Blood scandal highlights decades of struggle by victims’ families for partial resolution of grievance

Institutional resistance to transparency is as strong as ever but campaign groups have already proved at the Infected Blood inquiry that persistence can prevail

Former health secretary Ken Clarke maintains that he was not responsible for blood supplies (PA)

Some 3,000 people died as a result of the British National Health Service Blood Transfusion Service administering blood contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C during the 1970s and 1980s. Of its nature, many haemophiliacs and others are still suffering poor health and premature death as a result of what happens to them under the care of the NHS, which they had a right to expect would treat them properly. Yet they were treated with products derived from blood imported from, among others, high-risk prisoners in the United States.

It has been described as the worst treatment scandal in the history of the NHS, and there seems no reason to doubt it; but even that understates the scale of the injustice. Families and victims have fought long for the independent inquiry now underway as they seek to learn the truth and make those responsible accountable for their decisions. It is being led by Sir Brian Langstaff, a high court judge, and began in 2018 – more than three decades later. The latest to give evidence is Lord Clarke of Nottingham, better known as the veteran politician Ken Clarke, and a health minister (1982-85) and health secretary (1988-90), during the scandal and its aftermath. Clarke maintains that he was not the minister directly responsible for blood supplies. One focus of the inquiry is to find out whether ministers or officials were aware that, for example, the blood clotting products in question were being used on haemophiliacs even when officials knew of the risk of contamination and the then Thatcher government’s line was that there was “no conclusive evidence” that HIV/Aids was transmitted via blood transfusion, a piece of soon with fatal consequences for some, and life-changing experiences for others.

The phone hacking inquiry into the abuses of the press also provides a cautionary note that recommendations, even if accepted by government, can be ignored