Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 26 to 33 and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 8.

The simplest and cleanest way to deal with this issue is to delete the section. This section should never have been included in the Bill. It was to be a stand-alone Bill to provide insurance for people who could not access it. Had it retained that intention, we would all commend the Tánaiste and her officials, who put a lot of work into designing the insurance scheme. Instead we are embroiled in what is a very unhappy and unfortunate disagreement when one considers the people directly affected. I ask the Tánaiste to consider deleting the lines.

I refer to my amendment to amendment No. 4. The Tánaiste's amendment is essentially about three tests which she is including as measures. I have concerns in that, given the way they are spelled out in the amendment, a person would be required to have two tests. Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of the Tánaiste's amendment do not provide an either-or requirement. The subparagraphs run into each other. It seems we are requiring people to not only take the ELISA test but also the RIBA test to qualify. I know that is not the intention but that is the way it reads. If we do not insert the word "or" at the end of subparagraph (i), we will end up running the two subparagraphs together. People from the various groups have major concerns about this. I ask that the Tánaiste's amendment be amended.

The other important amendment about which I will speak relates to the requirements these tests set for people. We have no problems with the tests being set as requirements, if we must have tests. However, there needs to be an additional measure to capture those people who cannot be captured by way of these tests due to their limitations.

My amendment No. 7a to the Minister's amendment No. 4 proposes a fourth subsection, so there would be one subsection for the ELISA test, a second subsection for the RIBA test, a third subsection for the PCR test and a fourth subsection which would read as follows: "in the opinion of a consultant gastroenterologist, a hepatologist, the person displays, suffers or has suffered from symptoms consistent with exposure to hepatitis C virus, and there is evidence that the person has been exposed to hepatitis C virus". That captures those people whom the tests do not pick up but who still suffer from the virus or at least have all the symptoms of the virus, and for whom there is evidence they have been exposed to the virus. It is a strict criterion.

While it is suggested the numbers involved are negligible, those involved are human beings. They were contaminated and poisoned by the State, which we need to remember. If there is one person left out as a result of the Bill, we have done that person a grave disservice. To include this additional test, whereby one must have the clinical diagnosis of a consultant and evidence of exposure, should be sufficient. I disagreed with the Minister when, in effect, she stated that one cannot believe doctors. We have to allow for the fact that there is expert opinion and that a consultant has sophisticated training and experience that comes to bear when making such a diagnosis.

In her summing up the Minister referred to a court case and stated the person who took the case suffered from fatigue and depression. That is not true. The Minister should not be advised in this way. I do not know who is giving her this advice. I suspect it does not come from her Department but from the Attorney General's office. It should get its facts right. In this case, fatigue, joint pain, liver function and various other symptoms which suggested hepatitis C were shown to be evident. There was no depression. It is important to put that on record.

To recap on the position I ask the Minister to adopt, we must make clear that the ELISA test is an either-or test to the RIBA test and that we are not putting the two together, as it would appear in the amendment, which is open to confusion. The other issue is that the Minister should provide for a clinical diagnosis by an expert consultant. Where a patient has received that diagnosis, he or she would also have to prove he or she was exposed to the virus. Once a patient qualifies on those grounds, he or she should be allowed to go to the tribunal.

A number of people are not captured by the amendment put forward by the Minister. These people could still go to court because they have a case. Is that what we want?

My blood ran cold when I heard the Minister state she could not have consulted with the groups because she had to protect the taxpayer and the State's interest. I recall a previous Minister for Health putting forward a similar argument that he had to protect the taxpayer. It does not go down well and is not the way to deal with this issue. It was not the right thing to do then and it is certainly not the right thing to do now. Other issues have to come into the balance. I accept this issue concerns taxpayers but there are also issues of justice.

We are not referring to a large group of people. There is no evidence with regard to there being 15,000 people involved and the floodgates having opened. That has not happened. If we can set down the criteria with regard to the three tests, clinical diagnosis and evidence of exposure, that would satisfy those people and organisations which have been marginalised and excluded from this process and allowed only a limited input. This is their input — I feel I am the conduit for that. They have all the weight of experience and long knowledge, more than anyone in this House, which we need to respect and regard in this debate.

See this speech in context