Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I would welcome if someone dealt with the matter because it is strange that the specific programme investigating the infection of women with hepatitis C who were given anti-D is no longer being funded. I do not know if funding is being cut for other Blood Bank programmes. It would be interesting to know what is the position. The fact that it is this particular programme certainly looks pointed.

Many speakers referred to the issue of loss of consortium which is dealt with in section 2. I find this provision extraordinarily mean. This suggests that if a person was married or had been living with someone for a significant length of time when they were diagnosed, they are entitled to be included. However, if a young person has not had any relationship his or her future spouse or partner is not entitled to compensation. This seems extraordinarily mean as, undoubtedly, that person's life will be affected along with the person who is infected. Why add this stipulation? Why not simply leave things as they were in the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997? Why amend it so in section 1, 2 and 6? Such thinking appears to be entirely legalistic and does not take into consideration the people concerned.

I imagine the money involved is quite small and I do not think any public representative or member of the public would begrudge compensation to a person in such a situation where he or she has, as Deputy Lynch said, fallen in love and decided to have a long-term relationship knowing his or her partner is infected and that the relationship may be affected at a physical level and at other levels. The State is responsible for the condition of the person he or she has fallen in love with, it is not due to anything that person has done. The sufferer's condition is due to actions taken in the past, when, in many cases, people did not know what they were doing.

I do not understand why the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has exposed her Government to the mess it is in today when she could have left the previous legislation alone. She could have introduced an insurance scheme, which would have been applauded by all and we would not be here at 7.40 p.m. arguing with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children Deputy Lenihan and arguing with the Government. The backbenchers would not be arguing with the Government either. It is very telling that the Fianna Fáil backbenchers who have spoken this evening have all argued for this Bill to be significantly amended, if not withdrawn. They want to see a way out for the Government as do we in the opposition. None of us want this legislation to be the last thing we do this term in the Dáil because it will not leave a good record for the Oireachtas.

I know the Tánaiste has stepped back a little, but it is not enough to address the issue at the heart of this. I urge that she step back further and acknowledge that she has been misled. No Member will hold it against her, rather we will applaud her for recognising it. I urge that she and the Government make a quick decision this evening on this issue and then give the necessary time to it and have real, required consultation with the four representative organisations. Otherwise she is, again, forcing them to fight the State when they believed the battle was over, that this legislation was the final piece of the jigsaw that would give them what they need. Their lives will never be returned to them but they could, at least, be given the financial security and insurance they expected. They could then feel that the State understands it is responsible and recognises the need for recompense in all of the aspects that concern them. I ask the Government to rethink this issue and do the decent, humane thing. It should recognise that this small group of people will not cost the State a huge amount of money and are deserving of and entitled to our care and consideration.

See this speech in context