Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, referred to unwarranted attacks by the Opposition on the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and the Government for the manner in which the Bill was introduced. I do not agree with him. Any attack was entirely warranted and appropriate. In 1994 the organisations representing the victims initially proposed an insurance scheme be put in place on a statutory basis. It was promised by the then Minister in 2004 and then again for January 2006. The Bill was then produced out of the blue. It was only on 20 June 2006 that the representative groups first learned of the Bill's contents. These are groups that are very active, have engaged in consultation and were available at all times. They have met the Tánaiste and her officials and are clearly representing the best interests of all the people who have suffered from infected blood transfusions.

I object to the manner in which the legislation has progressed through the House. The Bill only appeared yesterday when a few hours were provided to debate it. Likewise, another few hours have been provided to debate it today, with no break between Second Stage and Committee Stage. In an hour's time, we will vote on the Bill and the amendment to it tabled by Deputy McManus. In another hour and a half, we will vote on the entirety of the Bill once Committee, Report and Final Stages have concluded. That is no way to deal with important, sensitive and substantial legislation. The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, is as aware of that as anyone else. The Government is deliberately rushing through the Bill in the dying days of this Dáil session so it can be dealt with as quickly as possible to get it out of the way. That attitude is not good enough, nor is the use of the guillotine in this fashion.

Another reason this side of the House is attacking the Government on the Bill is that it was published without any explanatory memorandum. It is unimaginable that important legislation would be published without an explanatory memorandum. That clearly indicates the legislation was rushed and the Parliamentary Counsel had not got around to drawing up an explanatory memorandum. The legislation is complicated and would benefit from explanation. For all these reasons I have no hesitation in saying that in the manner in which the Tánaiste has introduced the legislation, she has been less than fair and reasonable towards Members of the House and those who are affected.

Despite the points that have been made, I believe Members on all sides are in favour of getting a fair resolution to this scandal of State negligence. While that is the case, I believe the Tánaiste has handled this issue in a manner which more reflects the mandarins in the Department of Finance and perhaps some of her officials. I would like her to tell us clearly whether some pressure has been brought to bear on her by the Department of Finance and her officials to introduce the changes in this legislation. They are acutely aware of all the money that has been spent and they appear to consider the spending of money to be more important than dealing with the needs and concerns of those affected.

An incredible amount of money has been spent by the Government on wild goose schemes. Nobody is contesting the liability of the State on this issue. It is clearly acknowledged that the State is fully liable for the infection it has caused to a large number of people who will suffer for the rest of their lives as a result. In addition to the effect this has on everything they do, we must not forget the effect it has on their friends and families. I accept it will be difficult to get everything right. That is at the heart of the matter.

The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, stated he has met constituents who are affected, in addition to representatives of the victims' groups. No doubt all Members of the House have come into contact with somebody who has suffered from hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood transfusions. We are all acutely aware of the issues involved and this behoves us to ensure that, at last, we bring finality to the situation. We should ensure we do so in a manner which does not create more bitterness or disillusionment with the ability of the institutions of the State to deliver a fair and final resolution.

We are putting the case to the Tánaiste to let her know she has got the legislation wrong. She has made a mistake. She was relying on outdated diagnostic testing mechanisms. She has not been brought up to date on modern methods of analysis. Questions have been asked about the reliability of the ELISA test. As a result of that, it is essential that the Bill does not proceed any further until such time as the Tánaiste has the opportunity of reaching a formula with the groups representing the victims which everybody can agree and stand over. The legislation must be substantially amended.

Without doubt, the State is liable for the infection. There is also no doubt that people who would otherwise be perfectly healthy have, through no fault of their own, found themselves infected to a degree that will be with them for the rest of their lives. This lunchtime on the "News at One", the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, stated that compensation awards of €580 million were paid out, as though the State was being generous. It was the State's responsibility to compensate people. It had no choice in the matter. The State had to fulfil its responsibility as not to do so would have further compounded the original negligence.

It was also reported on the "News at One" that the Tánaiste had issued a statement to the effect that she would not introduce, or allow to be introduced, any major amendments to the legislation. That is the position as of one hour ago. The Tánaiste has introduced legislation that seriously amends the existing compensation scheme. It is ironic that although the purpose of the legislation is to give extra benefits to people who have suffered, in terms of the compensation award, medical care and the provision of insurance, instead of conferring extra benefits, all benefits will be taken away from people who have not tested positive under the ELISA test. That will be the impact of the legislation and this gives the game away.

The Tánaiste is trying to prevent a new category of people who may have been below the cut-off threshold of the previous diagnostic system which has been superseded by more up-to-date technology. It is estimated that approximately 74 people will not benefit from any aspect of the legislation or the previous compensation tribunal. Either a very petty approach is being taken or the Department of Finance has indicated, as it has done in the past, that it believes the scheme is open to abuse and that people who are not genuinely entitled to claim will do so. We hear this approach all the time from the Government. Let us take, for example, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. He believes that people who disagree with him on policy are not genuine and are trying to milk the scheme. The Department of Finance is imposing its narrow criteria to put a cap on this scheme and avoid paying out further money. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children must respond to this in a meaningful way. This legislation is being rammed through the House, in breach of all procedure, without an explanatory memorandum, at the dog end of the session and now there is a twist in it aiming to exclude people who would otherwise, rightly, be included.

