Dáil debates

Friday, 30 June 2006

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

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Tony KilleenTony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

The Government has proposed the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006 to provide for the establishment of an insurance scheme for persons infected by blood and blood products administered within the State. The sad history of the infection of blood and blood products with hepatitis C and HIV will never be erased. Families continue to experience the hurt and sadness these pernicious viruses have brought to their lives. The Government is facing up to its responsibilities by introducing this legislation.

I understand that on last night's "Prime Time", the State was accused of funding the insurance scheme by curtailing people's right to compensation. I have been assured this is incorrect, as additional funds have been agreed by the Government to finance the scheme. It is made clear in section 4 that a special account, to be funded by the Oireachtas, will be established for the scheme. This legislation amends the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 by inserting in it a new section 5A, which will make it clear that the special account that will be established to pay for the compensation tribunal cannot be used to fund the insurance scheme. As there has been some confusion in this regard, it is important that we make clear exactly what is provided for in this aspect of the legislation.

Officials from the Department of Health and Children and representatives of the Irish Haemophilia Society, Transfusion Positive, Positive Action and the Irish Kidney Association have worked together closely over the years to shape policy in a way that optimises services for people with hepatitis C and HIV. It is important that the relationships that have been built up over the years are not damaged by the outcome of this debate, anything that is said in the House or anything that might arise from the manner in which this legislation is dealt with. It is right and proper that each of the organisations gets financial support of more than €1.5 million per annum to help them to meet their administrative costs, to do some hugely important work and to support their members. I have been told by officials from the Department of Health and Children who have attended some of the functions and AGMs of these groups that they are aware of the strong role the organisations play in the lives of their members. The officials have told me that if a member of one of the groups is ill or is experiencing difficulties, the organisations' executive members handle such cases as if the people affected were members of their own families.

Any Member of the House who has had the experience of having a family member stricken by an illness or a debilitating condition will have found, as my family has found, that it is not always immediately apparent in such circumstances where one should turn to for support. The supports and entitlements available in such cases are far from apparent. When my family found itself in such circumstances, information was not even readily available to outline the effects of the condition on the person who is affected and on the family. Regardless of the type of State apparatus that is in place, it is hugely important for people who are struck by illnesses to be able to avail of alternative support systems. I thank and pay tribute to the four essentially voluntary organisations which are providing such support in this instance. It is important that the links forged between the organisations and the officials continue to remain strong.

It is inevitable that there have been accusations of bad faith in relation to a supposed lack of consultation on certain sections of this legislation. The Tánaiste has explained that the sections in question have been included in the Bill to address legal difficulties. The Government was advised that as those matters were the subject of litigation, they could not be discussed or negotiated in advance of the publication of the Bill on 20 June last. I listened to Deputy English some moments ago, just as I have listened to parts of this debate over the past two days. People outside the House sometimes have difficulty coming to grips with the practice in this House whereby Opposition Deputies use every opportunity that arises to take shots at the Government. Perhaps the Government is sometimes at fault in giving the Opposition too many opportunities to take such shots — there is always an element of that. I do not think such behaviour is helpful in this instance, however. We have been given an opportunity in this legislation to improve the current system and we should concentrate on doing so, as much as possible. Significant improvements can and will be made on foot of this Bill.

The central intention of this legislation is to provide for the new insurance scheme. It has become clear to the 1,700 or more people who are infected with hepatitis C that their efforts to obtain life assurance or mortgage protection cover are adding to the damage they have already suffered. This issue has been highlighted by the consultative council on hepatitis C since its first meeting in March 1997. We need to acknowledge that one of the most frustrating aspects of this saga has been the length of time it has taken to advance some of the issues which needed to be resolved. As no similar insurance support schemes were in operation in other countries, unfortunately, the Department of Health and Children retained a firm of consultants with experience of insurance and financial products to research the feasibility of establishing a scheme here. When this work was completed and it was clear that a scheme could be established, the next phase of work, which involved devising the scheme's parameters, was commenced. The draft scheme was given to the representative groups when this second phase was completed. They worked through the documentation and the rules of the scheme to try to address their members' needs. The officials in the Department of Health and Children were open to the groups' suggestions and I understand they took on board the vast majority of those recommendations. While the scheme has some limitations, for example in the maximum sum insurable, it seeks to address the situation in as fair and equitable a manner as possible. The amounts allowable for mortgage protection, for example, are in keeping with Dublin house prices, plus 25%. Assurance limits are also linked with the consumer price index to ensure the scheme's limits keep up with inflation.

