Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to speak on the Bill, which shows what has been the position of several Governments on this critical issue affecting people's health. It is symptomatic of much that has occurred and tells a sad and sorry story. In the early 1990s the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, as it was then known, diagnosed a number of people with hepatitis C but did not inform them immediately, which put the individuals in question and their families at great risk. In some cases, people were not told for years that they were infected. This issue was the subject of four legal cases, one of which is before the High Court. Its legacy includes the deaths of at least 88 haemophiliacs who contracted HIV from contaminated blood products and the infection of more than 1,000 people with hepatitis C from infected batches of anti-D.

The deaths of 88 haemophiliacs is terrible and regrettable. We learnt today that, since Christmas, eight people infected by the State with hepatitis C or HIV have died and that these individuals, two of whom were women aged 48 and 49 years, respectively, had no life insurance at the time of their deaths. Either they could not obtain life insurance or were quoted premiums that were so high as to be out of their grasp. No company wanted to provide them with life insurance cover because they were considered too high a risk on the grounds of a disability, namely, hepatitis C or HIV. Instead of the State protecting their constitutional rights to bodily integrity, as it is obliged to do under the Constitution, the agents of the State killed them by giving them infected blood product which caused the predicament in which they found themselves. I welcome the provisions in this Bill rectifying the life insurance position. It is the least the State should do. The only pity is that it has taken so long, nine years, which is scandalous. As a medical student in 1991 I went to the United States on a J1 visa to try to earn some extra money. I remember seeing advertisements on the streets of New York seeking blood donations in exchange for dollars. Everybody knew that drug addicts donated blood regularly as a revenue earner to feed their drug habit. It was, therefore, no surprise that HIV and hepatitis C turned up in donated blood. I am glad compensation has been paid to some of the victims. The Irish Government has paid €660 million in legal fees and compensation so far to some 2,000 victims of the contaminated blood scandal. Although that is a lot of money, it is only money and cannot give those people back what has been taken from them. It has wrecked people's lives and health and taken loved ones away from their families, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers.

It is terrible that so much money had to be paid because of negligence and the failure of the State to do what it should have done. It is remarkable how so much harm was done by people not doing what they were supposed to do. I worked in Mayo General Hospital as an obstetric house doctor around the time the infected batches came out. One of my tasks as a junior hospital doctor in obstetrics and gynaecology was to inject rhesus negative women after the births of their children with the anti-D blood product to kill any cells of the baby's blood that might have crossed from the afterbirth to the mother, and which could sensitise her to the baby's blood and make antibodies which could affect future pregnancies. This injection has eliminated a serious condition. However, when one has such an injection one expects it to be safe and when it turns out that some were lethal injections with such a terrible cost to people's lives, one must question what happened and how it was allowed.

Little did we realise that certain batches of this blood produce were infected and that the agents of the State were aware of the international concerns for some time but did not take the proper steps to ensure infected products did not get into this country. Unfortunately infected products did in and it is a matter of public record through the Lindsay inquiry that a catalogue of failures, neglect and inadequacies was perpetrated by the then Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board. Unfortunately most of the victims are women who were infected with hepatitis C when they received the infected blood products in this way. Approximately 1,000 of the victims were recipients of anti-D blood products and 700, mainly renal patients and haemophiliacs, received blood transfusions or blood clotting factors. It is terrible how this happened and how the victims, their families and the taxpayer must live with the consequences of somebody else's mistake. It is unacceptable that this Bill contains changes of which the advocacy groups concerned were not aware until Tuesday of last week.

I laud the work of Transfusion Positive, Positive Action, the Irish Haemophilia Society and the Irish Kidney Association on behalf of victims and their families. When I met haemophiliacs in my professional career as a GP I was always affected by the fact that people were born with this affliction and that if they fell, instead of receiving just a bruise, they could suffer bleeding into their joints because they lacked a basic clotting factor. When this happened it was a terrible situation and that bleeding had to be stopped with an injection. Those young children were always very brave. To think that some of them received a lethal product which would lead to their deaths affected me. If it affected me, what must it have done to their families to lose a child in that way? For haemophiliacs to be affected like this was unforgivable.

