact on a person’s life. That is why, if someone has experienced long-term impacts following interferon treatment that have impacted their ability to work or their need for care, they may be eligible for additional compensation through the Special Category Mechanism aspect of the Severe Health Condition award. Separately, if someone has experienced a Hepatitis-associated disorder due to or worsened by interferon treatment (such as coombs positive haemolytic anaemia, idiopathic fibrosing alveolitis of the lung or rheumatoid arthritis), they can also apply for additional supplementary compensation. 

4. Recognition of bereaved parents whose children died aged 18 or over 

Some community members called for the affected supplementary award to be extended to parents of children who died aged 18 or over. 

The recent Government consultation sought views on a potential group-based supplementary route (that is, giving additional compensation to defined groups of eligible people). The decisions made on this award were based directly on what the Government heard in the consultation, and the advice of the TEG, who agreed with the consultation respondents that there was a case for increased awards for some groups of affected people who had faced significant distress. The SRO therefore decided not to recommend a change to the scheme in this area. An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

• The pain experienced by any parent who has lost a child to this tragedy is profound and lifelong. The Government recognises that the grief of a parent is not defined by the age of the child they have lost.
• The new 50% uplift to the core Injury award for parents of children that passed away under the age of 18 is intended to recognise the very specific, additional trauma associated with the loss of a child during their formative years. By using a clear age-based threshold the Government can provide this extra compensation, honouring the clear preference expressed in the consultation for an award that avoids intrusive individual assessments or the requirement for new clinical evidence.
• For bereaved parents who do not qualify for this specific uplift, the scheme recognises the tragedy of losing a close family member to infected blood through the core Injury award which is increased for immediate family members in cases where the infection is likely to have contributed, or will contribute, to the early death of an infected person. 

5. Concerns about the decision on historic suicide as evidence for severe psychological harm 

Some members of the community expressed concerns about the paragraph referring to whether records of suicide could be used for the Severe Health Condition award for Severe Psychiatric Disorders in the Government response to the consultation. 

The Cabinet Office understands the concerns that have been raised. The TEG carefully considered this profoundly emotive issue, including reviewing all of the evidence heard through the consultation and roundtables before coming to a decision. The Government’s position was determined only after a thorough review of the responses gathered through the public consultation and the TEG’s community engagement. In light of this, the SRO decided not to recommend a change to the scheme to the Minister. An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

• The TEG’s advice was guided by clinical psychologists and psychiatric experts within the group. Their priority was to avoid a evidence requirements that forced bereaved families into an invasive and potentially retraumatising process of having to “prove” a specific causal link between an infection and a suicide. Imposing such a requirement would place an unconscionable and egregious burden on families who have already endured decades of profound mental suffering.
• The safeguarding considerations raised in the response were not intended as a comment on the integrity of any individuals nor the wider infected blood community. Rather, the intention was to explain that when designing any compensation scheme, the Government must ensure that no mechanism or award criteria inadvertently creates a risk to potentially vulnerable people.

Issues that have been previously considered by the Cabinet Office 

A number of concerns were raised that have previously been considered by the Minister for the Cabinet Office over recent years.

6. The difference between the amount of compensation awarded to living and deceased infected people

Concerns were raised about a perceived discrepancy between the way the scheme treats compensation claims from living infected people and the estates of infected people.

During the development of the scheme the Government has considered different ways of calculating the awards for both living claimants and claims on the behalf of estates. 

The Infected Blood Inquiry did not recommend a change to financial loss calculations in their Additional Report on Compensation, and the consultation therefore did not include a specific proposal on this part of the scheme. Some respondents to the consultation raised issues relating to estates - and to the compensation awards for people infected in childhood - in their answers, and these responses were carefully considered. 

