Dáil debates

Friday, 30 June 2006

Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Damien EnglishDamien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

I am not an expert in this but I share the frustration of most people with Bills being shoved through at the last minute. I welcome the contributions of the two previous speakers who made their views clear. It is good to see that Members on both sides of the House can say what they honestly believe. I hope somebody will listen and that some proper changes will be made to this Bill.

We have waited a long time for this Bill. People frequently asked on the Order of Business when it would be before the House. We all expected it to be a straightforward Bill that we would simply pass to do good for some people, but that has not happened. Many who called for the Bill assumed it would be a good Bill, not one that contained some sneaky elements and that did not deal with the intended subject.

It is sad that we are trying to debate and change this Bill in the last few minutes of the session, under a guillotine. The Bill was intended to cover insurance matters, namely, life assurance and mortgage protection, eventually extending to travel insurance and so on. It contains, however, hidden changes that nobody envisaged. I do not understand how this can happen after 18 or 20 months of negotiations on the Bill, never mind that the whole area has been discussed for nine or ten years, long before my time in this House. This sneaky move, being slipped in at the end of Dáil business, after a busy year, is a disgrace. The Tánaiste told us that this Bill has broad agreement, but that is far from the case. It is a con job and a let-down for all the groups involved in the negotiations over the past few months, causing more unnecessary hurt where there has been enough and where there will be more.

How did this happen and why did the Bill change in recent weeks? I am not an expert on health or hepatitis C and I would like the Tánaiste to explain why she is introducing changes to sections 1, 2 and 6. She can do this in medical terms or preferably in layman's terms so that ordinary citizens can understand the motives behind such an underhand and unnecessary move. I recall speaking to those involved when this House previously caused them pain. They had taken legal advice but said they would never do so again, instead they would use their hearts and make sure to do the right thing by the people whom the State had poisoned.

I cannot believe that any politician, having heard those people, could bring forward another such Bill. Those behind the Bill who want to say it was an error or a misjudgment should say so. They should not try to defend it or cover it up and make it worse. We could put our hands up, say we got it wrong and show some respect for people who deserve much more.

We should be trying to do some good for those who have suffered and not cause more hurt, which is not what we came here to do, and it is not what I want to do. We are here to help as often as we can and to do the right thing. Passing this Bill without proper amendments would be wrong. Anybody who votes for it should hang his or her head in shame. We do not often get a chance to do some good at the stroke of a pen. Why does the Government have to meddle in a Bill after negotiations, only to complicate and confuse it, rendering it improper?

The move to tighten up compensation for hepatitis C is changing the goalposts. People require confirmation of infection through a blood test rather than a doctor's diagnosis, based on obvious symptoms. This is a disgrace and a slap in the face for people who have suffered enough at the hands of various Governments. It is disgusting. The Tánaiste claims the test will not be open to abuse, as if people would try to abuse or take advantage of this. I do not believe people would do that. Common sense and cop-on are needed here. It is our duty to show care, not its opposite, to those who hurt.

The Bill was intended to deal with life assurance and mortgage protection, which is worthwhile and is badly needed, but instead it is a sneaky and bad Bill. The Government's callous moves will definitely affect up to 100 people and possibly, to judge by today's figures, 250 people. The Bill is neither fair nor compassionate governance and I do not wish to be involved in its passage. I have not fully researched this area but I do not support this sham.

As a young politician I become more embarrassed by this Government and this House as the days go by. I had a vision of democracy that worked for everyone and did not go out of its way to hurt people, as this Bill does. The Government is a let-down. How nice it would have been to vote for something simple and good that would help those who were poisoned by the State.

We hear that amendments and partial climb-downs by the Tánaiste are on the cards, but the two amendments tabled do not go far enough. Having to make amendments is wrong in the first place. Why did it have to come this far? Why did the Tánaiste decide to make slight changes only after pressure from people on all sides of the House and after seeing the tears in the eyes of people in the Gallery and elsewhere? Why did she go behind the backs of these people after months of negotiations? That is underhand and bad for politics. I am surprised and disappointed by the Tánaiste for whom I had respect.

People talk about rushing legislation, as if we did not have time in the past to do it right. They speak as if we are being forced to rise next week and not come in during July, August and September. There is no need to rush. We can easily come in here next week and the weeks after that to discuss this and many other topics, and make proper legislation. To rush matters through as if it helps somebody is an illusion and does not help. This House could easily sit all night tonight, all night tomorrow night, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, and it does not have to rise on 5 July. That must change but I will not go into the detail now. Legislation deserves time, proper debate and negotiation, not false negotiation which results in changes afterwards.

Rushing legislation through is normally wrong and bad but in this case it is hurtful and morally wrong. It opens further many old wounds because people realise that the Government is prepared to let them down again. That is amazing. Why do the Tánaiste and the Department of Health and Children continue to be so cruel? The country can afford to do the right thing, not shameful things. Deputy Carey was right, this would not break the bank, far from it. Perhaps various people will try to argue that what they are saying makes sense medically — some of the speeches last night in which that argument was made insulted our intelligence — but it certainly makes no moral sense when one considers that the State wronged the people in question.

The Bill provides that insurance, relative to their age group and the people in the same category as them, will be made available to the victims who apply for it. Many victims have been waiting for years to get life assurance or proper mortgage cover. This provision might be too late for some of them. It is wrong to put such people in the same category as people of the same age. The insurance that is available to them should bear some relation to the insurance they would have been able to receive at the age when they first wanted to take out insurance, living cover and mortgage cover etc. It should not matter whether that was five, six or ten years ago. We should not provide that it should relate to a person of their own age now. One's life assurance gets much dearer as one gets older. We have to consider the cases of people who were unable to take out a mortgage or buy a house. The victims have missed out on many opportunities. We should not just square it off by saying that the insurance of a person who is 55 years of age should be set at the same price as that of someone else who is 55 years of age. That is not on. It is not good enough. This legislation does not go far enough for the sake of a few euro.

On the issue of loss of consortium or full marital enjoyment, it is wrong and unfair that compensation will not be paid to couples who knew, before they started their relationship, that one of the partners was infected. If I understand this provision correctly, hepatitis C victims are being singled out unnecessarily. Not all relationships last forever — people sometimes want to move on and start afresh. We certainly should not do anything to make that process more awkward or complicated, or even to draw attention to it. It is wrong and unfair that we are nit-picking in this way. It is normal nowadays, for various reasons, to have more than one relationship over the course of one's life. People may choose to end relationships or unfortunate circumstances may force that to happen. It is quite common in today's age to have a few relationships. We should not try to draw attention to it as something that is different.

We owe a great deal to the people about whom we are speaking, who were poisoned by the State. We should not insult them with something like this. We have a duty of care to them and a moral duty. Anything less is a disgrace, wrong, unfair and embarrasses this House.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.