Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputy Finian McGrath.

This is just another chapter in the very long saga of blood contamination that has been going on for approximately 15 years. As each chapter has unfolded, we have had debates and discussed compensation legislation in the House. We have also debated the report on the causes of blood contamination. On each occasion, we must remind ourselves once more of exactly what happened and its impact on those affected. Today, in our debate on this legislation, we are talking about those who lived, but many died. Not only were individuals affected, but entire families were blighted as a result of the contamination of blood products. Their lives were changed for ever as a result.

Deputy Burton mentioned that many people have their lives blighted by terrible illnesses, but the difference here is that the suffering was caused by the State. After a certain date, it would have been avoidable if the State had behaved as it should. I read the report into the causes of the contamination, and it was a very sorry saga of errors compounding errors, mistakes, blunders and negligence. Whatever blame might attach to individuals, it all took place in a system that was completely under-resourced and maladministered. If there was a single cause, it was a lack of communication throughout the entire system. The actors involved at the time undoubtedly operated in a system that was programmed for failure. It was almost inevitable that disaster and catastrophe would occur. The State was to blame. There is no point in talking about compassion, kindness and generosity because they are not enough. We are obligated to these people and everything we do in terms of legislation and the schemes that are set up must be informed by this sense of unlimited obligation.

We cannot compensate these people for what has happened to them but we can ameliorate its impact. The impact is medical, social and psychological. However, there are also practical implications for those infected with hepatitis C. Simple things that most of us take for granted, such as the ability to get travel insurance, life assurance, a mortgage and accompanying mortgage protection, which is a prerequisite for obtaining a mortgage, are denied these people. Despite the length of time it took to bring this legislation forward, we hoped we could welcome it. Instead, we find that we are dealing with a measure which has appeared out of the blue. Under the cloak of providing an insurance benefit the Minister sneaked in an amendment to commitments already given, to reduce the level of protection in 1997 in a mean-spirited, nit-picking and insensitive manner. The insensitive nature of this measure is uncharacteristic of the Minister and I am surprised she would stand over such a measure.

To compound the problem, not only does she propose to reduce eligibility, she will do so in an underhand way by introducing it as if it was a benefit in an insurance Bill which was negotiated over many years but which is now about something entirely different. The Bill now limits benefits given in the past. Previously, the report of a consultant in hepatitis C was sufficient to establish eligibility. The Bill now stipulates that eligibility be determined by a single test, the purpose of which is to limit eligibility. It is not the case that it is a wonderful test. It simply limits eligibility.

I, along with very many other people here, am not an expert in medicine, medical tests and blood. However, I know enough to realise that medicine is not an exact science and that no single test will ever be foolproof in all cases. Yesterday, Deputy Twomey spoke about the possibility of false negatives and false positives. We know people who have been infected with hepatitis C from contaminated blood and blood products and who have not tested positive but may test positive in the future. The question of what happens in the future is the nub of the problem. The stress caused by being infected with an illness like hepatitis C relates to the unknown and the question of what will happen in the future. The State tries to give some element of certainty to these people but the Minister is trying to establish certainty in respect of what she will be exposed to financially. It has been stated, and we all realise, that the amount of money in question is a minuscule amount in the context of total health spending.

There is no certainty about the health prospects of those infected, much as the Minister would like to establish it. Her desire for certainty about the future is not half as strong as that of those who were infected. The desire to give these people some degree of certainty should inform everything we do here in terms of legislation and compensation schemes.

A particularly upsetting aspect of this matter was that in an attempt to hide the real import of the legislation's contents and pre-empt any criticism, the Minister's press statement referred to the generosity of the State. This is an insult to those affected. Generosity does not begin to describe our obligations to these people. It defies understanding that the Minister appears to regard spending on victims as some kind of investment programme where value for money audits are of paramount importance. We fail to understand why there is suddenly a need for this. Did the Minister think the State was, in some way, being defrauded by people falsely claiming to be infected? Were consultants producing false certificates confirming diagnoses? From where did the idea behind this legislation come? This is the mystery that none of us can understand.

In respect of consortium, the Minister spoke about third and fourth partners. What about first partners for young people who have been infected and are now approaching a stage in life when other people of their age can consider forming long-term relationships? Are they to be completely cut off from any kind of normal life?

I understand the Government is belatedly bringing forward amendments to the Bill, which I have examined. I am not sure if too many people would understand these amendments. I wonder if even Deputy Devins, a colleague of the Minister and a doctor, can understand this amendment.

See this speech in context