Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Yesterday, representatives of the Irish Haemophilia Society, the Irish Kidney Association, Positive Action and Transfusion Position had to come to the House and spend long hours lobbying against the passage of this Bill, as presented by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney. They should have been here today to witness the fruits of many years of hard work and campaigning on their part. Instead, the experience they are now going through must be compounding the many years of hurt for them and their loved ones.

These groups represent the people who were infected by contaminated blood and blood products — blood transfused into their bodies by an agency backed by the State, an agency people had every right to trust. That trust was cruelly betrayed. People have died as a result. Many more have suffered and continue to suffer. Their lives have been blighted and their life expectancy has been dramatically curtailed. They and their families have gone through and are still going through what can only be described as a living hell.

It is disgraceful that these people have had to lobby and negotiate for the past nine years, since 1997 and throughout the terms of office of this Government, to obtain legislation to provide a scheme of assistance with insurance. Such a scheme would allow people infected with hepatitis C and HIV to obtain insurance on the same basis as healthy members of society. With other Deputies, I have repeatedly raised the need for such legislation in the Dáil. When the Government's legislative programme was published on 24 April this year we welcomed the fact the Bill was finally on the way.

In that programme, the Bill is described as a Bill "to amend the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Acts 1997 and 2002 in order to provide for the establishment of an insurance scheme for persons who have been infected with Hepatitis C or HIV from the administration within the State of blood or blood products". However, the Long Title of the published Bill describes the Bill as an Act "to amend the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Acts 1997 and 2002 and to make a related amendment to the Health (Amendment) Act 1996". There is a significant difference between the two. I note also that while the title of the new Act is to be the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2006 as described in the explanatory note circulated to Members of the House after the commencement of the Minister's contribution to this Second Stage debate this morning, at the Order of Business this morning the Minister was of the opinion that we had already received the explanatory memorandum with the text of the legislation. It is a shambolic way to go forward with legislation of such import.

The Title of the Bill presented does not refer to HIV. Section 7 genuflects to this very important focus of the legislation, stating "This Act may be cited as the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2006." The reference to HIV should not be optional. It is an integral focus of the Bill and should be boldly referred to in the Title at all times. Who seeks to shroud the full purpose of this legislation? Deputy McManus has already pointed out the failure to even acknowledge its key purpose and has rightly drawn the House's attention to the first amendment presented by the Minister for tomorrow's Committee Stage debate.

When the groups read the detail of the Bill they were shocked to find they had become the victims of what can only be described as a legislative ambush by the Minister. Instead of providing the insurance scheme as promised and leaving it at that, the Minister has used the opportunity to make other far-reaching amendments to existing legislation. The effects of these amendments will be discriminatory and, if enacted, will represent yet another betrayal of people affected by contaminated blood products.

The four groups have stated the case very well. Like other speakers, I am grateful to them for highlighting the totally unacceptable sections of this Bill which must not be enacted. The Bill makes fundamental amendments to the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 which will significantly limit the categories of persons entitled to make claims for compensation and for provision under the health code. The groups were not informed until 20 June of these radical proposals which are unacceptable and should be opposed. The Minister proposes that persons infected with hepatitis C are to be identified solely by scientific tests, whereas currently a clinical diagnosis of hepatitis C is accepted by the tribunal and the High Court and for all other purposes such as entitlement to health provision. What the Minister proposes now is that although a person has had an identified infected batch of blood or blood product such as anti-D and such person has symptoms compatible with HIV infection that person will no longer be able to establish entitlement to compensation and to special health provision. In 2002 the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, brought in an entitlement for the spouses and partners of hepatitis C and HIV sufferers to make claims for compensation for loss of consortium, in other words, for the damage caused to their relationship with their partner as a result of his or her infection with either of these communicable diseases. The Minister now proposes to exclude certain categories of person from such entitlement. The spouse or partner of a young person infected at birth with hepatitis C was entitled to claim compensation up to now. Such partners and spouses will now be excluded and, no matter what protest the Minister makes, that is the truth.

The groups have described this as a grossly insensitive and retrograde proposal. They have described the proposed changes as surprising and restrictive amendments to the existing code for which there is no rational basis or public demand. They have asked for the support of all Deputies from all political parties and all Dáil groups for their position. I hope the Members on the Government side will heed that call and use their influence to get these obnoxious sections struck out. In regard to the major party, which now has a new arrangement for policy decision making, will those who were so vocal recently ensure that their party in Government will respond to the call of these affected groups and victims?

Sections 1(b), 2 and 6 of this Bill represent a legislative ambush. These are totally unacceptable provisions, piggy-backing on the central and long overdue provisions for insurance. These people want the insurance scheme set up as soon as possible. It is literally a matter of life and death for them and for their families. I call on the Minister not to go ahead with the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill tomorrow, to take out the offending sections, bring the Bill back next week without those sections, go ahead with the insurance provisions and fulfil her obligations to these people. Anything else will be nothing other than an act of gross bad faith.

See this speech in context