The Government’s handling of compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal has led to a “segregation of suffering”, it has been claimed.

Justine Gordon-Smith, whose father died after being infected with hepatitis C, said victims’ families feel “discriminated” against due to the current interim payment system.

In April, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its final report on compensation for the victims.

Chairman of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, said relatives – including parents who lost children and children orphaned when their parents died – remain “unrecognised” when it comes to compensation.

Randolph Peter Gordon-Smith, who had haemophilia, was infected with hepatitis C and died in 2018 (Family handout/PA)

Under the initial scheme, only victims or bereaved partners can get an interim payment.

But the Government said it wanted to wait for the full report into the scandal – due in March 2024 – before making changes to the compensation scheme.

However, MPs on Monday voted to speed up compensation for victims.

Commenting on the vote in the Commons, Ms Gordon-Smith said her family has received no compensation because her father was not married when he died.

Justine Gordon-Smith said her father, above, got no care or support after being infected with hepatitis C due to contaminated blood products (Family handout/PA)

Her father Randolph Peter Gordon-Smith, who had haemophilia, was infected with hepatitis C and died in 2018.

She told the PA news agency: “All we have received is contempt.

“They provided no care or support for our dad. They infected him, crippled him, left him languishing on benefits for 38 years.

“And when he got cancer, he got chucked out into palliative care. He was given no care package. Nothing. No support.”

Ms Gordon-Smith said she and her sister had to significantly cut back on work to care for their father.

“We shouldn’t be discriminated from an interim payment because our dad happened to be unmarried at the time of death,” she said.

She added: “I call it the segregation of suffering. The Government has picked off and given money and support of a third of victims , while two-thirds remain excluded.”

One victim who has received interim compensation said he keeps campaigning to make sure others are recognised.

Haemophiliac Alan Burgess, of Ipswich, Suffolk, was co-infected with HIV and hep C, which has led to him suffering heart and kidney problems.

The 65-year-old said 1,240 people were co-infected with HIV and hep C and there are 150 left.

“It’s taken its toll on our bodies. I still have to take a cocktail of tablets just to stay alive. Sometimes you wonder why you have been left when others have gone,” he said.

Alan Burgess said he has to take a ‘cocktail of tablets just to stay alive’ (handout/PA)

“But the reason I have been left is to keep fighting on. What I’m fighting for now is not so much money… compensation is fine but its not about the money, it’s about the fact they (some victims’ families) were left out by this Government with the interim payments, almost as if they didn’t matter.

“Compensation won’t bring back a parent, it won’t bring back a babe, but it will at least show that somebody has actually taken your suffering on board and said, ‘There you are, this is something for your loss’.”

Mr Burgess said he had to give up his thriving painting and decorating business when he became too ill to work.

“I was lucky, I got the interim payment, but you have got to remember that for 30 years I was basically living hand to mouth,” he said.

Campaigners plan to present a letter to 10 Downing Street demanding action on compensation.

Jason Evans, founder of the Factor 8 campaign group, will hand in the petition along with MPs.

Mr Evans was four when his father Jonathan died in October 1993 after being infected with both hep C and HIV from infected Factor VIII blood products.

Mr Evans also had an uncle who was also infected with both viruses and died in 1996.

The letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak “implores” him to act on Sir Brian’s recommendations.

“Not only would it be unreasonable to await the final report before acting, it would be morally and logically wrong,” the letter adds.