Infected Blood Inquiry: Who is criticised in new report?
An inquiry into the infected blood scandal has pointed the finger at several people and organisations after more than 30,000 patients were “knowingly” infected with HIV or Hepatitis C.
Inquiry chair Sir Brian Langstaff said the “disaster was not an accident” and there was a “catalogue of failures” and a “pervasive” cover-up by the NHS and successive governments.
More than 30,000 Britons were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.
About 3,000 people died as a result, while many more still live under the shadow of health problems, debilitating treatments and stigma.
Follow live: Updates on infected blood report
Speaking after the report was published on Monday following the seven-year inquiry, Sir Brian said: “The damage caused was compounded by the reaction of successive governments, the NHS and the medical profession.
“Successive governments refused to admit responsibility to save face and expense.
“Today’s report also found that the response to the infections made things worse, including repeated failures by governments and the NHS to acknowledge the victims should not have been infected in the first place.”
In the report, he named specific people and institutions in his criticism.
They included:
Lord Clarke
Kenneth Clarke, now a lord, was heavily criticised by Sir Brian.
He was a health minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government from 1982 to 1985, then health secretary from 1988 to 1990.
Ken Clarke was later John Major’s chancellor. Pic: PA
Lord Clarke was accused of being “somewhat blasé” when he gave evidence to the inquiry about the collection of blood from prisoners as late as 1983.
His manner was described as “argumentative”, “unfairly dismissive” and “disparaging” towards those who have suffered, with Sir Brian saying he played “some part” in that suffering.
The report said it was “regrettable that he could not moderate his natural combative style in expressing views”.
Sky News has approached Lord Clarke for comment.
Read more: 100 faces of infected blood scandal
Inquiry chairman Sir Brian Langstaff with victims and campaigners. Pic: PA
The Thatcher government
Margaret Thatcher, as well as subsequent governments and health secretaries, continually said infections were “inadvertent” and patients were given “the best treatment available on the then current medical advice”.
The inquiry report concluded that was not true and said the factual basis for the claim was unclear.
“In short, adopting the line amounted to blindness,” the report said.
“Adopting it without realising it needed to have a proper evidential base, and they did not know what it was, was unacceptable.
“The line, which was wrong from the very outset, then became entrenched for around 20 years: a dogma became a mantra.
“It was enshrined. It was never questioned.”
Margaret Thatcher. Pic: PA
Sir Brian added that the Thatcher government “did not respond appropriately, urgently and proactively” to the risks of Hepatitis C and HIV transmissions through blood.
He said the government knew there was a much higher incidence of Hepatitis in prisoners, yet “no action” was taken to stop blood donations from them, which “increased the risk of transmission”.
The failure lied “principally at the door” of the health departments in Westminster and Scotland, he said.
He said the Thatcher government signed up to recommendations in 1983 from the Council of Europe to inform clinicians and patients about the risks of treatment – yet failed to follow those recommendations.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Infected blood scandal ‘no accident’
Sir Brian described the failure to provide any guidance to doctors about the risk of transmission of AIDS as “inexcusable”.
On compensation, he also said the Thatcher government “plainly formed the view, at an early stage, that nothing had been done wrong, and that no financial assistance would be provided to people with bleeding disorders who had been infected with HIV”.
He added: “It did so without any proper investigation either into what had caused the infections or into the appalling plight of those infected.”
Treloar School
Haemophiliac children were sent to the Hampshire school with an on-site NHS clinic so they could live as near a normal childhood as possible.
Instead, 75 boys died of AIDs and Hepatitis – and 58 were infected but survived – as they were included in secret trials to test a blood product called Factor 8, which was made with blood farmed from prisoners, sex workers and drug addicts in America.
The report said there “is no doubt” the risks of virus transmission were well known to doctors at Treloar School, yet doctors “played down the risks”.
Treloar students from the 1970s and 1980s at the inquiry. Pic: PA
Some pupils and parents were “never informed” by the school the boys had tested positive for HIV, which Sir Brian said “was unconscionable”.
Treloar School was a “microcosm” of much of “what went wrong in the way haemophilia clinicians treated their patients across the UK,” he added.
