Fiona Lamdin & Chris Locker
BBC News, West of England

A grieving mother says the long-awaited blood inquiry report has made her feel "numb".

Lee Turton, the son of Denise and Colin Turton from Nailsea, Somerset, died in 1992 when he was 10 after being infected with HIV at the age of two.

His mum, Denise, tells the BBC: "They took his life. He shouldn't have been infected, he shouldn't have been on that treatment, he should be here, and this shouldn't be happening."

She says seeing the report written down did not help, and may have made the situation worse.

For the last hour or so Sir Brian Langstaff spoke about the findings of his five-year public inquiry into the infected blood scandal.

Let's quickly recap some of the key takeaways from his speech:

• Langstaff said the contaminated blood disaster is "no accident" and people who put their trust in doctors and the government were "betrayed" over many decades
• Most infections contracted via contaminated blood "would have been prevented if patient safety had been paramount throughout"
• "Children witnessed the decline and death of one, sometimes both, parents and their lives were irrevocably altered as a result," he told an auditorium
• Successive governments and the NHS compounded victims' suffering by refusing to accept that wrong had been done

• "Risks of hepatitis were freely admitted by the makers," the inquiry report's author said as he concluded the UK was wrong to decide to license these products in 1973 and in later decisions in the 1970s to grant further licences for similar US products were also wrong
• The government was "unconscionably slow" in reacting to emerging knowledge that blood products could lead to aids

• He "fully expects" the government to apologise, but says it needs to set out what the apology is for and provide vindication for those affected

"Another damaging failure to hold a public inquiry when one is clearly merited must be avoided," Sir Brian Langstaff says.

He concludes his speech by thanking everyone at the venue and those watching remotely.

He says that the "sheer numbers" present pay testament to the importance of the issues that the inquiry has considered.

"Too many have died," he says to a round of applause.

"Imagine the difference it would have made if this inquiry had been held 30 years ago."

He finishes saying now is the time for national recognition of the disaster, proper compensation and vindication for all those who have been wronged.

Langstaff is now setting out key lessons to be learned from the inquiry.

Firstly, patient safety "must be the guiding principle", he says. He adds that many infections would have been prevented if patient safety had been paramount throughout.

Risk is another lesson - which was poorly understood, with the wrong questions asked and answered.

"The public should be trusted with the truth," he adds.

As for what else happens next, he "fully expects" the government to make an apology.

For it to be meaningful it needs to explain what the apology is for, he says.

Affected citizens' trauma "has been compounded about a lack of recognition about what happened to them and a lack of accountability", Sir Brian Langstaff says.

Three lines were repeatedly deployed by successive government, he continues to list:

• That people had the best available treatment
• That infections were inadvertent
• That screening Hepatitis C could not have been introduced earlier than September 1991

"All of those claims were untrue," he says to applause from the auditorium.

Then Langstaff says an "incomplete and misleading picture" was published in the early 2000s after a minister sought an investigation as she doubted what civil servants were telling her.

"Documents thought to assist those seeking compensation went missing," he adds.

"In the case of some documents it is not possible to know how and why they went missing. In others I have concluded they were destroyed in attempt to make the truth more difficult to reveal."

He pauses for more applause.

Langstaff says that very early on in the inquiry it became clear that most people were not given enough information about risks to give their informed consent.

He adds that they weren't given information about alternative treatments.

He lists a number of failures including the failure of clinicians to tell people of the risks of infection from blood or blood products, to tell them of alternative treatments.

"These failures were widespread."

Earlier, Langstaff said that blood donors should have been better selected.

"For instance, in 1975 the chief medical officer for England said the practice of collecting blood in prisons could continue even though prisoners were known to have higher numbers of hepatitis infections - and this practice was not ended in the UK until 1984."

Langstaff says 1,250 people with breathing disorders were also infected with HIV - nearly a third of those were children.

"Three quarters of those with HIV have died," Langstaff adds as he says the number of people in the auditorium just now represent the number of those infected.

"Now picture only a quarter of you here," he continues.

He says responses to concerns in the 1980s - noting an HIV epidemic in the US making its way to the UK through blood transported products - consisted of "denials, disbelief and delay".

"The government's response was unconscionably slow," he adds.

Langstaffsays in May 1983 the Mail on Sunday put "Hospitals using killer blood" - as he notes heavy criticism of the influence and actions of Cardiff-based haematologist Prof Arthur Bloom.

Langstaff refers to the government's claim that screening for hepatitis C began as soon as the technology was available.

In doing so, he says, it ignored all the countries that introduced screening before the UK. This amounts to 23 countries in total - including Japan, Finland and Spain.

He adds that "you might have thought" that as soon as a screening test was introduced donors who were infected and might not have realised would have been identified and told.

It took around four years for a general look back and it followed one transfusion director in Scotland who arranged a look back in his area - Sir Brian praises his work.

More from Sir Brian Langstaff who continues to recap his report and says successive governments and the NHS compounded victims' suffering.

"More than that, the government repeatedly maintained that people received the best available treatment and that testing of blood donations began as soon as the technology was available," he says.

"And both claims were untrue."

Langstaff insists the inquiry's mission to prevent similar scandals is not only about "taking steps to meet any threat of a future infection carried by blood, blood products or tissue, but to ensure as far as we can that government responds to the citizens it serves, how shall I put this, more appropriately".

Langstaff continues to speak, underlining that the inquiry is not just investigating something that has happened in the past but something that is still happening now.

