Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I propose to share time with Deputy Hayes. I have considerable concerns about this Bill. Despite what the Tánaiste said in the House this morning, and her protestations to the effect that it represented an improvement on existing legislation, I am not so certain, nor are many women around the country. Because of the history of hepatitis C over the past ten years in this country we must be careful not to exclude or impede any person who received contaminated blood treatment, notwithstanding they may have since tested negative because that does not necessarily mean they will remain unaffected.

There now exists a group of women who have experienced consistently poor health over a long period of time and who are concerned they will remain that way. Whether these women, or their spouses or partners, contracted the infection by primary or secondary means is immaterial. The initial problem arose because they followed to the letter a procedure as advised by the State, medical practitioners and the Department of Health and Children. As a result, they and their families' health suffered dramatically.

The Government will require an ELISA test, which it states is the definitive test to determine eligibility. That may well be the case and it may draw a line in the sand but that line will not apply to all potential sufferers, including those who might be discovered at a later stage. Whatever the protestations of the Tánaiste that is a fact of life.

The trauma and, in some cases, the death of those who were diagnosed and suffered in the past are well-known. We all know people, friends and constituents who received treatment and continue to receive it. They have undergone chemotherapy and still do so. Many have lived for the past ten years with the clear knowledge that they will never have good health again and that there was serious doubt about their long-term health prospects.

I do not care what are the logistics. In such a situation we have a duty as legislators to reassure people that what happened before cannot happen again. More particularly, we must also ensure that any entitlements they have, whether to insurance or anything else, are protected so they are not penalised, excluded or in any way further punished for doing the right thing. They were asked to accept the treatment, which they did, and they have paid for it ever since.

As a medical practitioner, the Ceann Comhairle would be more familiar with this type of situation than the rest of us. I am also quite sure he is very conscious of the concerns of the women who suffer from hepatitis C as a result of receiving anti-D. Their families, including their extended families, have suffered and continue to suffer.

I referred to long-term health prospects and life expectancy. These people followed approved medical advice and paid the price. Any intervention of this stage must take full account of what might happen over the next five years. There will probably be more cases. Correspondence from Detta Warnock expresses concern that there are a number of women who, along with their families, may find themselves at a disadvantage following the passing of this legislation. They will be added to that list of people who have paid a high price. Why should that happen? Why should we countenance such legislation brought into the House in the dying days of this session? This issue requires debate over a longer period. We must consider the experiences of the past and the likelihood of recurrences. The Tánaiste contradicted this earlier but there is other opinion. Who is right and who is wrong? In those circumstances, one must err on the side of safety and protect the people who so far have not been protected or those who are likely not to be protected in the future by virtue of the passage of this legislation.

I had the sad experience of attending the funeral of the late Mrs. McCole. It is a memory which will stay with me for the rest of my life. A full church witnessed the procession of the coffin of Mrs. McCole down the aisle, which was followed by her daughters, and it brought home in the most graphic way the magnitude of what happened in her case. I know several women in my constituency who are suffering and who have this threat hanging over their lives. I am not being chauvinistic but if something like this happened to the male population, there would be absolute outrage, and rightly so. At the time, for some unknown reason, the magnitude of the offence and damage done and the cruelty and trauma the women experienced was not recognised.

Why not improve the situation for the sufferers? What is wrong with covering every possible angle to ensure nobody is excluded from the right to have a reasonable quality of life in so far as possible? We should not proceed with the legislation until a sufficient appraisal and a much wider examination have taken place of all its implications. I have no difficulty improving the situation in respect of insurance for the people concerned. However, I have a major concern about the number of people who might be excluded.

We now have the benefit of hindsight and for that reason, we should not do anything which would in any way curtail the rights or entitlements of sufferers or those who are likely to become sufferers following a diagnosis in the future. There is an incubation period which can vary from one case to another. Although not necessarily as medical practitioners, we have all dealt with cases where an illness, not necessarily hepatitis C, was not diagnosed for several years and where, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been possible to diagnose it but it could not have been confirmed. Is a person in those circumstances likely to be deprived of their entitlements as envisaged in the Bill? From the information Members on all sides and party leaders have received, there would appear to be a serious doubt. If there is a doubt, we must err on the side of safety.

It is not as if the number of cases will continue to grow but even if it did and large numbers of women and their spouses or partners would be entitled to compensation and cover as envisaged under the insurance element of this legislation, we should not deprive them of it. Why make a bad situation worse? Why not confront the situation and say mistakes were made in the past, which should not have been? We now know about those mistakes and there is no excuse for doing anything which would in any way militate against those who have not yet been diagnosed or those who have been cleared but might be diagnosed in the future. That also applies to people's immediate family.

As legislators we have a duty to all the people but particularly to sufferers of hepatitis C who were recipients of a treatment which was deemed to be good, safe and necessary. We now have no excuse but to ensure the legislation we pass encompasses all of the aspects of the trauma, ill-health, suffering, pain and poor quality of life hepatitis C sufferers have experienced since the initial problem arose.

See this speech in context