The Government is of the view that the scheme compensates both living and deceased infected people and their loved ones for their financial loss as a result of the infection fairly in a way that enables compensation to be paid more swiftly. The SRO therefore decided not to recommend a change to the scheme in this area. An explanation of the policy is as follows: 

• The Government acknowledges the pain and difficulty experienced by those who have lost someone to infected blood. Injury awards for infected people are higher where the severity of a person’s infection means that the infection has caused an early death, or is expected to in the future. 
• For the awards to infected people, we recognise that financial loss awards may be lower for awards to estates, because future financial losses for estate claims are paid to the infected person’s dependents, rather than to the estate. There is no limit to the number of dependents.
• For eligible affected people who were dependent on the infected person, and who can therefore be assumed to have been left financially worse off by the deceased person’s death as a result of their infection, they receive a dependency payment starting from the year after the person dies, up until their healthy life expectancy (which is again calculated by use of the Ogden Tables). 
• Some members of the community have suggested that financial loss should be calculated to someone’s healthy life expectancy rather than to the date of their death. If the scheme worked this way, no affected person would receive a dependency payment as part of their own award. To provide dependency payments to affected people and financial loss to healthy life expectancy through the estate claim would be compensating twice for the same impact. This would mean that only those people who are beneficiaries of the will, or inherit through the rules of intestacy, would receive compensation in respect of the financial dependency they had on the infected person at their death. In this scenario, if those who were dependent on the infected person were not beneficiaries of their will, they might not receive any or enough compensation to reflect that dependency. It is possible that if financial loss was calculated in this way, some dependents would therefore receive less than they are eligible to receive now. 

7. Recognition of carers in the compensation scheme, and concerns about the care award reaching those who provided care

Concerns were raised about the recognition of carers in the compensation scheme, and about the fact when an infected person has sadly passed away, the care award is paid to the estate of the deceased infected person, according to their will, rather than being paid directly to those who provided the care. 

The Cabinet Office has previously considered this issue in great detail. The decision to pay compensation owed to a deceased infected person to that person’s estate directly follows Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. It ensures that the compensation belongs to the infected individual legally, respecting their will or the standard rules of intestacy. The SRO decided not to recommend a change to the scheme to the Minister. An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

• There are a few reasons why the care award is not paid directly to those who provided care. 
• When an infected person has sadly died, it could be very difficult for IBCA to determine who had provided their care. To ask affected people for evidence would cause delays to compensation. In this case, IBCA may also have to mediate disputes between multiple affected people who provided care, which could further delay compensation being paid. 
• It is an important and longstanding principle of the compensation scheme that each claim should stand ‘on its own right’ and not be affected by the compensation that someone else receives. If the care award was paid directly to those who provided care, the final monetary value of an affected person’s compensation award could be affected by decisions made about another affected person’s claim.
• In circumstances where a deceased person does not have a will then statutory rules set out who should inherit. It is not for the Government to intervene in the wishes of the deceased person or take away control from the infected person.
• Family members who experienced shared harm receive their own affected awards directly. These are entirely separate from the infected person’s estate and are paid directly to the affected person.
• If someone provided care to an infected person, and isn’t otherwise eligible for compensation in relation to that person (for example, as their sibling or parent), they may be eligible for compensation as an affected carer. 

8. How inflation is recognised or applied to compensation payments

Some community members asked whether compensation payments can be increased in line with inflation for those who will receive compensation later than others.

The Cabinet Office has previously considered this issue in great detail, and determined that consistently uprating compensation packages in line with CPI would not be consistent with a tariff-based approach to the scheme. In light of this, the SRO decided not to recommend a change to the scheme in this area. The Government acknowledges the limitations in how far a tariff based scheme can reflect the individualised circumstances of every applicant but believes that the benefits offered by a tariff based scheme to offer certainty on awards and swift assessment of compensation outweigh these limitations. An explanation of the Government’s policy is as follows: 

• Under the compensation scheme, inflation is recognised and applied to monthly support payments. Only those already in receipt of monthly support payments from an IBSS can continue to receive these as part of their compensation package. These payments under IBSS are already adjusted for inflation each year, given the payments are set-up to be paid for the duration of an individual’s life rather than as a single lump-sum payment.
• Individuals applying for compensation from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) have the choice between receiving their award as a single lump sum payment, or as a series of periodic payments. The compensation scheme indexes all future periodic payments to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to ensure that these payments hold value against inflation and provide parity between applicants that choose a lump sum or periodic payments. 
• Some community members also asked what consideration is being given to adding interest to compensation payments. The scheme does not pay interest on awards for historic losses as the awards have been designed according to 2023/24 rates. For example, care awards are calculated using 2024 UK commercial care rates. Using historic rates would have made these awards considerably lower.
• The Government’s priority is to deliver compensation as efficiently as possible.