Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

The statement is by Professor Peter Simmonds. It continues:

Similarly, 11 from 63 cleared infection over 10 years from infection clearance, and a further 9 from 56 over 3 years in a community based study in Italy, comparable to the loss of antibody in prospectively followed haemophiliacs (3 from 12 over 6-15 years;) and post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis patients (6 from 90 over at most 23 years;). In common with the seropositive individuals with cleared infections (see above), where investigated, none of individuals who became seronegative in these various cohorts showed evidence for ongoing replication of HCV, either from PCR testing of plasma samples, or from liver function test abnormalities attributable to HCV.

The lack of stored samples from women who received HCV-contaminated anti-D immunoglobulins in Ireland has prevented longitudinal studies of the outcomes of HCV infection comparable to the above studies. However, I am aware of the evidence presented at the HCV Tribunal that several women who received contaminated batches of Irish anti-D immunoglobulins in 1977 or 1978 became jaundiced shortly after prophylaxis (therefore providing evidence for acute infection with HCV), but who are now negative for antibodies to HCV. This is fully consistent with the findings for frequent loss of anti-HCV antibodies in cases of resolved infections.

This statement is by somebody who studies the subject for a living and was the State's witness. He says one can clear the infection and the antibodies but the symptoms will persist, but the Minister says they will not. She will only accept the very specific scientific ELISA test. Does she think consultants who testify on behalf of somebody who tests negative are telling lies? Does she not trust her own tribunal to deal with these issues? It is incredible that the Minister for Health and Children should replace a scheme that was working perfectly well with another piece of legislation, thereby retrospectively altering legislation which was hard fought for and was directed at a group of people, both men and women, whom this State infected. Whether we like it or not that is what happened. It infected them because we were not proactive enough in testing blood products.

The shutters came down after 20 June. I have asked for sunset clauses in legislation before and have been told they were not necessary but in this case one is applied on the day the Bill was produced and no further claims will be accepted after that date. That is outrageous. We have still not received an explanatory memorandum so I still do not know why it has been done.

The people affected constitute very small groups. One is rhesus-negative, pregnant women whose husbands were rhesus-positive. There are also small groups of people who received blood transfusions and who had renal failure.

The Tánaiste said €660 million has already been spent. I can see the headlines. People will ask what we are doing. Just over 2,000 people were compensated — that is how small the figure was. The consequences were not minute but the number was very small. The rest of the money will go to pay for the tribunal and legal expenses.

This legislation is mean and mealy-mouthed. I cannot find words to describe it. It also limits people who will never go to a tribunal or to the High Court and as a result of this alteration to the hepatitis C compensation tribunal legislation, they will not receive a medical card either. The Bill says to people to test positive after all this time. All the scientific data states that over a period of time, the majority of people will clear the virus and the antibodies. How is one to realise that test? It cannot be done. That test is not fool-proof and, hopefully, with the advance of science, we will have a better test which picks up things at a much lower level.

Another witness called by the State spoke about the effectiveness of the ELISA test. Dr. David Foster said, in response to a question about whether the ELISA test would pick up people who had been infected, that "There is a real danger that to exclude a person who cannot show a positive ELISA Test will give rise to injustice". He also said:

I think again it is a question of level and cut off. What happens in the simple ELISA is that patient's serum are allowed to bind to Hepatitis C proteins and the level of binding is then assessed. Whether there is positive or negative depends on a cut-off value and the cut-off value is defined at the level at which the vast majority of people who have active Hepatitis C have a number greater than that, and the vast majority of people who do not have active Hepatitis C are lower than that. So clearly there is a cut-off level.

He goes on to state that one could have a lower level and be infected but that one would not test positive with ELISA.

I still do not understand why the Government has introduced this legislation. There is paranoia in some Departments that we face an appalling vista and, therefore, we must legislate to restrict it. That appalling vista occurred between 1977 and 1991. I hope we will try to sort out what happened then rather than damn these people once again. This is appalling legislation and I appeal once again to the Tánaiste to abandon it and to come back with the type of Bill these people thought they would get, that is, a comprehensive one dealing with insurance.

See this speech in context