The school said in a statement: “We are devastated that some of our former pupils were so tragically affected and hope that the findings provide some solace for them and their families.”
It added that its management was “absolutely committed to exploring” calls for a public memorial to those affected, and added: “We’ll now be taking the time to reflect on the report’s wider recommendations.”
Alder Hey Children’s Hospital
The hospital was the main site in Liverpool for children with bleeding disorders from the late 1970s onwards.
Doctors used Factor 8 concentrate containing contaminated blood to treat them, even after other haemophilia centres stopped using them on children, Sir Brian found.
Alder Hey’s director from the mid-1970s, Dr John Martin, “did not regard the risk of Hepatitis as a reason to alter any treatment regime”, the report added.
“He exposed them to wholly unnecessary risks,” it said.
Sky News has approached Alder Hey for comment.
Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool. Pic: PA
Professor Arthur Bloom
Professor Bloom, who died in 1992, was one of the country’s leading haemophiliac specialists during the period and treated some of those who were affected.
Sir Brian Langstaff said he “must bear some of the responsibility for the UK’s slowness in responding to the risks of AIDs to people with haemophilia”.
Prof Bloom said at the time he was unaware of any proof linking infections to the blood products and said there was no need to change patients’ treatment, Sir Brian said.
He added: “Disastrously the Department of Health and Social Security was over-influenced by his advice, in particular his advice to continue importing commercial factor concentrates.”
Professor Arthur Bloom
The NHS
Sir Brian said the response of the NHS and the government showed there was not a major plot to cover up failures “in an orchestrated conspiracy to mislead”.
“But in a way that was more subtle, more pervasive and more chilling in its implications,” he said.
“To save face and to save expense, there has been a hiding of much of the truth.”
He also found patients were knowingly exposed to unacceptable risks of infection, with transfusions frequently given when not clinically needed.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Day of shame for the British state’
The report also said there was no contact tracing exercise carried out when Hepatitis C screenings were introduced.
Sir Brian also said the NHS and governments repeatedly failed to acknowledge people should not have been infected, despite the scandal being known about.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Monday offered a “wholehearted and unequivocal” apology to victims and said it was a “day of shame for the British state”.
He said the findings of the inquiry should “shake our nation to its core” and promised to pay “comprehensive compensation to those infected and those affected.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Labour: ‘There was systemic failure’
The NHS said in a statement on its website: “Since September 1991, all blood donated in the UK is screened using very rigorous safety standards and testing to protect both donors and patients.
“Since screening was introduced, the risk of getting an infection from a blood transfusion or blood products is very low.”
UK
Met Police looks into reports Prince Andrew asked officer to investigate accuser – as William plans ‘ruthless approach’ towards royal
The Metropolitan Police is looking into reports that Prince Andrew asked an officer to help with an attempted smear campaign against the woman who accused him of sexual assault.
Andrew reportedly tried to get his personal protection officer to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against Virginia Giuffre back in 2011, according to the Mail on Sunday.
The Met Police said it was “actively looking into the claims made”.
The prince – who gave up his Duke of York title on Friday – has been approached for comment.
Meanwhile, it has been reported Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Andrew when he is king. The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.
A US lawyer has predicted the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.
Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late Jeffrey Epstein, believes Andrew will not be “let off the hook” over his links to the convicted paedophile.
“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” she told Sky News.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying she “lost her life to suicide”.
Andrew will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.
Asked whether the government had plans to legislate to remove Andrew’s titles, Energy Security Ed Miliband told Sky’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips programme that they would be “guided by the palace” and the Royal Family.
“I think it’s really important as a government minister that we allow the Royal Family to make its decisions on these questions,” he added.
“Prince Andrew has given up these titles by agreement with His Majesty the King and I think that’s, you know, that’s obviously the position.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew urged ‘to come clean’
‘It’s not over’
Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17 – allegations he has always denied.
Her posthumous memoirs, which are released on Tuesday, claim Andrew insisted she sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee.
Read more:
Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince
Lingering dread over what else could still emerge
And earlier this week, emails emerged showing that Andrew remained in contact with Epstein, several months after he said he had stopped contact.
The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.
Ms Allred said: “The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Reports of attempted smear campaign
It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.
He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, the Mail on Sunday reported.
