Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I ask the Tánaiste to listen to what I am saying because I have received legal advice on this. This advice states:

You have no doubt noticed that not only does the amendment in the Bill narrow the definition of a positive diagnosis to the presence of markers but the only alternative provided is a record of jaundice, and you will recall that it is possible to have subacute hepatitis without any apparent jaundice.

I am neither a lawyer nor a doctor but I know enough to be aware that what is happening here is wrong. As long ago as the publication of the Finlay report we knew there were people who did not fit neatly into a particular categorisation and were not easily tested. In such cases, there was no scientific test that would allow a specialist to say definitively that the person had hepatitis C and that the source was evidently a contaminated blood product.

Page 176 of the Finlay report states: "However, we now have evidence that it is also possible, although apparently rare, for a person to be infected and subsequently lose both detectable virus and indeed detectable antibodies." Deputy Twomey has pointed out the limits of the ELISA test in this regard. This is what happened in the case of the person identified as "Donor Y". The Finlay report goes on to state: "While we have no laboratory means of identifying these persons, we have, however, taken a history of symptoms or signs for those who received BTSB anti-D." In other words, people were listed on the basis of their symptoms. That is how the matter was determined by Finlay.

I welcome the establishment of the insurance scheme. Although we have tabled some amendments, there is no great difficulty with it and I am pleased the HSE is to manage it. This represents a long awaited vote of confidence in the executive. It is entirely unnecessary that the nursing home repayment scheme, for example, is being contracted out to a private company. However, I remind the Minister that problems remain in regard to accountability. I sent a letter to the HSE last August and received a reply only last week, which reply came from the Department rather than the executive. We have not yet reached a satisfactory situation in regard to speedy responses. If the HSE is to process this scheme — as it should — it must ensure efficient methods are in place for providing information, dealing with claims and so on. It is well able for the task.

To return to the issue of the loss of consortium, the Tánaiste spoke this morning on the Order of Business about second and third relationships. This is something of a canard. We are talking about young people who are growing up in the shadow of this condition. This shadow will linger over their future whether they marry, have a same-sex relationship or whatever. That shadow will always be there. They are the people who are being excluded in this Bill from access——

See this speech in context