The representative groups were keen to protect the rights of young people who may not be ready to take out life assurance or mortgage protection. Many young people remain in college until well into their 20s and so would not have sufficient income to consider purchasing a home or taking out life assurance. For this reason, there are no restrictions or penalties on young people entering the scheme until their 30th birthday. After that age, there may be a waiting period if individuals are deemed uninsurable.

The scheme's regulations, drafting of which will commence immediately on the enactment of the legislation, will be drawn up in consultation with the representative groups. This is vital to ensure entry into the scheme and its administration is as user-friendly as possible.

It is important to take account of the import of regulations which amount to de facto secondary legislation. There will be an opportunity during the preparation of the regulations to address some of the concerns voiced in recent days. That is one reason why it is important that the good relations built up between officials in the Department of Health and Children, the HSE and the representative groups be continued. It is important to the efficacy and outcome of the regulations that these parties can work together to reach a satisfactory outcome.

Confidentiality is an important aspect to these cases. I am pleased the Bill contains a section outlining the offences and penalties if anyone in the chain of the insurance scheme breaches the confidentiality of claimants. Much debate has taken place on the definition of the diagnosis of hepatitis C and how the Bill serves to restrict access of people infected with hepatitis C to the tribunal and other supports provided to victims. The Government examined this issue in detail in advance of bringing the legislation forward. It is satisfied the definition of diagnosis includes the ELISA, RIBA and PCR tests. The provision that will allow other tests that may emerge is robust. This will be the subject of an amendment on Committee Stage.

Last month I met three members of the representative groups in Clare. I was impressed by the manner in which they presented their cases and concerns. The principal concern then was that they could read the legislation before its publication. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has explained how this posed a legal difficulty. I am disposed to accept her explanation. During the 14 years I have been a Member, I have encountered many lobby groups. I was hugely impressed by the professionalism of the approach and the presentation by the hepatitis C representative groups. I was also impressed by a telephone call I received yesterday from one of the representative groups setting out its current concerns. Hopefully, some of these concerns will be addressed in the amendments tabled by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children.

There is considerable agreement on the insurance scheme. Many would have expected this area to be the most difficult on which to reach agreement. There is a temptation to respond to the naked political points raised but it would not serve the debate or the victims well. It would not be conducive to producing legislation which serves the best interests of the sufferers.

I was surprised at Deputy English's extraordinary claim that having to make amendments is wrong. The job of the Executive is to propose legislation. The principal function of the Houses of the Oireachtas is to examine the proposed legislation and amend it as appropriate. No member of the Government or any other Member is the exclusive owner of all intelligence when introducing a Bill. When I have brought Bills through the Houses, I have been more than happy to listen to good cases for an amendment from Opposition spokespersons and have been willing to accept some. If Members concentrated more on the shortcomings of the Bill, they might do a better job for the beneficiaries.

Deputy English also threw in the old chestnut of the Dáil sitting all night tonight and all through July and August. Not many people are fooled by this ploy. Nor are people fooled when hearing the line there is an enormous hurry with the legislation, only to be followed by the line that there is no real hurry. The debate needs to be approached with a level of responsibility and acceptance that this is a serious issue for those infected and their families. The Government has attempted to address those concerns within parameters in as constructive and fair a manner as possible.

Some of the charges made against the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children were unsubstantiated and groundless. While I sometimes find it easy to disagree with her on some issues, I always find her approach honourable, open and, in cases such as this, compassionate. I have no doubt she considered the points made to her and will further consider them in opportunities which will arise.

With the introduction of the insurance scheme the State will have addressed a major inequity suffered by a number of its most vulnerable citizens. The travel insurance aspect of the scheme needs more detailed work as the parameters of it need to be agreed. The best work will be done in this area if the people who know about the difficulties and the departmental officials are allowed to chart a course to reach the best possible outcome. People in the representative bodies will find the Government open to constructive suggestions in this regard. The State has given an undertaking that the travel insurance scheme's framework will be developed within six months of the commencement of the overall scheme.

It is unlikely to be the last chapter in this saga. There are concerns which the representative groups feel have not been adequately addressed in the legislation. Further opportunities will arise to fine-tune the legislation. It is the Government's intention that this will be done in as constructive and open a manner as possible.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.