Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I support the amendment moved by Deputy McManus. I do so because of the issues that have been raised by other speakers. Having listened to the last two Fianna Fáil Members, Deputies Callely and Fleming, it is a pity the Taoiseach has quashed the backbenchers' committee which wanted to have an input into Government policy. If the views of those two Deputies were taken into account, the Bill would not have been introduced and the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children would have had to examine the issues raised.

Today should be a day of celebration for those who have had to fight so hard and who have been so abused by the State through the administration of the anti-D product. As Deputy McManus said, they were poisoned by the State. It should have been a day of success for those people because they have negotiated long and hard to have an insurance scheme implemented. The legislation should have been the culmination of their hard work. They have had to fight the State all the way for many years.

Today, they find themselves back in that position. That is not as it should be. As Deputy Fleming said, if the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children was in touch with the human aspect of this issue, she would not then have introduced sections 1, 2 and 6. It would then be about the result of the negotiations and consultations that went on with the four organisations concerned, the Irish Haemophilia Society, the Irish Kidney Association, Positive Action and Transfusion Positive. Unfortunately, the Government has unilaterally introduced these other aspects that are in the legislation which the four organisations did not see until it was too late and we are faced with the current problem. They did not see the Bill until 20 June this year. Despite the fine words spoken by the Tánaiste, this is not consultation, this is not what those groups thought they were getting because these elements have been introduced in spite of what they stated they wanted all along.

I received a number of phone calls on this issue, as I am sure did other Members. I quote from an e-mail I got today from a constituent:

I am one of your constituents . . . and I would like you to contest on my behalf the Bill that An Tánaiste, Mary Harney, is putting before the Dáil this 29 June 2006. The insurance scheme for hep C-HIV has answered all of our needs but she has added amendments to the Health Amendment Acts 1997 and 2002 to the Bill without giving us hep C people any notice. She is effectively offering us insurance coverage at the cost of the dilution of the Health Amendment Acts 1997 and 2002. This is a very serious concern to those of us State-infected with hep C.

That is the view of one person, and we have all spoken to representatives of the four associations.

The ELISA test was highlighted in the course of today's debate. I was in the Chair when Deputy Twomey, who is a medical doctor, made his contribution and he gave a clinical analysis of the faults in the Bill in terms of the ELISA test. In his contribution, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, referred to the fact that amendments in regard to further tests will be tabled. He mentioned the RIBA test and the PCR test. He also stated that regulations would add further new tests. That is to be welcomed as progress in the sense that at least the Tánaiste understands there is a problem in this regard.

I am sure Deputy Twomey would be better able than I to respond on this issue. As I understand it, this does not address the central problem, namely, that clinical diagnosis is being rejected in the sense that, in terms of the legislation, it will not be part of the decision-making process. That is what is wrong. I am not a doctor, but I would expect any medical judgment on an illness to include a clinical diagnosis. We have been told that these tests do not identify the presence of infection in all cases.

The four organisations issued a press statement this evening, which states: "The groups ... have rejected the arguments of the Tánaiste ... in the Dáil today." It also states: "The groups have pointed to passages in the Finlay report ... where it is stated that it is possible for a person to be infected with hepatitis C and subsequently lose detectable virus and indeed detectable antibodies." Deputy Twomey made this point this morning. It goes on to state: "The ELISA test is supposed to detect antibodies but as Finlay confirms it does not always do so." I understand that the other tests, as proposed in the forthcoming amendments, also do not always detect antibodies. The statement continues:

The groups have also pointed to the opinions of consultant hepatologists who have said that in patients who have been exposed to the virus there may be low levels of antibodies that do not reach the level of cut-off in the standard test. In such cases the hepatitis C compensation tribunal has been willing in the small number of cases in which it has arisen to date to accept the evidence of a consultant hepatologist of a clinical diagnosis of hepatitis C as entitling a claimant to compensation.

That is the point made by Deputy Fleming, that the compensation tribunal accepted clinical diagnosis, yet the Government will not accept it in the context of the Bill. I urge the Tánaiste to accept the evidence of highly qualified medical experts that indicates she is wrong in what she is doing in the legislation.

My colleague, Deputy Lynch, pointed out that the draft Bill referred to by the Tánaiste this morning was drafted in 1995, before further information became available in the context of the Finlay report. The Tánaiste appears to have come before the House with a legalistic opinion in regard to these three points. She has not taken on board the human element involved and the fact that we are talking about a number of people who have symptoms, who have been infected by the State and who are entitled to be included in the insurance scheme. The Tánaiste should listen to the voices on every side of the House, the organisations concerned and the individuals concerned, who are not in this small group of 100 or so people who will be covered because they have tested in accordance with the requirement, but who are concerned for the other people who will be excluded if the Tánaiste gets her way. It is essential that the Tánaiste listens to the voices that have been raised.

As has been pointed out by other speakers, only 2,000 people benefited from the money that has already been expended. A large proportion of that money went on legal fees and the costs of running the tribunals. It is disingenuous to suggest that a great deal of money has been expended and paid out to the people concerned.

Like many Members of the House, I know people who are directly affected and I know the effect it has had on their lives. These people have to plan everything they do to have the energy to do it. These people have to make sure they get the necessary rest so they will have the energy to do something with their day. This can be as simple as baking a cake, looking after their children or picking children up from school. Their illness is a recurring factor in all aspects of their lives on a daily basis. While in some cases people may not have tested positive in the tests to which we have referred, they have been affected and they have the clinical symptoms. That is the human side of the issue. In most cases, the people directly involved cannot hold down jobs and they cannot do many of the normal things other people take for granted.

Before I come to the issue of loss of consortium, I wish to refer to an article which indicates that the HSE has cut funding for the "look-back reassurance programme" that has been carried out by the Blood Bank, which is designed specifically to identify women at risk of hepatitis C from anti-D. Is cost-cutting at work here? Is that what this is all about? If this programme, which is specifically aimed at trying to find out if there are still women who were infected by anti-D, is affected by cost-cutting, is this legislation also about saving money? If that is the case, it is despicable because it is saving money at the expense of a vulnerable sector. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is shaking his head.

See this speech in context