The main change causing problems includes an amendment to the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act, which requires all new applicants to the tribunal to undergo stringent scientific tests to prove their condition instead of relying on the word of a specialist hepatitis C doctor. I note the Tánaiste's addition of the other tests, which is important. This area is not as cut and dried as people might think. It is still a grey and evolving area and epidemiological information is still coming to light about the value of these tests. A medical colleague informed me that he was surprised when a patient of his tested positive for hepatitis C, but two subsequent tests proved negative. This raises the argument that if one can get a false positive test, one can get a false negative test. Most infected people remain infected until treated. Some have lost the virus from their systems but they will still retain antibodies. There are exceptional circumstances where somebody who has contracted hepatitis C can have a negative antibody or ELISA test result. For example, in a health worker who contracted the hepatitis C virus from a needle stick injury one could monitor the liver function test data beginning to rise as evidence of infection. By intervening early with the antiviral drug, Interferon, in theory at least, it is possible that the immune process could be prevented so that no antibodies are produced, resulting in a negative test, even though hepatitis C has been contracted. In other words, somebody could be infected with hepatitis C but form no antibodies. Therefore the tests are uncertain and if there is doubt the benefit of the doubt should be given to the afflicted person.

There is a human face to this. I have a constituent who is badly afflicted with hepatitis C and even though her consultant hepatologist is prepared to swear or give evidence that this person has hepatitis C, based on repeated clinical examinations, this is not acceptable. It should be acceptable and I have called for it to be acceptable on a number of occasions in this Chamber. Although the person to whom I refer is desperately ill, she cannot even get a medical card. This is a disgrace because she and her family are going through hell on earth. This lady has a young family and is in great need. She is in and out of hospital with various afflictions, all related to her hepatitis. She is constantly in need of the services of her GP and consultant hepatologist and she must bear these crippling costs. She and her family have enough to worry about trying to keep her well and dealing with the fact that she is ill and unable to do the things any mother should be able to do with her children, to take part in their play and be with them as they grow up. This lady is in a poor state and should not have to worry about the terrible financial hardship she is undergoing.

This situation must be resolved. Humanity cries out for people like this to be given the support they need. I have pleaded with the Tánaiste to reconsider her stance on providing free health care for this poor lady and the estimated 100 women who are severely affected by hepatitis C and who have not tested positive, as this lady has not, but have every other manifestation of the illness. This is a small number of women so affected, but their need is great. The Tánaiste has informed me that while she is sympathetic to the women, she cannot support an extension to the current eligibility requirements. Why not? It has been said the Tánaiste is a very definite person. She does not do the nuances very well, however. I do not know whether this is correct but this is a definite situation and it is critical to look after these ill women, including my desperately ill constituent.

Haemophiliacs have got a raw deal. What has happened to them is unparalleled in any group and whatever can be done to help and support them should be done. It is very unfair to be born with such an illness but no words can describe what has happened to these haemophiliacs and their families. It is a gross injustice.

The State does not face up to situations it should face but tries to fight cases, such as that of Mrs. McCole, which cry out for justice that is not done. Instead, there is an attempt to deny, or worse, to fight someone who seeks justice and has a right to be treated fairly and with equity. This applies also in respect of autism. The money used to defend the indefensible should be spent on services.

I calculated from replies I received from the Department of Health and Children that approximately €8 million of taxpayers' money was spent on fighting the parents of children with autism who were trying to get health services for their children. I asked a similar question of the Department of Education and Science and found that approximately €12 million has been spent on fighting parents who were trying to secure special education for their children with special needs. Parents will do anything to ensure that their children receive the equivalent of a normal education, or as near to that as possible. Instead of spending that money on providing services for those people with special needs or children with autism, the Government spent it on trying to deny those children the right to the health and educational services they need and deserve. That amounts to €20 million, which is a large sum.

The Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006 represents people infected with hepatitis C through infected blood and blood products administered by the State. The problems relate to sections 1, 2 and 6. In the past all groups were consulted prior to the publication of an amendment Bill but in this case it was sprung on them on 20 June for debate today, with the result that there is no accountability to the groups involved or the infected people they represent.

The groups feel that the new exclusion of consortium for partners of sufferers is underhand. In 2002 the then Minister for Health and Children introduced an entitlement for the spouses and partners of people with hepatitis C to claim for compensation for the loss of consortium. This morning the Minister, Deputy Harney, said that these changes do not discriminate against children, but the groups argue strongly against this. Today's children, tomorrow's adults, will have no safety net for their future partners.

Hepatitis C is a debilitating disease which can be more or less dormant for many years but a bout or flare-up of the symptoms can leave a person bedridden. Such a person, infected by the State, or his or her partner, should receive compensation. Similarly, it is wrong that those who do not test positive but have all the manifestations of hepatitis C, which the consultant hepatologist is prepared to state, can be denied the compensation they deserve and require.

The groups feel that this exclusion concerns money, not accountability. It was decided behind closed doors. There was no dialogue or debate with the people affected and the groups feel insulted that the Government is saying sorry but not showing regret. They maintain that the Minister has been in consultation with the relevant insurance groups and is following advice. She is aware that many people remain to be diagnosed and the floodgates have not yet opened. They say, "Infected by the State; the future will now not be the same as the past."

The ELISA test is the current hepatitis C determining test. A woman who last Monday tested negative on the ELISA test but has all the symptoms, and written confirmation from the then Irish Blood Transfusion Board that she received infected blood, is not entitled to compensation. The 100 women who have all the symptoms of hepatitis C but not a positive ELISA test will not be considered under this new legislation.

The Minister wants all testing based on the results of the ELISA test. A positive result will be the only form of recognition of the disease, as well as the RNA test which she has added, and other tests. To get this through quickly the Minister has verbally confirmed that those already in the system testing negative but with all symptoms will be compensated. I hope that the Minister will do as much as she can to try to include those 100 women who are not being compensated. They cannot even get medical cards.

In a reply to a parliamentary question on 7 March 2006 the Minister said that in September 2005 she told the groups representing those infected that they had her full support. Where is that support now? In January 2002 the Irish Blood Transfusion Board stated on paper that 64,500 women tested negative for hepatitis C but that 19,000 may have received potentially infected product.

The Government should consider seriously the deficits in this Bill and address the changes regarding diagnosis and consortium. I welcome the changes regarding insurance but nine years later they are not before time.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006. Earlier this month the Tánaiste announced the publication of this Bill to establish a statutory scheme to address the insurance difficulties experienced by persons infected with hepatitis C and HIV through the administration within the State of blood and blood products. This important measure addresses the problem faced by these people of being unable to purchase mortgage protection and life assurance policies. These people were infected through no fault of their own. They received services from the State and were entitled to expect the highest possible standards. The Oireachtas on behalf of the State and various bodies on behalf the Oireachtas let those people down. Many were affected as a result. It is right that the State face up to its legal and moral responsibilities in this issue.

The Government acknowledges in the strongest possible terms that the infection of people with contaminated blood products was catastrophic for them and their families. While no monetary support or compensation can ever repair the damage, Ireland is doing more for victims compared with other countries in similar circumstances. No other country has introduced an insurance scheme. This Bill shows that Ireland is committed to working with the victims of infection to provide all the supports possible for them.

The scheme will cover the insurance risk of the 1,700 or more people who are entitled to avail of insurance products, regardless of other medical conditions they may have, as long as they pay the standard premium that an uninfected person of the same age and gender would pay. Such considerations might sound quite materialistic, but they are practical things which have to be taken into account if victims are to lead lives which are as normal as possible, enjoy normal facilities and have the security of insurance that other people have.

