Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I do not take it lightly when groups such as Positive Action, Transfusion Positive, the Irish Haemophilia Society or the Irish Kidney Association contact me on an issue such as that which we face today. As far as I am concerned, those groups are experts because they are connected to people living with the problem. There is nobody with more expertise than those who live with this problem. While the broad thrust of this Bill is important to victims of contaminated blood, there is no doubt there are problems in it.

I had good reason to pay close attention to this scandal when it emerged in the 1990s, as I had received some anti-D injections. Like other women, I was happy to receive the product to prevent problems occurring with subsequent pregnancies. A decade or two earlier, such a remedy was unavailable to women. Some women would have lost full-term babies as a consequence. The last thing a woman who had given birth and received an anti-D injection would have contemplated was that they, their partner or subsequent children would be infected.

After I received the anti-D injection in the years between the mid 1970s and the 1990s, I was tested. I was one of the fortunate women who had no negative implications. However, I was tested at the same time as women with whom I was friendly or acquainted. Some of them have experienced the most profound consequences. In some cases lifestyles have been modified and social lives drastically changed. This has had an impact on relationships and some have not survived the additional problems facing those families. This is not an insignificant difficulty and it is important that it is included in the consideration of this Bill.

Some women have suffered severe consequences as a result of the illness and also of the medication. They may have feelings of guilt when one of their children is contaminated. The four groups stated yesterday that victims do not wish to be excluded. Their statements highlighted the core of the problem, which was that they were not listened to. The official mindset of that time might still have an impact today.

The year 1997 seems to be significant in terms of Dáil debates on the subject. I refer to contributions made by Deputies Cowen and O'Donnell in 1997. Deputy Cowen subsequently became Minister for Health. He referred in his contribution to Deputy Noonan, then Minister for Health, and stated:

At the time he made that announcement, he never mentioned health care which was and remains a primary consideration of victims. The Minister continues to believe that this was all about money and lawyers. It was a flawed belief on his part and explains much of his mishandling of the affair.

The compensation scheme continues to fail a fairness test on many counts but the Minister has resisted, despite numerous Dáil debates and calls from victims to make any substantive changes. This Bill at last delivers on the promise in the programme for Government to pay fair compensation, but it is only happening now, over two years and four months on, in the dying days of this Administration.

In the same contribution Deputy Cowen stated:

It has also been a concern of transfusees, where their medical records are destroyed or where donors have not returned since 1 October 1991 when testing was introduced, that they are not in a position to prove in the normal fashion that they positively received an infected blood product or an infected transfusion. This is something about which Transfusion Positive lobbied extensively before the ad hoc tribunal began its hearings. The ad hoc tribunal has worked in a satisfactory manner to date for transfusion victims in relation to the manner in which the standard of proof is applied, that is, the balance of probability.

It is ironic that the groups in question only had sight of the Bill in the past week on 20 June 2006. I agree with Deputy Cowen that there was a failure to understand and a failure to listen and this failure is being repeated.

Deputy O'Donnell stated in 1997:

Sadly, it has been a feature of this Administration's handling of the matter that all concessions have been wrung from it and we have not seen a generosity which derived from the Government's own sense of moral or legal responsibility to the victims . . . . .

It is no thanks to the BTSB that there are not 60,000 women infected with hepatitis C. Sixty thousand women were screened, but many have not been screened. Some infections may be dormant, or transient, or may have cleared. We know that 1,600 women are infected.

Deputy O'Donnell further stated, "It appears some women have liver disease but are not testing positive for hepatitis C." This was acknowledged in 1997 by a member of the Progressive Democrats and a colleague of the current Minister for Health and Children.

The experts who say there are problems associated with this Bill must be heeded. We are unsure of the amendments which the Tánaiste proposes and the House needs to be informed before the end of this debate tomorrow so that Members can make a judgment call on the changes in the Bill.

See this speech in context