What is the infected blood scandal?

The government has confirmed it has set aside £11.8bn to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal.

More than 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.

A public inquiry described the scale of the scandal as “horrifying”, and accused doctors, the government and NHS of repeatedly failing patients.

Two main groups of NHS patients were affected by what has been called the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.

Firstly, haemophiliacs – and those with similar disorders – who have a rare genetic condition which means their blood does not clot properly., external

People with haemophilia A have a shortage of a clotting agent called Factor VIII, while people with haemophilia B do not have enough Factor IX.

In the 1970s, a new treatment using donated human blood plasma was developed to replace these clotting agents.

But whole batches were contaminated with deadly viruses.

After being given the infected treatments, about 1,250 people in the UK with bleeding disorders developed both HIV and hepatitis C, including 380 children.

About two-thirds later died of Aids-related illnesses. Some unintentionally gave HIV to their partners.

Another 2,400 to 5,000 people developed hepatitis C on its own, which can cause cirrhosis and liver cancer.

It is difficult to know the exact number of people infected with hepatitis C, partly because it can take decades for symptoms to appear.

A second group of patients were given contaminated blood transfusions after childbirth, surgery or other medical treatment between 1970 and 1991.

The inquiry estimates between 80 and 100 of these people were infected with HIV, and about 27,000 with hepatitis C.

In total, it is thought about 2,900 people have died.

Announcing its findings in May 2024, the inquiry said victims had been failed “not once, but repeatedly”, and that the risk of viral infections in blood products had been known since 1948.

Inquiry chairman Sir Brian Langstaff said there had been a lack of openness from the authorities and elements of “downright deception”, including the destruction of documents.

He said half-truths were also told, so people did not know about the risk of their treatment, the availability of alternatives, or even whether they were infected.

“This disaster was not an accident,” said Sir Brian. “The infections happened because those in authority – doctors, the blood services and successive governments – did not put patient safety first.”

The report said, external:

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the £11.8bn total compensation figure during the Budget on 30 October.

The government had previously said that the first compensation payments would be made to victims before the end of 2024.

Family members and loved ones of those infected will also be entitled to compensation from 2025.

Payments will be exempt from tax, and will not affect benefits.

The final amounts for individuals are being assessed against five criteria: harm caused, social impact from stigma and isolation, impact on autonomy and private life, care costs and financial loss.

Outlining the compensation scheme after the inquiry reported in May 2024, the then-Conservative government suggested how much people might receive, external:

Annual payments will be available for relatives who had been financially dependent on the loved one who died.

In cases where people who would be entitled to compensation have themselves died, the money will go to their estate.

In late 2022, following advice from the inquiry, the Conservative government made interim payments of £100,000 each to about 4,000 surviving victims and bereaved partners.

In June 2024, a second interim payment of £210,000 was paid to those infected.

In October 2024 the government said more relatives of those who died could also apply for £100,000 interim payments if the money had not already been claimed.

In the 1970s, the UK was struggling to meet the demand for blood-clotting treatments, so imported supplies from the US.

But much of the blood was bought from high-risk donors such as prison inmates and drug-users.

Factor VIII was made by pooling plasma from tens of thousands of donors.

If just one was carrying a virus, the entire batch could be contaminated.

UK blood donations were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991, 18 months after the virus was first identified.

By the mid-1970s, there were repeated warnings that imported US Factor VIII carried a greater risk of infection.

However, attempts to make the UK more self-sufficient in blood products failed, so the NHS continued using foreign supplies.

Campaigners say haemophiliacs could have been offered an alternative treatment called Cryoprecipitate. This was much harder to administer, but was made from the blood plasma of a single donor, lowering the infection risk.

BBC News has also uncovered evidence children were infected with hepatitis C and HIV after being placed on clinical trials of new treatments – often, without their family’s consent.

As late as November 1983, the government insisted there was no “conclusive proof” that HIV could be transmitted in blood, a line robustly defended by former health minister Ken Clarke when he appeared before the inquiry.

Many other countries were affected, although some – including Finland – used older treatments until much later rather than switch to Factor VIII, which minimised HIV infections., external

Delivering the findings of the inquiry, Sir Brian criticised UK government claims in the 1990s that screening for hepatitis C began as soon as the technology was available.

He said that 23 other countries – including Japan, Finland and Spain – introduced the screening before the UK.

In the US, companies that supplied infected products have paid out millions in out-of-court settlements.

Politicians and drug companies have been convicted of negligence in countries including France and Japan.

In his evidence to the inquiry, former health secretary Andy Burnham suggested there may be grounds for charges of corporate manslaughter, external in the UK.