Infected Blood Inquiry: Ilkley-based chair of the Haemophilia Society has say on Sir Brian Langstaff's report

“Yet again, we’ve got to this stage and it just feels like we can never rest on our laurels,” says Clive Smith, chairman of the Haemophilia Society, who lives in Ilkley, West Yorkshire.

“We can never just pause and take stock. There's always another battle. Somebody described it yesterday and said it's like getting to the top of the mountain and then the mist starts to clear and you realise that there's another mountain in front of you that you didn't realise you still had to climb, and that's what it feels like with Tuesday and Wednesday, really.”

Nevertheless, Mr Smith describes the release of the final Infected Blood Inquiry report on Monday as a moment of “significant recognition”.

He said: “It was surreal in a way because I don't think many people had even dared to dream that day would ever come and then really consider what it looked like, and then you find yourself, I think, in the days and the couple of weeks leading up to it just so absorbed by the preparation for it that, again, you don't really have time to stop and really reflect on the enormity of where we've got to. But I think all of that will slowly sink in in the days, weeks and months to come.”

Not only was the moment so long-awaited but the inquiry chairman, Sir Brian Langstaff, went further than what campaigners believed.

Mr Smith said: “Having that recognition is really important for people who've lived these lives away from the camera in private, in secret largely as well. To have that acknowledgement and recognition has been incredibly powerful.

“I've not heard a single criticism of a word said by Sir Brian Langstaff. It's incredible. He's gone further than I think many people thought. And so if I give you an example: so if you compare it to Ireland when they had their public inquiry back in the 90s, in terms of paying compensation, people who were infected with HIV from January 1985 onwards received the higher payment because of the state of knowledge in relation to the risks of HIV. And so in all of it, there have been shades of grey in terms of what you're infected with, when you were infected, whether you need atreatment, all those sorts of things. But Sir Brian, in his findings has just been - as you'd imagine from a former high court judge - he's just been clinical and forensic in a sense that he said categorically that in 1973, the United Kingdom should just never have licensed these products. And that's a huge finding. Not that they should have been licensed and they should have been kept under review or when the state of knowledge changed later in the 70s when AIDs started to emerge, he's just said they should never have been licensed.”

The clarity of Sir Brian’s conclusions has impressed Mr Smith and campaigners.

For example, in the report the inquiry chairman writes: “Research into viral inactivation to protect recipients of blood products should have been encouraged, and funded adequately, by government no later than the mid 1970s. If this had happened, it is reasonable to conclude that a heat-treated product likely to reduce the risk of hepatitis would have been available no later than 1980/81, and quite possibly earlier. And if this had happened – albeit by chance – the risk that any recipient would have suffered HIV infection would have been reduced almost to extinction.”

Mr Smith said: “I think those findings or conclusions are so compelling and clear. And the way he's put it together, it's just unarguable.

“I think the community have just been stumped by the clarity of his conclusions.”

Then there are the aspects of the report which leave campaigners with the hope that the inquiry can have a positive impact on others facing injustices.

Mr Smith said: “He's not closed the book on this inquiry. So what he said is that government needs to come back within 12 months and provide a response to all his recommendations as to how they're carrying them forward or why they are not going to take them forward.

He adds: “I think people are really encouraged by (him saying): ‘I am going to hold your feet to the fire. I'm not just going to leave this report to sit on a shelf and gather dust, you need to do something and if you're not going to do something you need to explain to the community why not. And that's unprecedented.”

When it comes to actually setting up public inquiries, if a minister disagrees with such a plan, Sir Brian suggests that “they must set out in detail and publish reasons for this disagreement,” if the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has recommended one.

Ultimately, it is about consequences and a change in culture to prevent other such scandals occurring.

“It's not about retribution,” Mr Smith said. “It is about justice, and it's also about having a deterrent effect. People who might be sat in some sort of (high up) position today, and they privately know there's some wrongdoing going on, they need to be able to speak up. And there are some people who should be – certainly at the top of these organisations – compelled to speak up, which is where the duty of candour comes in, which Sir Brian has recommended, and obviously people like the Hillsborough campaign have been fighting for for many years now.

"People have to be compelled. Doing this voluntarily, it's just not working. And we can't keep having inquiry after inquiry, or burning injustice after burning justice, as Theresa May called it.

“We have to say no, and we have to stop this cycle because it's destructive to our nation. And the only way that's going to happen is if people do suffer the consequences of their actions or indeed their inactions.”