Jimmy Devins (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill, the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006. It is important because it will establish for the first time a statutory scheme which will address the difficulties experienced by people who have been infected with hepatitis C or HIV because of contaminated blood products in getting insurance. This insurance scheme is the third and final part of a three-pronged support system for people who have contracted these very serious diseases. I pay personal tribute to these very brave people who, it must be remembered, contracted these diseases through no fault of their own. The fault lies with the providers of the blood products which had been contaminated.

I personally know some of these unfortunate people from my time as a general practitioner in Sligo, before my election to the Dáil. The shock and horror as the full realisation dawned of what had happened to these very brave people was something I had not encountered before and would not wish to experience again. The State is obliged to do everything in its power to help the people who contracted these very serious and, in some cases, life-threatening diseases through no fault of their own.

The two other components of support are already in place, namely the compensation scheme and the special health card. The compensation scheme was put on a statutory basis by the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 and by the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2002. These two pieces of legislation encompassed a wide variety of people who could be compensated.

The second area of support is the special health card, which is awarded at the discretion of the CEO of the HSE. However, he must follow definitive guidelines, one of which requires proof that the infection resulted from the administration of blood products that were contaminated within the State. It is my understanding that particular circumstances apply to people with haemophilia who received blood products prior to 1992. It is important to note that any blood tests on which the consultant hepatologist bases his or her diagnosis of hepatitis C do not have to be current blood tests. The Act states: "The special health card is to be provided to persons who were infected with hepatitis C." The chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Children confirmed this in 2000, when he stated that if an applicant for the special health card had a positive test in the past, even thought their current test was negative, then that applicant was entitled to a special health card.

The third component of support addresses the insurance difficulties experienced by this unfortunate group of people. It has been clear for some time that infected persons were experiencing great difficulty in getting life assurance or mortgage protection because of the disease they had contracted through the administration of faulty blood products. The key to diagnosis is the ELISA test, the same test for hepatitis C that is used in the United Kingdom and Canada.

I will discuss some details of the insurance scheme as proposed. There are two categories of people whom this Bill will cover. First, it will cover those who can get insurance but only with increased premia. Second, it will cover those who are unable to get insurance at all. In the proposed scheme, the State will pay the additional risk premium where the infected person can get insurance but only at an increased premium. In the case of those unable to get any cover at all, the State will assume the risk. In every case the person requiring insurance will have to pay the average basic premium which an uninfected person of the same sex and age would pay. As I understand it, what that means, in effect, is that any person infected with hepatitis C or HIV as a result of infected blood products will not suffer in any way in obtaining life assurance. The risk and, as a result, the premium a person will have to pay is exactly the same as if he or she did not have hepatitis C or HIV. In other words, the State will make up the difference and provide life cover and mortgage protection to infected people as if they had not contracted the disease. This is only right and proper as those unfortunate people contracted hepatitis C or HIV through no fault of their own. Indeed, they contracted these devastating diseases because they were getting treatment for their underlying diseases but the blood product they were given was contaminated.

I wish to address some of the concerns raised by Members on all sides. Like most other Members, I have been contacted by representatives of some of the four advocacy groups which have been discussing these issues with the Tánaiste prior to publication of the Bill. I listened very carefully to what the Tánaiste said yesterday and there are a few points that need to be examined. Unfortunately, some members of the Opposition, none of whom is in the House at present, are trying to make a political football out of this which is totally regrettable in this very sensitive debate.

The insurance scheme is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and the Tánaiste should be congratulated on bringing forward this badly needed legislation. She stated that every person who receives a compensation award at the tribunal under existing or new legislation will receive the special health card. I understand that if a patient has the special health card, he or she will automatically qualify for inclusion in the insurance cover which we are debating.

I refer to the use of the ELISA test as a means of showing that somebody has been exposed to hepatitis C infection. I understand that this is the best indicator of previous hepatitis C infection, a point with which international experts and leading hepatologists in Dublin agree. I listened to the points made by some members of the Opposition and I ask the Tánaiste to fully explore this issue on Committee Stage. If this is the best test — my information suggests it is — then let us use it. If there is a better test, it should be considered. Committee Stage is the right time to discuss that further.

The diagnostic criteria do not apply to claims for compensation made to the tribunal before 20 June 2006, that is, the day the Bill was published. The last exposure to the contaminated blood products took place in the early 1990s. Anybody who was unfortunate enough to contract the dreadful diseases of hepatitis C or HIV will have done so by now and will have presumably applied to the compensation tribunal. If people have received, or will receive, compensation, they will automatically qualify for the special health card and, as a result, will qualify for insurance cover as outlined in the Bill. This applies to everybody who contracted the disease prior to 20 June 2006. If people contract the disease subsequent to that date, clinical diagnosis with altered liver function tests, particularly a raised ALT, allows them to get compensation during the first 16 weeks after infection. If they are outside that period, the positive ELISA test enables all three pillars of support to come into play.

I share the view of all Members that everybody infected with these dreadful diseases as a result of infected blood products should be able to access all three supports. I understand this Bill enables that to happen and I look forward to the Tánaiste confirming this on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context