Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

In recent months, various Deputies have asked in the House when this legislation would be introduced. At that time, we all anticipated we would be able to welcome it. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves unable to do so. While there are worthwhile elements, the changes introduced are so fundamental that they cause serious difficulties for us regarding the Bill as a whole.

This issue has run for over nine years, and people have waited for a long time to achieve finality. I know negotiations on this element have been ongoing for the last 18 months. However, if we are to try to put this in place, we should at the very least ensure that now, after nine years, we do it properly in a manner that addresses the real needs of those infected hitherto. It seems strange that, after negotiations, these changes should be introduced. My understanding of negotiation is that the parties concerned, in this case, the four parties representing those who were infected, would come together and meet the Minister to discuss what would be included in the Bill. It appears clear from the statement released by the Irish Haemophilia Society, the Irish Kidney Association, Positive Action and Transfusion Positive that these groups were unaware of the changes the Minister was about to bring forward until 20 June 2006. This does not constitute genuine negotiation because these groups did not get the opportunity to discuss these changes.

In her speech, the Minister acknowledged that a significant difference of opinion exists but these groups did not get the opportunity to address this difference of opinion. Deputy Twomey dealt with the medical aspects of the case in a way I would be unable to do. I support his call for the Minister to publish all the advice she has received, particularly that relating to the ELISA test. Deputy Twomey pointed out that there appear to be no safeguards and no checks and balances in the system to ensure this is accurate. Regardless of whether safeguards exist in respect in of the test, it must be asked whether those infected have endured enough at this point. It is wrong to require all new applicants to undergo these stringent tests when up to now, the word of a specialist in hepatitis C was sufficient.

In her speech, the Minister accepted that the State has an enormous responsibility in this area. It has complete responsibility. In light of this, it is all the more important that we pass legislation that fully addresses the needs of all those who suffered at the hands of the State, which is what effectively took place. The changes introduced by the Minister do not fully address the needs of these people.

Could the Minister in her closing remarks explain why it is necessary to wait until the life insurance and mortgage protection elements of this are completed before the travel insurance elements are dealt with? Can they not run in tandem the way the mortgage protection and life insurance elements do?

Under the scheme, the question of mortgage protection and life insurance for an infected person will be related to those of a person of the same age who is not infected. The term used in the legislation is "general person". Many infected people have been unable to obtain mortgage protection or life insurance up to now so to compare them to people of the same age who are not infected is unfair. It would be better to effectively bring it back because the longer a person has mortgage protection or life insurance, the cheaper and more beneficial it is but infected people have not been able to avail of this to date. We are not comparing like with like because of the way mortgage protection and life insurance policies work.

I also echo the point made by Deputy Twomey about certain people who have been infected with hepatitis C but whose tests have proved negative so far. These people have very genuine and legitimate concerns as to whether they will lose out under the proposals introduced by the Minister.

In recent years, public confidence in the Irish Blood Transfusion Service has improved, an important development which we all welcome. However, issues remain in terms of the adequacy of blood supply and shortages that have been experienced at different periods of time, particularly during the summer. If we are to instill full public confidence in the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, it is important that the overall issues we are raising today, particularly those relating to sections 1, 2 and 6, are dealt with. While the service is receiving the media coverage it needs to sort out its problems, the affair still raises queries and concerns in people's minds about the service as a whole, which is a pity. The inclusion of these points causes difficulties.

I am sorry that I do not have the opportunity to speak further on this Bill but Deputy Twomey outlined Fine Gael's position very clearly. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the points we have raised; re-examine sections 1, 2 and 6; conduct genuine negotiations with the relevant groups; and give us the advice she has received.

See this speech in context