Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate on this Bill, which generated a considerable and understandable degree of interest among Deputies on all sides of the House. I do not propose to deal with the insurance elements of the Bill because I believe there is broad support for them, except to reiterate that I intend to introduce the regulations and appoint the administrator within a three to six-month timeframe. Hopefully, the timeframe will be closer to three months, which is that requested by groups representing those affected. I understand the administrator will take between three and six months to administer both the life assurance and mortgage protection scheme and will, shortly afterwards, do what is necessary to introduce the travel insurance scheme.

Another commitment I gave yesterday was that those individuals who received awards of compensation from the tribunal but who did not qualify for the health card because of the test introduced in 1998 will now receive the health card and that resources will be made available to the Health Service Executive to bring that about. Positive Action has informed me about the number of people affected.

I will deal with the main issues of difficulty that have arisen between me and others in this House. I reiterate what I said yesterday and on many previous occasions. What happened to the victims as a result of the administration of contaminated blood and blood products in this State in the 1970s and 1990s was catastrophic and no amount of money can ever compensate for this. When I became Minister for Health and Children, I set out to inspire confidence in the new blood transfusion service and I believe we can now have full confidence in it. In order to show my respect for the people affected, when this issue first arose, I appointed an individual closely connected with Positive Action to the board of the blood transfusion service when the first vacancy became available on it.

I will deal firstly with the issue of consortium. The loss of consortium is the loss of something that happened. Therefore, the person affected is entitled to compensation. If a person had a relationship with an infected person, either in the form of a marriage or another stable relationship, prior to diagnosis, there is no question that he or she is entitled to compensation for, among other things, loss of consortium. Groups representing affected people will confirm that we do not put people through stringent tests to prove the existence of relationships. We do not query people about their relationships.

The change I am making relates to where it was known before the beginning of the relationship that the person was infected, a scenario which arises in the case of a second relationship following the payment of compensation to a former partner or spouse. In such cases, compensation for loss of consortium does not arise. I listened to some of the debate even though I was not present for all of it so I understand that some Deputies appear to think that we will be taking compensation from the victims. I am bringing forward an amendment to make it clear that this will not happen. Clearly, someone who has a relationship with an infected person, even if it begins after diagnosis, is entitled to compensation for any out-of-pocket expenses, time off work, mental distress or loss of society. However, he or she is not entitled to compensation for something of which he or she was aware when the relationship began. Most people would regard this as fair and reasonable. There are a number of claims before the tribunal and, clearly, nothing I am doing here will affect anything that predated the publication of this Bill. There are a number of claims in respect of second relationships.

On the test, if I believed any victim would suffer as a result of these amendments, they would not have been introduced. Why have we done so? Last year, the KL case was before the courts and KL was compensated. Compensation for fatigue and depression had been refused to KL by the tribunal. The tribunal must now follow the court's decision, which means that anyone who received blood products and who suffers from fatigue and depression is entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, we must instil certainty in this issue.

The controversy that has arisen is surprising. In 1998, Irish experts and a representative of Positive Action agreed that ELISA should be the test for the health card. In 1996, the ELISA test was central to the Bill submitted by Mr. John Rogers SC and Ivor Fitzpatrick & Company Solicitors on behalf of the victims. I cannot establish the reason the test was not accepted. Perhaps the test was not as developed then as it is now. Since that time, the test has been taken on board by schemes in the United Kingdom and Canada. We are making amendments to allow for ELISA, REBA and PCR tests. We are also making provision for any test that arises in future. Anyone who is clinically diagnosed with jaundice, for example, within the 16 weeks or tests positive under any of these tests qualifies. This is fair and reasonable.

Another case will shortly appear before the courts and other cases are before the tribunal. We cannot contemplate a situation where, by virtue of fatigue and depression, which can be caused by many factors, compensation in the order of €250,000 would be paid. No reasonable or fair-minded person could accept that. Therefore, we are trying to instil consistency between the insurance, health card and compensation schemes.

If the test was voluntarily agreed to in 1998 for the health card, I do not understand why the issue arises in respect of compensation. If it was acceptable to get the health benefits, why is it unacceptable to get compensation? There is a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the group identified at the time of the Finlay report that something will be taken away. Nothing will be taken from anyone. Those cases have been dealt with by the tribunal or are before it and are unaffected by these provisions. In terms of diagnosis, only future claims for fatigue and depression dealt with by legal firms will be affected.

Anyone in my position and aware of the facts with which I am familiar would do as I have done. We cannot expose the State to a situation wherein 15,000 or more people who received blood products would be entitled to compensation based on those criteria. The Government's decision in this regard was made after careful consideration. While the members of the group in question can never be fully compensated, we are trying to help them by putting in place reasonable compensation, provision of health services and support towards insurance. In all circumstances, this is reasonable.

Nothing will be taken from anyone and nothing different will occur in respect of the people already involved in the process. There are varying figures of 40, 70 or 100 for the number of cases that emerged nine years ago, but we will say there are 100. If none of that number has begun the process of claiming compensation from the tribunal, why not? The gold standard used by the tribunal was the positive test or jaundice, but the tribunal is obliged to take on board the decision of the High Court. Another case will shortly be before the court.

Why did the Government not discuss the Bill with the groups? That is a fair question. If we are exposing the State to litigation, no Minister or Government in a deliberative process could enter into negotiations on such an issue. I do not want to compare this situation with another, but this House has often dealt with legal issues in a similar way for an obvious reason, namely, the State's exposure. We are not discussing €200,000 or €500,000. Extending the health card will cost €4 million or €5 million, but I do not take issue with that. While I do not lightly disregard money, I want to help those who genuinely need help. As such, the cost of helping them is not the issue. Rather, the issue is one of exposing the State to a large number of potential claims. We do not need to be experts to know the capacity in some quarters for seeking compensation.

This Bill does not victimise innocent people who suffered. It is concerned with protecting a scheme on behalf of those for whom it was designed and ensuring that they get the health services, compensation and insurance to which they are entitled. It is also concerned with not exposing the State beyond that. People ask why the word of a doctor should not be accepted, but doctors can be wrong. Putting ourselves in the position of accepting something by virtue of the fact that a doctor said it would not be reasonable or fair. Not even Deputy Twomey would agree that such a provision would be reasonable or fair.

One can receive compensation and the other benefits on clinical or laboratory evidence. It is not a matter of jumping through several hoops, as someone suggested. Given what we know of the scientific nature of the test, its international acceptance, that it is central in the schemes of other countries, was advocated here in 1996 and was universally accepted here for the health card in 1998, I do not understand this reaction. There must be some misunderstanding about its impact. I assure the House that the provision is being included for purposes of consistency and ensuring that the State is not exposed to claims for compensation from people who received blood products and who are now suffering from fatigue or depression, or both, which can be caused by many factors. I will not give figures in that regard and I am not suggesting that all 15,000 would claim, but we would be left exposed by the High Court case if we did not provide certainty in respect of the principles applied in the three schemes. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context