At a glance: Infected blood inquiry's key findings

Victims have been campaigning for compensation for years.

A damning report into the infected blood scandal has found the infection of 30,000 people with HIV and hepatitis between 1970 and 1991 could have been largely avoided.

Around 3,000 people have since died after receiving contaminated blood from the health service, with the report by Sir Brian Langstaff concluding that doctors, bodies including the NHS, and governments  had "repeatedly" failed victims.

The report listed a "catalogue of failures" which amounted to a "calamity".

Here are some key findings:

Patients exposed to 'unacceptable risks'

Despite authorities knowing the risks of transmitting viral infections in blood and blood products, they continued to be administered to patients for years.

The report finds that this left them exposed to "unacceptable risks".

Here's a list of some of them:

• Too little was done to stop importing blood products from abroad, which used blood from high-risk donors such as prisoners and drug addicts

• In the UK, blood donations were accepted from high-risk groups such as prisoners until 1986

• It took until the end of 1985 to heat-treat blood products to eliminate HIV, although the risks were known in 1982

• There was too little testing to reduce the risk of hepatitis, from the 1970s onwards

The scandal was 'not an accident'

The report says various bodies hid the truth, detailing how:

• There had been a lack of openness, inquiry, accountability and elements of "downright deception", including destroying documents

• But "hiding the truth" included not only deliberate concealment but telling half-truths or not telling people what they had had a right to know

• These included the risks of treatment they had received, what alternatives had been available and, at times, even the fact they had been infected

Sir Brian concludes that the scandal was "not an accident".

"The infections happened because those in authority - doctors, the blood services and successive governments - did not put patient safety first."

The response of the authorities "compounded people's suffering", he adds.

Could anything have been done differently?

• Patients should have been informed about the risks of their treatment, the report finds

• The lack of information meant that people were not aware of how likely they were to be exposed to infections

• Successive governments often said that patients received the best medical treatment available at the time, and that blood screening was introduced at the earliest opportunity. The report concludes that neither of these claims were true

• The government's decision not to suspend the importation of commercial blood products in July 1983, despite it being apparent that the cause of Aids could be transmitted by blood, was wrong, Sir Brian says

• In addition, UK blood services are accused of not being rigorous enough in their screening of blood donors

Who has been criticised?

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her government were singled out for criticism in the report, notably for rebuffing calls for compensation with "wrong" claims about victims being given "the best treatment available".

The combative style of former Health Minister Ken Clarke, who is now a Lord, was also criticised by Sir Brian.

The views of haemophiliac specialist Prof Arthur Bloom were found to have "overly influenced" the way the government viewed the emergence of Aids and played down the threat to people with bleeding disorders.

The NHS, Alder Hey, Birmingham Children's Hospital and Treloar School were also condemned by the inquiry.

How has the scandal affected people?

"Lives, dreams, friendships, families and finances were destroyed" as a result of the "life-shattering" scandal, Sir Brian says.

"People infected and affected have told powerful stories of pain, sickness and loss, of lives damaged and destroyed, unrecognisable from before their infection and unrecognisable from all their hopes and dreams for their lives."

Sir Brian branded government "cruel" for falsely telling people they had received the best medical care.

Will victims be compensated?

The report has made recommendations on how people can be compensated.

Those who have been infected have received annual financial support from the government. However, a final compensation deal has not been agreed.

Later on Monday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised to pay "comprehensive compensation" to those affected and infected.

He added the details would be set out on Tuesday.