Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I am not arguing about the people who are within the remit of the Bill but about the people who are outside it. It is interesting the Minister does not appear to be able to take on board the fact that it is the people outside the provisions of this Bill who concern us. We are delighted for the ones included in it. Good luck to them. However, our concern is for the people who have been marginalised, or will be if this Bill is passed, and who should not be.

This is not just a case of me being political, although I do not see the point of complaining about politicians being political. This is about organisations who are by now experts on this issue, such as Positive Action, the Irish Haemophilia Society and the Irish Kidney Association.

The Irish Haemophilia Society has stated that during the course of the long negotiations and discussions between the representative groups and the Department of Health and Children there was never any indication that the Government intended to draft legislation which was not stand alone and which would, in fact, attempt to change the parameters for the existing 1997 and 2002 compensation Acts. The society points out that if these sections are not deleted it will mean some individuals will be disentitled to enter the hepatitis C compensation scheme. The numbers are not large but they are significant and the groups cannot disenfranchise any group no matter how small their number may be. Among those who would suffer would be persons who had hepatitis C but never had a positive ELISA test. Minors who were affected with hepatitis C at a very young age would be discriminated against with regard to the ability of their future spouse or partner to claim a loss of consortium.

I thought I would not require half an hour for my contribution but, in fact, I will have to limit my comments. Judge Finlay, in the introduction to his report of March 1997, said a few words that are worth recalling:

The examination of the individual human suffering and hurt occasioned by the infections of Anti-D and other blood products with hepatitis C has been for all of us who have been engaged in the work of this Tribunal, a deeply distressing and very emotive experience.

Our task however has been to ascertain the facts which have been referred to us and reach the conclusions requested in an entirely detached and unemotive manner leaving aside great sympathy felt for the victims.

That task has been eased by the courage and indeed moderation with which the victims have given their evidence and by the wholehearted cooperation which has been afforded to the Tribunal by all parties involved in it and by their legal representatives.

That is quite striking. That is the record of the organisations that are asking us to rectify this Bill. Let us remember where we are coming from. The people who suffered so much showed moderation and a willingness to co-operate. They are still willing to co-operate but they seek the deletion of the sections of the Bill that offend them and members of this tiny community. That is all they, and we, seek. They are happy to negotiate.

Let us get on with the business of providing insurance and we can return to the matter if there are issues that can be dealt with in a compassionate way. The Finlay report was accepted by the Oireachtas. The legislation that flowed from that report was accepted and passed by the Oireachtas. Why is the Minister trying to row back on a few basic rights and entitlements that mean a great deal to the people concerned? We who are healthy do not have to worry about these matters. We can only use our imagination. I ask the Minister to accept our motion. She should refer the Bill back to the parliamentary draftsman and excise the parts that are offensive and will have a negative impact on the entitlements people have under the law. That is all we ask and we will applaud the Minister for doing that.

See this speech in context