Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

Deputy McHugh made an excellent and substantial contribution. I listened to many other speeches and read those I did not hear. I also read the Bill, examined the proposed amendments and read the representations made by the Irish Haemophilia Society, the only submission I received by electronic means.

The substantive part of the Bill relates to insurance for people who have contracted hepatitis C as a result of anti-D given to them in negligence by parties for which the State has accepted responsibility. The insurance package, the first of its kind in the world, is a major, innovative and generous one and has been accepted by the groups representing those who have suffered as a result of the negligence of certain parties in administering anti-D blood products. This feature accounts for 90% of the Bill.

As other Deputies have eloquently articulated the benefits of the insurance package, I will not repeat them except to note that it is a fabulous package which I am delighted will be introduced. I hope many of those represented by several guests on the "Prime Time" television programme last night will benefit from this package, both in this country, in terms of the mortgage protection they will be able to obtain when purchasing a house, and abroad, in terms of the travel insurance they will be able to obtain in a few months.

Although sections 1, 2 and 6 account for just 10% of the Bill, they have been the focus of 99% of the substance of contributions. Difficulties always arise when legislation is enacted rapidly or hurriedly, as was evident in the original legislation on nursing home charges. Nobody would argue, for example, that the recent Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill on statutory rape is perfect and covers all the issues. While I can understand the reasoning behind the decision to frame sections 1, 2 and 6 in this manner, I have some comments to make on them.

I have known a number of people who have suffered as a result of the negligent use of blood and blood products. For several years, a very good friend of mine was consumed with anger at the negligence of so many parties. The woman in question and her family suffered terribly as a result of this negligence for which the State has taken responsibility. Fortunately, however, as a result of good family support and a good frame of mind, my friend laughs and smiles, enjoys life to the full and lives for today and tomorrow. The fact that her family has sufficient financial resources makes her more determined to ensure the State pays for the terrible wrong perpetrated on her and, more importantly, other sufferers who may not be as well off. The extra few bob will assist those affected in overcoming the difficulties in their lives. I also had a very good friend, a haemophiliac, who died as a result of AIDS which was contracted through this process. I have, therefore, strong feelings on the representations the advocacy groups have made on sections 1, 2 and 6.

Sections 1 and 6 are broadly similar in terms of the way in which a hepatitis C diagnosis is recognised. I understand the current position is that the condition can be recognised on the basis of a diagnosis made by a consultant hepatologist. The Bill provides that the diagnosis of hepatitis C will be done by independent, objective means. The original text provided that this would be done using the ELISA test. The Tánaiste has obviously listened to the representations made by various parties and the contributions made in the House. I note, for example, that amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 42 in the Tánaiste's name provide that the recombinant immunoblot assay test and PCR test will also be accepted. In addition, she says she will put into the regulations a system whereby if it is shown that any other test can be included, or if the way medical professionals analyse the results of the tests changes, the regulations would be changed. Every effort is being made to ensure that everybody who has contracted hepatitis C as a result of the negligence of parties for which the State has taken responsibility will receive compensation and the health card. The only argument is that we cannot just take the diagnosis of a consultant hepatologist. With science advancing so far and so fast it is reasonable to say there should be some independent, objective, scientific tests, which are available. While I can understand the Tánaiste saying that, I am concerned that she did not consult fully with the Irish Haemophilia Association, Positive Action and the other groups before she put this legislation on the books. I would have preferred if she had done that.

It is difficult to say what I want in the one minute remaining. I have some problems regarding the relationships of children of current hepatitis C sufferers and their future relationships. Based on the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, the speed with which the controversial sections of the Bill were put through and the deep concern of the victims and their representative bodies, I would like the Minister to give an undertaking to have substantive talks and consultation with the various groups after this Bill, inevitably, goes through and, if necessary, to put forward a short amending Bill after the summer to remedy any items she sees as worthy after consultation.

See this speech in context