Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

——that this test will prove once and for all whether a person has hepatitis C but this test is more often used for HIV. On those grounds, I cannot understand how this system, given the indignity it will cause people in having to justify their condition, is any better than the current system of having their condition analysed by medical practitioners. It is as if the Government would prefer to take a technological route, not to prove a point but to disprove a point. It is that degree of bad faith the Government must address.

I was struck by a remark in the Tánaiste's opening speech in this debate that: "The introduction in the Bill of an insurance support scheme on a statutory basis shows the continued commitment of the Government to working with the victims of infection to provide all possible supports to them." That is inherently not true. The Government's commitment is qualified. It has not engaged in appropriate consultation. Its proposals are inherently flawed and meet with massive rejection from those who live with this condition and campaign to ensure proper restitution is provided. Despite this, the Tánaiste believes the Bill will fill the remaining gaps.

What I found particularly disappointing about the Tánaiste's speech, and the subsequent speeches of other Ministers, was that it was big on the detail of the nature of the problem and the contents of the Bill but made no reference to the "why". Many Members on this side of the House and many people outside the House are still awaiting an explanation. Why has the Government proposed this measure? Why does it feel the need for qualification? When will we get a sense that the Government is acting from the best of motives? On those grounds, the Government must use the opportunity presented by the remainder of the debate to answer those questions.

Reacting to the Tánaiste's statement, the campaigning groups issued a press statement yesterday which indicates the degree to which these organisations remain unhappy with what was stated. That unhappiness will be intensified when they read the amendments to the Bill tabled by the Tánaiste on behalf of the Government. The press statement suggests that the real anger that continues to exist results, first, from the fact that highly suspect information was read into the record. Faith is being put in the ELISA test that cannot be justified technologically and references were made to the Finlay report which misrepresent the meaning of the report and why the original reference to the ELISA test in the 1995 draft legislation was dropped from the legislation.

The groups also refer to the opinions of consultant hepatologists. In a discussion of scientific and medical issues, it is unfortunate that, as lay people, we are not getting that informed level of debate in the House, other than from Members who are general practitioners. Nonetheless, members of the Opposition are informed that there is expert opinion that justifies many of the concerns we are expressing, and it is arrogant of the Government to choose to ignore that opinion.

The press statement emphasises the sadness as much as the anger felt by the four organisations. The groups believe that, regrettably, the Tánaiste appears to be unwilling to accept that she has been poorly advised about this most sensitive issue, which involves victims of State negligence being excluded from compensation on the basis of an arbitrary test. The word "arbitrary" is important in this context because the presentation of the Bill seems arbitrary in itself. It seems to be a whim or some type of wheeze at civil servant level that these types of qualifications must exist because, if they do not, what happens in the future will be unacceptable to the State's purse. The statement also refers to the support that has been given to the organisations, mainly from this side of the House.

I will conclude as I began by referring to the series of hepatitis C scandals and the fact that they have impacted heavily on political reputations in particular. Earlier in the debate we heard the contributions of those who in the mid-1990s were Opposition spokespersons and who expressed a sense of outrage and demanded that matters be handled properly. This is an issue which all Members feel should be exempt from political point-scoring. The hope should be that the House collectively can agree the Bill, taking into account the reservations expressed by those who will be affected by its implications. If we cannot do that, we are failing not only those people but all in the society we represent.

See this speech in context