He describes victims early on as being shunned or even abused "by neighbours, workmates, by people they had once thought of as friends. Sometimes by health professionals".

"People still have to care for the after-effects of what happened which their loved ones still suffer. The grief and trauma which all of those who lost loved ones experienced continues to this day."

He adds that early treatments for both HIV and Hepatitis C caused lingering side effects and "were often worse than the illnesses themselves".

Of the victims, he says "every aspect of their lives" has been defined by the infections.

"This disaster was not an accident," Sir Brian Langstaff has said to a round of applause.

"People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed."

He adds that there are generally two elements to a public inquiry - backward looking and considering why, and forward looking.

This inquiry, he says, has a third element - the response of the government and others in authority.

"Here the NHS and successive governments compounded the agony by refusing to accept that wrong had been done.

"The government repeatedly maintained that people received the best available treatment and that testing of blood donations began as soon as the technology was available.

"Both claims were untrue."

There is a huge round of applause for the report's author Sir Brian Langstaff as he gets up to speak in front of an auditorium in central London.

He says his full report was handed to the Cabinet Office at 07:00 as he says it is now his role to present it to the wider public.

Sir Brian says: "The wider public who have had no connection to this inquiry before. Seven volumes, there is quite a lot of detail in it."

The number of those dying is climbing "week by week", Sir Brian says.

He adds: "The harm that was done to people cannot adequately be put into words, I have tried.

"But parents watched their children suffer and, in many cases, die. "Children witnessed the decline and death of one, sometimes both, parents and their lives were irrevocably altered as a result.

"People had to care for their grievously ill partners or other family members, often at the expense of their own health and careers."

Rajini Vaidynathan
Reporting from Methodist Central Hall in Westminster

Outside the inquiry family members clapped as the report was made public. Several stood outside the Methodist Central Hall in London, holding a banner with the faces of their beloved who died.

Today’s report might provide some relief after years of a search for answers, but it won’t bring back their relatives who died due to failures highlighted in today’s report. Their deaths, it said, could have been avoided.

Image source, Getty Images

Scottish Public Health Minister Jenni Minto has apologised to the victims.

In a statement, Minto says: "On behalf of the Scottish government, I reiterate our sincere apology to those who have been infected or affected by NHS blood or blood products.

"The Scottish government has already accepted the moral case for compensation for infected blood victims and is committed to working with the UK government to ensure any compensation scheme works as well as possible for victims."

She adds that the government has set up an oversight group, including senior staff from NHS boards and charities representing those affected, to "consider the inquiry's recommendations for Scotland".

The news conference has now wrapped up.

Before it ended, a reporter asked how the governments needed to work together to co-ordinate a response to the inquiry.

Joyce Donnelly said the Scottish government launched the Scottish Infected Blood Support Scheme, which is a "godsend" to victims of the scandal.

"Where we go from there with the devolved government, I would hesitate to guess," she added.

The people who use the scheme "couldn't get insurance, or a mortgage, this has given them something that needs to be sustained for their mental welfare as well has their physical welfare," she said.

Nigel Hamilton then said a health committee in Northern Ireland wants to work in partnership with victims.

"We want to see the continuation of commitment to victims that Robin Swann has shown," he added.

Lynne Kelly said that in Wales "we don't know what the government will do with report recommendations on compensations and that will give us sleepless nights".

Next Lynne Kelly is asked how she feels and if this is the moment for criminal charges.

She says she has had "limited viewing" of the report - having been on a coach for four hours.

"Now learning this could have been avoided when we were told it was unavoidable, that troubles people," she adds.

Kelly says there are still unclear details about the compensation which she says is expected to be announced tomorrow.

The difficulty now is inquiry chairman's Sir Brian Langstaff's rules may be overruled by the government or ignored, Kelly adds.

Jackie Britton adds the government has a "duty of care towards us" saying "they've given us death sentences".

Image source, Pool

Joyce Donnelly, representing the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, calls attention to the fact that recommendations made in Scotland made 20 years ago by Lord Ross were never carried through.

Now though, she hopes they will be "carried through to the letter".

She says people are still waiting for things to be put right although some have already died.

Nigel Hamilton, Chairman of Haemophilia Northern Ireland, has lost family members including his twin as well as two friends.

He describes the production of the report as healing and supportive.

Hamilton says compensation will be paid but that it is neither an answer to problems, nor a solution.

For him, the report indicates successive governments are culpable of neglect and abandonment.

The Northern Ireland report suggests their government followed suit. NI government had two problems - security and lack of a consistent government, he adds.

He says a culture change, candour and transparency are required moving forward.

Jackie Britton, representing BloodLoss Families says "the knowledge was out there, but our government ignored it and couldn't be bothered with it".

Asked what the report means to her, she says "this blatantly in black and white says they had no excuses" not to address it earlier on.

Image source, Pool

We're hearing more from another news conference - speaking are Jackie Britton from BloodLoss Families, Lynne Kelly from Haemophilia Wales, Nigel Hamilton from Haemophilia Northern Ireland, Joyce Donnelly from Scottish Infected Blood Forum and John Dearden from Haemophilia Scotland.

Kelly starts by saying it is a "very thorough" report and from her point of view her main concern from Wales is what the government will do with the recommendations.

She notes a lot of criticism within the report and says it appears Wales "mirrored" what was happening in the UK.

We'll bring you more from this news conference here, or you can watch live by pressing Play at the top of this page.