The enactment of this Bill will provide for a third form of recompense. The first form of recompense is compensation from the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal, which to date has awarded over €660 million to approximately 2,000 people. The second form of recompense is the special health card, which has been mentioned by various people during this debate. The cost of health care under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 is approximately €15 million per annum. A third form of recompense — the life assurance support scheme — will be put in place with the enactment of this Bill. It is estimated that, over its lifetime, the scheme will cost approximately €90 million, which is small fry. It is not as if we will be providing €90 million in any one year — we will be providing €90 million over several decades. I expect the scheme will cost between €1 million and €5 million in any given year. The annual cost is not a serious issue. When one considers the State's moral responsibility in this regard, it is clear that the annual cost is not worthy of a row or a detailed debate. Even if the cost transpires to be greater than that currently envisaged, it should be borne in mind that the State would be meeting a significantly higher cost if it was only a money issue.

The Tánaiste said clearly earlier today that the Government has agreed, in the interest of having a consistent approach to all these supports, that "a hepatitis C diagnosis", under the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Acts 1997 and 2002 and the Health (Amendment) Act 1996, should be defined in terms of a scientific test, known as the ELISA test. Alternatively, "a hepatitis C diagnosis" can also be determined if the person displayed symptoms of acute infection with jaundice within 16 weeks of the administration of an infective agent. I will come back to that aspect of the matter. The Tánaiste has indicated that some amendments to the Bill will be proposed on Committee and Report Stages, for example to deal with the ELISA test. I look forward to the relevant part of the legislation being broadened so it does not refer specifically to that test only. I understand it will be possible, as time goes by, to introduce regulations to make variations to the new testing regime.

The symptoms associated with hepatitis C include tiredness, aches and pains and depression. Many such symptoms are common to a number of conditions which are not associated with hepatitis C. It has been decided, to ensure the support scheme operates in a fair and equitable manner and that those determining eligibility under the scheme use clear and consistent criteria, that diagnosis will be determined by means of an internationally accepted test. A similar scientific definition of hepatitis C diagnosis is used in other jurisdictions, like the UK and Canada, where compensation schemes operate. Ireland is the first country to introduce an insurance scheme for victims in these circumstances. We will take further steps in respect of the various tests. I am sure the Tánaiste, who has been listening carefully to people over recent days, will make some movement in that regard. I cannot say at this stage how far she will be able to go. I am pleased that some amendments will be made when the Dáil debates this matter further tomorrow.

It should be noted that the expert group on hepatitis C, which is chaired by the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Children and includes leading liver consultants and a member of Positive Action, agreed in 1998 that eligibility for the Health (Amendment) Act card should be determined on the basis of a positive diagnostic test for hepatitis C. Deputy Cowley has used his medical experience to tell the House about the cases of people who were given false diagnoses on foot of various tests. A positive reading is given in some cases when that should not be the case. In other cases, a negative reading is given when that is not accurate. It is important that we do not restrict ourselves to one particular test. Technology moves on as the years pass. We should provide for the flexibility to deal with changing circumstances.

I would like to speak about the question of consortium. The Bill proposes that compensation for loss of consortium will be awarded to the spouses and partners of infected people if the relationships commenced before the diagnosis of hepatitis C or HIV became known. New partners or spouses of infected people who knowingly entered such relationships after the diagnosis of hepatitis C became known will be unable to claim damages for loss of consortium. However, other headings of claim for compensation by persons in this category, such as loss of earnings, loss of society and post-traumatic stress, will not be affected by the amendment. I ask the Tánaiste to examine this provision in a humane manner, if possible. When I spoke to a representative of the Irish Haemophilia Society during my preparations for today's debate, I was disappointed to learn about the problems in this regard. Given that we have a moral responsibility to people who were infected by the State through no fault of their own, the essence of what we should be trying to do is to allow such people to lead the rest of their lives in as normal a manner as possible, just like the rest of us can do.

