John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

Like other speakers, I spoke yesterday to a number of the lobby groups who came to this House to speak directly to us because of their concerns about this legislation. I was struck by their common sense, their intelligence and their remarkable good humour in the face of adversity. I asked myself afterwards if I could be so good-humoured in the face of so many difficulties. I do not think I could. I would be angry at the cold-hearted, penny-pinching bureaucracy. I would be angry at the insensitivity of this Government. I would be angry at the incompetence of the State's health service and the lack of accountability. However, these people have had many years to be angry and at this stage what they are trying to do is rebuild their shattered lives. The Minister is not making this rebuilding process easy. She is making it extremely difficult.

Throughout our lives we sometimes bring things upon ourselves when we make specific choices. In this instance the tragedy of these people's lives was not brought about by them but by the State and I am struck by the total lack of compassion on the part of this Government. These people are seeking justice. What we have here is a very peculiar inversion. The victims, in this case, are the guilty ones, and they are the prisoners of their own illness. I appeal to the Minister to set these people free if she believes in justice, and if there is a compassionate bone in any of the bodies on the Government side of the House.

I think back to the very early days of hearing about this issue. I think particularly of the days of Charles J. Haughey when an election was forced upon us. It was the first time the Minister of State's party was in Government. I think about the recklessness of the pharmaceutical companies and the hard heart of the State. There was also a lack of accountability.

There are Ministers who have the courage to stand up to their officials. Deputy McManus asked earlier who was driving this issue and what the motivation was. The officials in the Department drive the agenda. However, a good and courageous Minister will stand up to the officials, recognising that there is a deep injustice. I do not see the Minister, Deputy Harney, doing so. We have heard that she previously stood up to vested interests and that she is a politician of conviction. I do not see that conviction here.

She has left the Chamber now, but perhaps it is not too late and the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, can speak to her. I hope the Minister will not adopt a Margaret Thatcher type of attitude of not caring and that it does not matter what these people say. I hope there will be a dialogue and the Minister will listen to the sound arguments.

I took grave exception to the Tánaiste accusing those of us expressing concerns of playing politics. We are not playing politics. We are politicians representing the views of those of us who spoke to us yesterday. These people have genuine concerns.

I support the Labour Party motion. Like some previous speakers, I am not a medical expert or an expert on this issue. I am happy to listen to experts and those people who have been infected and whose lives have been radically changed. I spoke to Mr. Brian O'Mahoney and it is interesting to read from his memo on this legislation. It indicates clearly that this issue was always meant to produce a stand-alone Bill. The memo states:

During the nine years of discussion and communication in relation to this, there was never any mention of linking this to the hepatitis C compensation scheme. Despite this, when the Bill is published we now see that it is linked to the hepatitis C compensation scheme, and the insurance Bill is being used to retrospectively change some of the provisions of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Acts of 1997 and 2002. This will mean that some of our members and some members of other groups — Positive Action, Transfusion Positive and the Irish Kidney Association — will be disenfranchised and prevented from taking part in the compensation scheme.

We have heard from previous speakers and it is very clear at this stage what these various groups want. They want a stand-alone Bill. I have put down amendments to the effect that sections 1(a) and 1(b) must be deleted, along with section 2 and section 6. That is clear.

I have stated that I am not an expert, but I wish to discuss the ELISA test. I did not know what the test was, and although I knew what a consortium was, it was a different type. The information we have is that this test is not conclusive. There have been many instances where people were diagnosed and later found not to test positively.

A letter was sent to the Tánaiste by DettaWarnock of Positive Action, dated 15 February 2006. It was in response to a letter from the Tánaiste. A relevant section of it states:

Following a targeted look-back programme by the IBTS informing all women who received an infectious batch but who had tested negative on the original screening or maybe were not screened in 1994, we have had a number of new members in the category "women who received a contaminated batch but are currently testing negative to hepatitis C". The maximum number this could be is 3,358 relating to 1977 and 17,429 relating to 1991-94.

However, we have only a very small number on our database, approximately 40. These women are suffering from severe bad health which has been continuously documented over the years, following receipt of contaminated anti-D. We are only requesting that you consider those who have a retrospective diagnosis from their consultant hepatologist.

That is the request, and there is room here for reasonable compromise. I do not understand why the legislation is being rushed through in the second to last week of the session. There are clear issues here, where the people directly affected have major concerns. It seems the Government will simply ignore them.

I stated earlier that this reminds me a little of the time of Mr. Haughey, who has passed away, and his attitude. It seems that the same attitude is prevailing here. At the time, Mr. Haughey did not refer to people with haemophilia but spoke in terms of the Government's fiscal policy being undermined. He stated that "the Government would not tolerate any attempt to undermine its authority in financial matters." It seems that we have not learned anything. What we are discussing here are financial matters when we ought to be speaking on people's health.

See this speech in context