Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

If the Bill is passed, young people will be excluded in terms of the loss of consortium, which I will address shortly. The Bill was about an insurance scheme, but it is also about more than just insurance. It is telling that so far removed from the original intent is it, the Title does not mention the word "insurance". The Bill is the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006.

I have just received a copy of the Government's amendments, which will change the Title. I do not know if such is common practice, but I have never witnessed it previously. The first amendment, with which we will deal tomorrow, displays the Government's opinion, namely, that the Bill is supposed to be about insurance, but it forgot to include the word "insurance" in the Title. The amendment to the Long Title in page 3, line 8 is to insert a provision for the establishment of an insurance scheme to enable certain persons diagnosed positive for hepatitis C or HIV to be provided with certain classes of insurance that would otherwise be unavailable to them or available only upon the payment of higher premia.

This amendment reveals more than anything else that there is an agenda. I do not know whether it comes from the Attorney General's office or elsewhere. Frankly, that is immaterial. The agenda is meant to contain, control, restrict and limit. Those limits and restrictions are being placed on people who have suffered and continued to suffer, but I do not know what the purpose of doing such is. If we were discussing large numbers of people, we could refer to political priorities and whether money could be allocated. We all understand that a certain rationing must take place in terms of resourcing, especially in the health service, but we are not discussing large numbers. Rather, we are discussing a tiny number within a tiny portion of the population.

At the most, passing the Bill would provide only a small gain to the Exchequer. In no way could that gain be commensurate with the pain endured by people or their anxiety now that we are considering a Bill made in bad faith. Promises have not been honoured because a sneaky set of amendments were inserted at the last minute by some sharp lawyer. Those amendments have altered the nature of the Bill.

I have the highest regard for the Tánaiste and do not wish to attack her unduly. However, that she could argue in the House that this Bill is about insurance while ignoring that it is about much more than that is not to her credit. We must remember that this Bill is about denying sick people their rights to compensation, including for loss of consortium, and their rights to medical cards.

From her comments on the Order of Business, it is shocking that the Tánaiste was not aware of the provisions in her own Bill and how penal they would be to certain categories of hepatitis C and HIV sufferers. Her negligence is due to her ignorance, but this in no way absolves her from responsibility. She appears to be ignorant of the fact that not only is the Bill dishonest, in terms of consortium it specifically discriminates against minors who are infected. Children who were infected, passed the ELISA test and may have gone through the tribunal process are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium for their future spouses, but this Bill will strip them of that entitlement. After the harrowing history, they are losing rather than gaining ground and are being told to move back. That is not acceptable.

Before preparing for this debate, I was not aware what consortium meant. The Tánaiste helpfully defined it as "the living together as husband and wife with all that flows from that relationship including companionship, the rendering of services, sexual intercourse and affectionate relationship between spouses". What is life all about if not that? This issue relates not only to individuals' health but also to the effects of their loss of health on those who love them. The ability to claim for the loss of consortium is a statutory right. If everything were right with this story, nobody would ever be able to claim that right because there would not have been any loss.

This is a story about the terrible loss suffered by individuals and their loved ones. Anybody who has read the Lindsay report is aware of the agony endured by those people whose loved ones were ill or dying in a situation where people did not understand what was happening to them and where there were all types of prejudices and stigmas. Some of that stigma persists to this day. That is why it is so important that this Bill should be referred back to the Department and returned for our consideration only when it has been cleansed of all these negatives. If that is done, we can then support the legislation, grateful to the Minister for providing the necessary assurances to those who have suffered.

That is what we are here to do. Parliaments are supposed to do the right thing; they are not supposed to do wrong. Although we may sometimes unwittingly make mistakes, the victims' groups have pointed out those mistakes in this particular case. They are asking us to put this right and it is up to us to do so. If the Minister is willing to excise the offensive sections, there is no question that she will have unstinting praise. Even at this late stage, I hope there is some recognition of what must be done.

One can look for hidden agendas and for clues as to what may be going on. It is significant that the information was not given to the groups prior to 20 June. The absence of an explanatory memorandum is a further indication that all is not as it should be. None of us is a parliamentary draftsman and we all require clarity in regard to legislation. For media persons, whose job it is to transmit accurate information to the public, explanatory memoranda are just as important. That is how the process of translation works. Without it, we are at a grave disadvantage. In this case, where other elements were slipped in sneakily under the guise of an insurance scheme, there was no explanatory memorandum to alert us to this fact. I confess I did not appreciate what was being done in this regard until quite late. As an Opposition Member and Labour Party spokesperson on health, I am grateful to all the organisations for providing the valuable information that has guided us in what must be done.

I do not have the medical expertise of Deputy Twomey but I broadly understand the points he made. No test is 100% accurate. Reference is made in the Bill to the ELISA test. I am unaware of another instance in which a specific medical test is mentioned in legislation. What I am more sure of than anything else in the area of health is that technological advances are taking place so quickly that within six months of this Bill being passed, there will be a better test that will identify those persons whose condition will not be detected by the ELISA test.

See this speech in context