David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. She is actively engaged in a series of areas and is already achieving results. She will have my full support and that of many other Senators in her views on alcohol sponsorship in sports. This matter needs to be tackled by someone of her mettle.

I welcome the Bill. I am a surviving Member of the Seanad from the time of the lamentable situation of hepatitis C infections owing to impure blood products. It was a great tragedy. People were compensated, but there is no compensation for the serious diminution of health, sometimes to the point of death. A number of women with families received transfusions of infected blood and their families were left behind. It was a most tragic and avoidable episode. For this reason, the Bill is good legislation, as it seeks to avoid a repetition of that situation. I hope it succeeds. Since one can never plan everything out of existence, let us not pretend that something might not happen. However, the Government is doing everything it can through this Bill to ensure there is no repetition.

According to the Minister of State, there are approximately 2,000 people with haemophilia and related disorders. I am familiar with haemophilia, but not with von Willebrand disease. Perhaps I should know more about it. I am surprised that, whereas 600 people have haemophilia, 900 people, representing one third or 50% more - I am not good at arithmetic - have von Willebrand disease. I am curious about whether it is closely related to haemophilia. Should we know more about it?

It seems a perfectly logical concentration of resources to make St. James's Hospital the procuring and dispensing agent. It will lead to economies in terms of time management, efficiency and so on. I am parochial, in that I am a Trinity College graduate and St. James's Hospital is a Trinity College teaching hospital. In this light, I am pleased that the hospital should receive this accolade. I do not mean to diminish any other hospital, as they all have their specialties.

As the Minster of State mentioned, it is of paramount importance that these products be safe and efficacious. This goes almost without saying. The membership of the product selection and monitoring advisory board seems to fulfil all of the criteria. I hate the word "stakeholders". It is an ugly word that has intruded into the language and is thrown around all over the place, but the board's members are what one could describe as the stakeholders. They have an interest in the matter and seem to be reasonably representative.

According to the Minister of State, the Bill will result in better value for money for the health budget in terms of purchasing and so on, but her later comment was interesting, in that the economies to be achieved will be of great significance. She stated: "For example, purchase of factor VIII increased by approximately 5 million units and usage of factor IX by 3 million units between 2009 and 2011." Despite these increases, the cost decreased by €3.2 million. Can this be explained? When the Minister of State claimed there would be efficiencies, I believed they would owe to the economies of scale derived from concentrating the sourcing of a considerable amount of blood products and doing a bargain with suppliers. However, it now appears that there have been inefficiencies. Perhaps I am unfairly maligning people, but a substantial increase in the number of units leading to a decrease in cost is an unusual phenomenon, even in the eyes of someone as financially illiterate as myself.

I may have had a momentary aphasia, but I believe that the Minister of State omitted the next two paragraphs in her speech. If I am correct, what was the reason? I do not wish to embarrass her, although she is indicating that she omitted them. The paragraphs refer to an alert card, which is a good idea. Will this measure go ahead? The second paragraph addresses the triaging of people with severe haemophilia and so on without delay. The alert cards would be significant in such situations. Were the paragraphs omitted because this measure is still under negotiation?

I commend the Minister of State on her actions. With this and other sensible legislation, she can be assured of my success. What am I talking about? She can be assured of my support. It has been a long day. I apologise for my little errors, which I am sure will be obliterated from the record.