Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

Defensive is the only word for the Minister's attitude here. I want to tease out what is happening because it does not make sense after all that these people have gone through. Why does the Tánaiste think these organisations are seeking this safeguard? What is in it for them? If they do not have a justifiable case, why are they making such efforts to ensure that every one of the members of this tiny community is protected? They are doing that because they have concerns and worries. They do not want this change in legislation to leave anybody outside the system.

My amendment to the Tánaiste's amendment recognises the need for clarity. I accept that the Tánaiste wants to bring some clarity to this matter as a result of the court case. That is not a big problem. The organisations have shown that they are willing to discuss this matter. That is not the issue — the issue is whether the Tánaiste is doing enough in setting out these requirements. I put it to her simply that she is not doing enough. She is leaving people outside the system. Even if there is just one such person, that person should be included in the system. Nobody should have been put in the position in which these people were put in the first place. They were poisoned by the State, which now has a duty to all of them.

The second point I wish to make relates to the provision relating to the expert opinion of a consultant. There is something deeply flawed about the Tánaiste's argument in this regard. Doctors go into court to give their views on all sorts of things, for example in insurance cases. The expert evidence given by such witnesses is taken as expert evidence. Is the Tánaiste seriously telling me she is afraid that 15,000 people will convince this country's medical consultants — I refer to hepatologists and gastroenterologists — to say they should be allowed to access the tribunal because they have all the symptoms of hepatitis C and have been exposed to the hepatitis C virus? That does not make any sense.

I suspect the Tánaiste is letting the theory get in the way. Whatever about the theory, the reality is that consultants like their reputations. They are very touchy about protecting their reputations. The Tánaiste is well aware that consultants can be pretty prickly people. In this instance, she is challenging the fundamental professionalism of the medical profession without having any basis for doing so. It is not enough simply to assert there is a risk and a danger. There is a risk that the sky might fall, but we know that will not happen. I do not think consultants will debase themselves for some unknown reason. There is nothing in it for them to write little scripts saying they think people have hepatitis C because they have depression or fatigue. That simply does not stack up. The Tánaiste cannot even cite the evidence of a court case to strengthen her argument.

I appreciate that the Tánaiste is in a bit of a bind — she is in a bit of a hole. It is obvious that it would have been much better for her — she would have received much more kudos — if she could have simply introduced a Bill to provide for an insurance system. It would all have been done and dusted by now and we could all have gone home for our tea. We are not there, however — we are here. We are in the minority here and the Tánaiste is in the majority. We are in the process of passing legislation that will add to the damage done to people who have already suffered at the hands of the State.

I ask the Tánaiste to include in the legislation a further alternative requirement, on which some people may need to rely. We should trust our doctors, whom we need all the time. Deputy Lynch has made this argument more eloquently than I am making it. If the Tánaiste does not amend this Bill in the manner I am suggesting, will she be satisfied in her conscience that she has looked after the people in question and their interests? The organisations representing the people under discussion have gone through hell. They have been tested in the fire during all the years in which they have been involved in this issue. They are advising the Tánaiste that this perfectly reasonable additional amendment needs to be made. Even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with the amendment, the Tánaiste continues to refuse to accept it on the basis of the advice she is getting.

Those who are advising the Tánaiste in this regard are not advising her very well. They did not advise her properly on minors when she spoke in the Dáil yesterday on the Order of Business. They did not advise her correctly about the court case when she spoke just before the start of Committee Stage. I appreciate that Ministers have to rely on their advisers. I do not think the Tánaiste has deliberately decided to take this approach. I ask her to use her judgment, forget about the advisers and think independently about this matter.

The groups to which I have referred represent people who have suffered terribly at the hands of the State. The Tánaiste and the rest of the Members of this House, who are working on behalf of the State, have to ensure we do our best for the people in question. There should be no half-measures — we should go the full distance to ensure that all those who are affected, even if it is just one person, can get their full entitlements. They have those rights at present but the Tánaiste intends to take them away. I know that Deputies on the Government side have concerns in this regard. I respect that because it is to their credit. I ask the Tánaiste to accept my amendment to her amendment so we can all go home knowing we have done our very best.

See this speech in context