I am sure the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, has spoken to organisations that were directly involved in the consultation process such as Positive Action, the Irish Haemophilia Society and the Irish Kidney Association. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has put on record that she has also done so. Nonetheless, this group of organisations has issued a statement saying:

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children published the Bill on 20 June 2006. The Department of Health had been in negotiations with the above groups to provide a scheme for insurance for persons infected with hepatitis C and HIV so that they could obtain insurance on the same basis as other persons. Regrettably the Tánaiste proposes in the Bill to make fundamental amendments to the Hepatitis C Compensation Act 1997 which will significantly limit the categories of persons entitled to make claims for compensation and for provision under the health code. Our groups were not informed, until 20 June, of these radical proposals which are unacceptable and which should be opposed.

If the consultation was as adequate as the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children suggests, which the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, seems to support, why was this kept under wraps? There is confidentiality and there is confidentiality. This Bill has come out of the blue at loggerheads with the direction the groups perceived the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children was headed. This begs the questions, what went on and why does the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, through a cloak of confidentiality, try to deflect attention from what really happened? This is a cheap shot and she should explain why those negotiating for the victims were left out of the loop in the preparation of this Bill. It is not satisfactory to have the Bill sprung on us and expect it to be dealt with in such a short space of time.

Deputy McManus, the Labour Party spokesperson on health and children, has tabled an amendment:

[H]aving regard to the fact that the Bill contains matters unrelated to the issues that were the subject of extensive discussions with interest groups representing affected persons and the additional matter adversely affects the interests of those persons and further having regard also to the failure of the Minister for Health and Children to publish an Explanatory Memorandum outlining her reasons for including the additional matter; Dáil Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Bill.

I think this is how we should proceed in dealing with this legislation. People were ignored regarding the contents of the legislation so negotiations held were not meaningful in terms of putting in place a structure to deal with all the affected people and who may not yet have been diagnosed but may be diagnosed in the future.

We have to get to the bottom of the matter because that is the nub of the situation. A gulf has been created between the Government and the groups representing the victims and it creates a question mark over the bona fides of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children. She aims to ram through this legislation despite question marks over the scientific basis for diagnosis. A number of Deputies have quoted the Finlay report which makes it quite clear that the ELISA test has been superseded by new findings relating to the manner in which people infected with the 1977 anti-D virus are treated. It states in appendix G:

We now have evidence that it is also possible, although apparently rare, for a person to be infected and subsequently lose both detectable virus and detectable antibodies. This happened in the case of Donor Y. While we have no laboratory means of identifying these persons we have, however, taken a history of symptoms or signs from those who received the blood transfusion anti-D. We are thus aware of 74 recipients of 1977 anti-D who had an episode of jaundice at that time which is most likely to be related to the exposure to hepatitis C. As these persons do not show any reaction in laboratory tests for hepatitis C an epidemiological study is planned to investigate transient infection which has subsequently cleared.

This shows that 74 people have been identified as having hepatitis C, yet this did not become apparent in ELISA tests. There are, undoubtedly, more people in the public domain who have not yet been diagnosed. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children stated in her speech: "There will be a third form of recompense in the form of an insurance scheme." She pointed out that:

To ensure a consistent approach to all three supports [compensation, the special health service and insurance] the Government agreed that a hepatitis C diagnosis would be defined by a scientific test, the ELISA test for chronic infection and certain defined symptoms of acute infection ... The symptoms linked with hepatitis C include fatigue, aches [and so on.]

She goes on to say: "[the] diagnosis will be determined by means of an internationally accepted test". More importantly she asserts that: "the ELIZA test is accepted internationally as the standard method for diagnosing hepatitis C for the purpose of health care services".

This is the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children's statement on how people will qualify for all related benefits from now on. The legislation reflects this although it is totally undermined by the findings of the Finlay report. The counsel's advice on this is that:

[T]he proposed amendment means that a person would not be entitled to succeed in a claim for compensation before the compensation tribunal unless that person could show that they had a positive ELISA test, or had jaundice or raised Alt levels during the 16 weeks after the person had been administered anti-D.

This is a very severe restriction and it clearly shows that the ELISA test is not an adequate mechanism any longer.

All sides of the House are anxious to find a reasonable solution to this matter. I do not accuse the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children of bad intentions in this matter. I think she has been misled by mandarins behind the scenes in the Department of Health and Children and in the Department of Finance who have put the squeeze on her to ensure a Bill we expected to relate clearly to insurance in fact changes the diagnostic testing determinant.

Clearly that is the case and for that reason, we must stand on the side of the sufferers, the people who were infected, their families and friends and oppose this legislation.

See this speech in context