John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. I have tried to follow this debate as best I could over the past few days, however due to committee meetings and so on, there may be a degree of repetition. We prepare what we wish to say but cannot be certain it has not been said previously. This Bill has been a long time coming to fruition but hopefully the final article will help to normalise, as far as that is possible, the lives of people affected by that horrible episode in Irish health care, which has been referred to by others. The need to establish the life assurance support, and earlier the compensation tribunal, for the people infected through blood products administered by the State-run BTSB stems from an enormously distressing chapter in Irish medical history. I agree with speakers who have argued that we must learn from that and try to ensure it never happens again.

That period was particularly distressing for the victims in the sense the trauma of discovering in the mid-1990s that they had received contaminated products was followed by a veritable obstacle course in trying to secure redress. Along with all of their medical and associated difficulties many of those infected through no fault of their own experienced difficulties in areas of life which many of the rest of us would take for granted, particularly in obtaining life and travel insurance. That insurance issue is the kernel of this Bill. Whether it was life insurance, mortgage cover or travel insurance, it was a problem faced by many of the victims, adding to the many other difficulties they already faced.

Many public representatives have been approached by the four organisations involved, which have been working at the coalface on behalf of victims. It has been a very long and difficult road for all of the people concerned. Since the idea of the tribunal was first mooted, there have been many twists and turns in the story. The prospect of further difficulties frightens everyone to some degree, particularly those of us who know some of the victims and their families. The new fear of the campaigners for justice in the four victim support organisations is that elements of this Bill will be used to modify or dilute the compensation agreements established by the tribunal and Deputy Burton spoke of their fear of the unknown. I have received assurances that will not happen and the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has already tabled a number of amendments to the Bill to ensure it will not happen.

These people have suffered at the hands of the State and there is a natural suspicion among them, much of it arising from the original approach adopted by the State in dealing with their case. I have spoken to people in Positive Action and the Irish Haemophilia Society who have very genuine concerns. This is not a made-up issue and they are not just taking a stand for the sake of it. It is important to note that their concerns are not primarily for themselves but for future cases of future difficulties faced by people. They are afraid that others will lose out if there is any technical loophole in the law.

The tribunal became a statutory body with the enactment of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997, which was amended in 2002 when the Oireachtas re-examined some of the issues that had arisen. That gives me hope that if any difficulty arises from this legislation, we can revisit it. The original legislation was amended to include persons infected by HIV as a result of the receipt of relevant blood products within the Republic of Ireland. This Bill, as the Minister of State outlined, seeks to further enhance the rights of those infected by adding to the current compensation and special health card and it will provide the support needed with regard to life assurance and other areas of life. One of the areas of life we take for granted is travel insurance. Life was made very difficult for the victims because they could not obtain such cover.

The mechanisms will be funded by the Exchequer to the tune of €6.4 million per year for a period of 30 years, or more if required. I am concerned when we are discussing issues that are so important to people's health to hear Deputies referring to tents in Galway and other issues because that is only political point scoring. This is a tiny sum of money in the context of what we are spending on health overall. Money is not really an issue here because none of us would tolerate the cutting off of funding for these victims.

Like other Members, I was contacted by the organisations involved which expressed concerns about the proposed testing procedure. I hope the amendments tabled by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, and any others agreed, will help to ease their fears. It has been too hard a journey and battle for those people to lose any ground now and given the political track record on this issue, we should take their concerns very seriously.

Politics should only come into this debate in the context of the legislative proposals and not in the context of on whose watch this was allowed to happen. Yesterday a Fine Gael representative suggested the Bill was coming from an uncaring Government. Most of us here are well aware of his party's reaction at the time this travesty in the provision of public health services happened. We have no wish to revisit that approach. We will never see such an approach from this or any future Government with regard to such a sad issue. It would not be tolerated nowadays because of the case put, and the experience gained, by the people involved. They have been an example to other groups working in areas of need. People involved in community development and other areas have learned from the constructive, positive and meaningful approach of these people, which eventually yielded what was needed.

There have been calls for this Bill to be delayed but there were also criticisms of the delay in bringing it forward. It is right to enact the legislation. If the Bill was introduced in three or six months' time, the same amount of time would be allocated for the debate. All Members in the House have experience of this issue and know what is involved and what needs to be done. We also know the amendments that are needed to make the legislation acceptable and I hope we can agree on those. When the Bill is finalised, however, there must be an understanding that if what was feared by the four organisations comes to pass, that is, that any person who was affected loses his or her entitlements, there will be a revision facility. We are accepting the efforts by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to get this right but if something happens to go wrong, we cannot be expected to wait for years for the opportunity to put it right. There must be a facility for revisiting the legislation if required.