A Met Police spokesperson told Sky News: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”
The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.
The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.
“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”
Ms Giuffre’s family responded, the newspaper said, saying she did not have a criminal record.
Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision
William and Camilla’s influential roles
In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.
“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”
The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.
He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.
Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.
“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.
“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”
Ms Giuffre’s family has urged the King to go further and take away Andrew’s prince title.
Pete Aitken says his daughter Hannah would still be alive if she hadn’t been sent to a series of “failing” mental health hospitals, which made her increasingly unwell.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
Hannah Aitken was 22 when she took her own life two years ago. Her death has left her family in turmoil.
“I think about Hannah every hour of every day, more than once, every hour, every day,” her dad Pete said.
Throughout the family home are photos, candles and purple flowers, Hannah’s favourite colour. Her parents have planted a tree in the garden where her beloved trampoline once stood.
Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah died by suicide in 2023
Hannah had autism and ADHD and struggled with her mental health. In 2017, she was sent to Huntercombe Hospital-Stafford. It was in special measures when she arrived.
Pete says the unit made Hannah worse. “I don’t believe that they gave her any care or treatment there that helped her.”
Over a period of four years, Hannah was sent to six different mental health hospitals. The majority were publicly funded and privately run.
Three were rated by the care regulator, the CQC, either ‘inadequate or ‘requires improvement’. Two of the units were closed down while Hannah was a patient.
“That to me is an indication of how bad the system is, and how bad the care that she received was,” Pete said.
“All they could do was… like prison keep her safe, but not give her any quality of life. They took all that away from her.”
‘I don’t believe that they gave her any care’, Pete says
Over the years, Sky News has investigated failings within the mental health system, including the Huntercombe Group, which ran a number of hospitals.
Hannah emailed Sky News in 2023 following one of our reports to share her story.
She wrote: “I will never forget what I was put through… I put up with so much and it’s only now I realised it wasn’t right, for years I blamed myself.”
Hannah never fully recovered from her hospital admissions. In September 2023, she took a fatal dose of poison, which she had bought online.
Her family are now campaigning for a change in the law governing poisons.
Family photos of Hannah Aitken, who died in 2023
Her dad said: “One gram of this poison is lethal. We found out from Hannah’s inquest she ordered a kilogramme of 99.6% purity.
“There is a legitimate use for it, but we understand that the concentration for that is something like less than 1%.”
Hannah’s death once again raises questions about why the NHS outsources mental health services to failing private providers.
Read more from Laura Bundock:
Warning of six million new cancer cases – with these areas worst hit
Hospital accused of ‘covering up’ concerns about suspended surgeon
An NHS England spokesperson said: “Our thoughts are with Hannah’s family at this incredibly difficult time.
“The NHS has repeatedly made clear that all services must provide safe, high-quality care, irrespective of whether they are NHS or independent sector-led, and we continue to work closely with the CQC to monitor, identify and take appropriate action where it is needed.”
Elli Investments Group, the owners of The Huntercombe Group until 2021, has said they regret that these hospitals, which were independently managed, failed to meet expectations
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
UK
Prince William plans ‘ruthless approach’ towards Prince Andrew, as lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims predicts further leaks
Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Prince Andrew when he is king, according to reports, as a US lawyer predicts the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.
The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.
It comes amid reports that Andrew tried to get the Metropolitan Police to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against his sexual assault accuser Virginia Giuffre back in 2011.
Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, believes he will not be “let off the hook”.
“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” the US lawyer told Sky News.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying said she “lost her life to suicide”.
She alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, allegations he has always denied.
“The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out,” Ms Allred added.
Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoirs, which are released on Tuesday, claim Andrew insisted she sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee.
And earlier this week, emails emerged showing that Andrew remained in contact with Epstein, several months after he said he had stopped contact.
The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Reports of attempted smear campaign
It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.
He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, according to the Mail on Sunday.
Sky News has contacted the Met for comment. A spokesperson for the force told the PA news agency: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”
The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.
The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.
“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”
Ms Giuffre’s family responded, saying she did not have a criminal record, the newspaper said.
Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision
William and Camilla’s influential roles
In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.
“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”
The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.
He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.
Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.
“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.
“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024