People may not have been diagnosed with hepatitis C or HIV before they entered a relationship. This Bill is saying, essentially, that if they knew before they entered the relationship that they had such a diagnosis, they entered the relationship at their own risk. That is not fair or moral. One will probably find well-paid legal experts who will say it is legal, but one could also find even better-paid legal experts who say it is not legal. The legal experts will make fortunes in the Four Courts, while people suffer as a result of this legislation. I have a big problem with our tendency to deal with issues like this in this manner. The legal approach often over-rides what I call the human approach. I ask the Tánaiste to think about this provision over the course of the night. If this matter is contested in the courts at some future stage, I am afraid people will think the legislation was not safe.

I am not a legal person. I am sure the legal people will contradict flatly what I am saying. I am speaking as an ordinary person who was elected to this House to represent the people. I believe people who were infected in this way are entitled to the maximum support from the State. It is not fair to tell people who know they have hepatitis C that if they enter a future relationship, they will do so at their own risk. If the State takes such an approach, it will condemn such people to lonely lives. I hope this matter can be revisited in the short time available to the Dáil before it passes this legislation. If it is not possible to come up with a wording that deals specifically with the point I am making, I hope the Tánaiste will provide in this Bill for the power to make regulations so these matters can be dealt with by statutory instrument after people have had time to consider and debate them further. The Tánaiste is anxious to have the Bill enacted so that as many people as possible who are deprived of access to the insurance market because they are infected with hepatitis C or HIV can avail of insurance products. I expect the Bill will be accepted by the House over the next day or so, before being considered by the Seanad in the coming days.

I refer to a document that I, like most Deputies, received from the Irish Haemophilia Society, the Irish Kidney Association, Positive Action and Transfusion Positive, which represent people who were infected by hepatitis C and HIV through infected blood and blood products which were administered by the State. The groups have said this Bill makes "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". They also point out that they were not informed of these changes until recent days. I understood this legislation was primarily intended to deal with the issue of insurance, but we seem to be back-tracking to some extent by making some fundamental changes to the eligibility criteria. I thought such issues had been dealt with in previous Acts.

This Bill proposes that people infected with hepatitis C are to be identified solely by scientific tests, whereas currently a clinical diagnosis of hepatitis C is accepted by the tribunal and the High Court and for all other purposes such as entitlement to health provision. Given the Oireachtas has been content before now to stand over a clinical diagnosis as being valid in the High Court and the tribunal, I cannot understand why we are now saying that position will no longer hold from 20 June. I do not think we should be revisiting previously accepted positions on these issues. My intervention will not necessarily change the Tánaiste's opinion, but I ask her to reconsider her approach and to give herself some extra space by allowing for regulations to be used if these issues need to be revisited, but it is not deemed necessary to introduce further new legislation. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has proposed that in some cases, although a person who was infected through an identified infected blood product, such as anti-D, and had symptoms compatible with a hepatitis C infection, he or she will no longer be able to establish an entitlement to compensation on health provision. I hope this provision will be reconsidered. There was an entitlement for spouses and partners of hepatitis C and HIV sufferers to make claims for compensation for loss of consortium. The Bill proposes to exclude certain categories of persons from such an entitlement, for example, the spouse or partner of a young person infected at birth. That is unfair on those infected at birth through no fault of their own, or that of their mothers or the maternity hospitals.

Without going back over the Bridget McCole situation, if our society has learned anything, it is that the legalistic approach should not dictate the normal Christian values to look after those who, through no fault of their own, have a particular problem. There will be an opportunity on Committee Stage tomorrow for the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to explain this provision and give a humane response as opposed to a legalistic one. She has agreed to allow for extra tests, other than the ELISA test. This is welcome as it is inevitable that progress will be made in testing. Provision should be made to take such developments into account. The thrust of the hepatitis issue will continue for many more years.

