Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

I do not wish to name and embarrass my officials, some of whom are present. They have done a wonderful job in this area over many years, which I wish to be the first to acknowledge. The medical and legal advice, and the advice of officials in the Department who are not medics, has been fantastic. I know of no group of public servants more committed to the cause they seek to address through this legislation and the other aspects of this scheme. They are utterly committed, beyond the call of duty, and feel strongly about these issues.

Deputy Lynch is right to say that what happened to this group of victims was a disgrace. The Deputy need not expect me to try to defend it in any sense. I would not do that. I know some of these people well — two are among my closest friends in my family circle — and I know what they have gone through and that no compensation can ever make up what they have lost. Let there be no doubt about my position on that point.

Deputy Lynch asks why I do not trust the tribunal. Of course I trust the tribunal but it needs clarity as a result of the High Court case. The tribunal had been using the ELISA test, or jaundice, as the gold standard. In response to Deputy Twomey, one does not have to go through all the hoops but any of them. The tests are complementary.

I cannot accept what Deputy McManus is suggesting, not because I do not trust doctors but because I acknowledge that they get it wrong. In any action involving medical issues before the courts there are doctors on each side. They do not agree universally. I have a statement issued this afternoon by Professor William Hall who is well known to Members. He is head of the National Virus Reference Laboratory at UCD and is an international expert in this field. He writes that the tests used have been shown in numerous peer-reviewed medical publications and independent test evaluations to have excellent sensitivity in the identification of hepatitis C infection in individuals with normal immunity. People who do not have normal immunity, such as those undergoing treatment for cancer, or renal dialysis, can avail of the PCR test. One must simply have proof from any of these tests, or clinical evidence of jaundice.

In 1998 the medical experts, representatives of Positive Action and others involved in the expert group on hepatitis C agreed that this should be the test for the health card to give one access to the health services. In 1996 the Bill proposed on behalf of the groups by John Rogers, SC, and Ivor Fitzpatrick, Solicitors, that this test should be the diagnosis. Since then it has been introduced in the United Kingdom and Canada as the basis on which compensation is given. I am allowing in these amendments that if any other test arises, about which we do not yet know, it too will be facilitated.

The 40 persons either have gone through or are within the tribunal process. We cannot know the exact number. What we do here does not affect them. It would be unacceptable to seek to affect any of those individuals by anything we do here. There are cases in process with which the tribunal has not dealt and which may end up in court but will not be affected by this legislation because it is not retrospective.

The word "floodgate", which I do not like, was used in connection with people making false claims. As a result of a High Court decision it may happen that a very large number of people can claim on the basis of pains and aches, or fatigue or symptoms that can be associated with other causes, and might receive compensation. The tribunal must follow the court decision. I do not take advice from lawyers alone because sometimes when the law and politics mix it is a lethal cocktail, as I know from my experience in this House. I take advice from medical experts too, much of which I have taken on board on this issue and I have studied what has been done in other countries.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept Deputy McManus's amendment because to do so would effectively say that a clinician's testimony would be grounds for availing of the compensation and the insurance scheme. We did not accept those grounds for health benefits in 1998. When we agreed one had to have the positive diagnosis for the health card, we did not add that the word of a clinician should be sufficient. We must be consistent on the three aspects of support, namely, compensation, insurance and the health card. That is what we seek to do through the legislation and the amendments I have tabled.

See this speech in context