Deputy Burton referred to payments and money for redress but euros can never provide redress for the hurt and pain that was suffered by the victims. However, it can be a source of succour and can enable people to do things that are needed. The issue is primarily about the welfare of those people affected. We all know from dealing with friends and constituents and from reading about the issue what has gone on to date.

The insurance scheme will cover the risk premium where companies are willing to give cover and give cover or assume the risk on life cover.

The contentious element is that the Bill outlines that hepatitis C must be diagnosed using the so-called ELISA scientific test, which is similar to that used in Canada and the UK. The Tánaiste's 36 amendments, some of which are technical, are important. I hope that they will remove at least one of the worries that I shared, namely, that any single test can be less than perfect and can throw up inaccurate results. I hope that ending absolute dependence on that specific test will help allay fears. As we know, cases will start from this June. When the Bill was published, many of us were concerned about people who had previously tested positive, but we were assured that there would be no trouble.

Where legality is involved, all of us lay people have some reservations. Some people fear that the change will subject new applicants to over-stringent testing, resulting in fewer people being eligible. Previously, the word of a specialist hepatitis C doctor was sufficient for diagnosis. I would like to know more about the change and I will be listening on Committee Stage. Any more mistakes would compound the less than perfect response of the past and would have terrible implications for those affected.

The Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, referred to advice, and perhaps I might touch on a related issue fundamental to the cause of the problem. The reorganisation of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service since the ethical and practical mismanagement was uncovered and acted on is welcome, dependent as we are on its integrity. However, the approach by some of the participants when it happened and for long after was simply diabolical. I was among those taken to task and threatened with legal action for my efforts to retain blood-testing facilities in the southern region to serve Cork, Limerick, Kerry and surrounding areas. I will not labour in this Chamber how crucial it is that people have confidence in the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. On that matter, the failure to provide within a reasonable time modern, purpose-built accommodation with full testing facilities for the Irish Blood Transfusion Service in Cork has been nothing short of scandalous. It is time that the Department of Health and Children delivered on a promise that it made in 1997 in that regard.

That promise followed a mighty battle against forces within the Blood Transfusion Service Board that were intent on centralising all testing and other critical related aspects of the service in Dublin. The Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, referred to it, but at the time the arguments of highly qualified and very concerned local medical personnel from an entire range of disciplines on this issue were sneered at. Public representatives suffered an even worse fate as we were threatened with being sued for daring to point out the stupidity of the proposals.

I recently explained to the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, through a parliamentary question, that the need to replace the service building in Cork where the contaminated blood product was first discovered was agreed by the BTSB and the Department nine years ago. At that time, the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, approved the centre's replacement, stating that the Department would make available the necessary resources to achieve that objective. When I asked Deputy Harney in my question whether the current facility still met the requirements and standards laid out by the Irish Medicines Board, I was informed, as the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, has outlined, that the BTSB invested more than €3 million in the refurbishment of the Cork centre in 2004 but that it believed that replacement was still required in the medium to long term. That is a rather carefully couched way of saying that we must replace that centre in Cork.

The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, also pointed out that there was provision in the Capital Investment Framework 2005-2009 for the appointment of a design team and commencement of the planning process for the centre and that the process was subject to ongoing consultation between the board and the Department. It is appropriate in this debate to point out that the Cork centre, despite interim work, needs replacement. Its staff were those who originally identified and traced the difficulty and they have not been complimented enough through recognition of their centre and what it achieved. That failing was certainly true of certain people involved in the capital at that time.

In the interests of all future users of blood and blood products, it is essential that we have the best clinical facilities to ensure that we can achieve the highest possible level of health safety. We have had a desperate lesson in that regard that we certainly do not wish to repeat. That is over and above what we are dealing with in this Bill, but in these changing times it is critically important to ensure that we spend whatever is necessary for a safe future.

I have the list of amendments submitted. The Tánaiste has proposed 36 amendments, although some are purely technical. I hope that the overall inclusions will improve the Bill and move it closer to what is acceptable to those involved. We always listen to expert sources. It is part of our job given that we are a conduit not only for public opinion but for professional opinion. In this instance, judging from the telephone calls that I made last night, those in the relevant organisations to whom I spoke have learnt the hard way how to deal with the issue, and I will be listening to their advice.

I hope that the rest of the work this afternoon will satisfy at least some of their concerns. I appreciate, as Deputy Burton said, that there will be some technical constraints on the Minister. However, I still believe that we can meet people's needs, which they have once again put forward so positively and carefully.

See this speech in context