Deputy Cowley referred to the issue of legal fees. The State has already paid out €660 million in this case. How much of that was in legal fees or was it all direct compensation to the people affected? Deputy Cowley highlighted the legal fees for special educational needs for which the State has paid €20 million. I am not sure if his figure is accurate but it certainly is more than €10 million. He argued that the State spent this money preventing people gaining access to special educational needs facilities to which their children were entitled. I disagree with his assertion. Recently, the Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service examined this area with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. I found it perturbing that the State's legal bill was one sixth of the costs being submitted by the private solicitors on behalf of their clients.

The Chief State Solicitor's office made it clear that the extent of fees being charged by private solicitors for their clients was a barrier to the conclusion of cases. There was agreement between the State and the families on the required special educational needs for the children concerned. However, some solicitors insisted on not letting their clients settle cases until they received what came to six times the fees they are entitled to. We must pay attention to solicitors overcharging and preying on those with special needs. Some seek to extract the maximum amount of money from the State with little regard to the special needs of the children concerned. The same occurred with the army deafness claims in which legal fees came to 50% of the total compensation package.

Recently at the Committee of Public Accounts it was asked if some of these schemes are less compensation for victims and more a gravy train for the legal profession. This is a matter that must be addressed by the House soon. I am glad that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance are conducting a detailed assessment of all legal costs being paid by the State to ensure it is being done properly.

The insurance scheme will provide certain types of insurance to claimants who fall into the following categories: hepatitis C-infected anti-D recipients, hepatitis C-infected transfusion recipients, HIV-infected recipients of relevant products, the children or spouses of eligible persons with hepatitis C or HIV who have themselves been diagnosed positive for the virus, a parent, brother or sister of an infected person who is himself or herself diagnosed with hepatitis C or HIV infection, and certain other claimants to which the Minister extends eligibility for compensation by means of regulation made under section 9 of the 1997 Act. The regulation also specifies the category of those eligible for the insurance scheme. It includes those refused the relevant insurance on the grounds that they have been diagnosed positive with hepatitis C or HIV, those whom the administrator reasonably believes would be refused if they applied for insurance or those who have been refused unless they pay a higher premium than persons of a similar age and gender who have been not diagnosed positive with hepatitis C and HIV.

It is important to note an administrator will deal with the scheme. Approximately 1,700 people are affected and will be calling on this fund to assist them to pay for insurance cover entirely or incrementally. The legislation gives full details on the administrator and the conditions on the establishing the administrator. There is provision for the indexation of payments. Mortgage and remortgage protection and travel insurance have been included in the Bill and will be dealt with by regulation. There will be a time limit for applications, phased payments and provisions for those over 50 years of age up to 75 years of age. Other medical conditions will have to be factored in. Information must be made available — on reasonable grounds — to the administrator. The administrator will regularly report to the Oireachtas on the operation of the scheme. This is important in the interests of accountability and will allow Members to check on an intermittent basis if the scheme is working as intended.

I welcome the Bill but there are several matters that must be addressed. If they are not sorted out in the next 24 hours, I would like them to be dealt with by regulation. It is important that the 1,700 people waiting on this legislation see it passed by the Houses before the summer recess to allow them to proceed with these aspects of their lives like everyone else.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendment moved by Deputy McManus. I do so because of the issues that have been raised by other speakers. Having listened to the last two Fianna Fáil Members, Deputies Callely and Fleming, it is a pity the Taoiseach has quashed the backbenchers' committee which wanted to have an input into Government policy. If the views of those two Deputies were taken into account, the Bill would not have been introduced and the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children would have had to examine the issues raised.

Today should be a day of celebration for those who have had to fight so hard and who have been so abused by the State through the administration of the anti-D product. As Deputy McManus said, they were poisoned by the State. It should have been a day of success for those people because they have negotiated long and hard to have an insurance scheme implemented. The legislation should have been the culmination of their hard work. They have had to fight the State all the way for many years.

Today, they find themselves back in that position. That is not as it should be. As Deputy Fleming said, if the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children was in touch with the human aspect of this issue, she would not then have introduced sections 1, 2 and 6. It would then be about the result of the negotiations and consultations that went on with the four organisations concerned, the Irish Haemophilia Society, the Irish Kidney Association, Positive Action and Transfusion Positive. Unfortunately, the Government has unilaterally introduced these other aspects that are in the legislation which the four organisations did not see until it was too late and we are faced with the current problem. They did not see the Bill until 20 June this year. Despite the fine words spoken by the Tánaiste, this is not consultation, this is not what those groups thought they were getting because these elements have been introduced in spite of what they stated they wanted all along.

I received a number of phone calls on this issue, as I am sure did other Members. I quote from an e-mail I got today from a constituent:

I am one of your constituents . . . and I would like you to contest on my behalf the Bill that An Tánaiste, Mary Harney, is putting before the Dáil this 29 June 2006. The insurance scheme for hep C-HIV has answered all of our needs but she has added amendments to the Health Amendment Acts 1997 and 2002 to the Bill without giving us hep C people any notice. She is effectively offering us insurance coverage at the cost of the dilution of the Health Amendment Acts 1997 and 2002. This is a very serious concern to those of us State-infected with hep C.

That is the view of one person, and we have all spoken to representatives of the four associations.

The ELISA test was highlighted in the course of today's debate. I was in the Chair when Deputy Twomey, who is a medical doctor, made his contribution and he gave a clinical analysis of the faults in the Bill in terms of the ELISA test. In his contribution, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, referred to the fact that amendments in regard to further tests will be tabled. He mentioned the RIBA test and the PCR test. He also stated that regulations would add further new tests. That is to be welcomed as progress in the sense that at least the Tánaiste understands there is a problem in this regard.

I am sure Deputy Twomey would be better able than I to respond on this issue. As I understand it, this does not address the central problem, namely, that clinical diagnosis is being rejected in the sense that, in terms of the legislation, it will not be part of the decision-making process. That is what is wrong. I am not a doctor, but I would expect any medical judgment on an illness to include a clinical diagnosis. We have been told that these tests do not identify the presence of infection in all cases.

The four organisations issued a press statement this evening, which states: "The groups ... have rejected the arguments of the Tánaiste ... in the Dáil today." It also states: "The groups have pointed to passages in the Finlay report ... where it is stated that it is possible for a person to be infected with hepatitis C and subsequently lose detectable virus and indeed detectable antibodies." Deputy Twomey made this point this morning. It goes on to state: "The ELISA test is supposed to detect antibodies but as Finlay confirms it does not always do so." I understand that the other tests, as proposed in the forthcoming amendments, also do not always detect antibodies. The statement continues:

The groups have also pointed to the opinions of consultant hepatologists who have said that in patients who have been exposed to the virus there may be low levels of antibodies that do not reach the level of cut-off in the standard test. In such cases the hepatitis C compensation tribunal has been willing in the small number of cases in which it has arisen to date to accept the evidence of a consultant hepatologist of a clinical diagnosis of hepatitis C as entitling a claimant to compensation.

That is the point made by Deputy Fleming, that the compensation tribunal accepted clinical diagnosis, yet the Government will not accept it in the context of the Bill. I urge the Tánaiste to accept the evidence of highly qualified medical experts that indicates she is wrong in what she is doing in the legislation.

My colleague, Deputy Lynch, pointed out that the draft Bill referred to by the Tánaiste this morning was drafted in 1995, before further information became available in the context of the Finlay report. The Tánaiste appears to have come before the House with a legalistic opinion in regard to these three points. She has not taken on board the human element involved and the fact that we are talking about a number of people who have symptoms, who have been infected by the State and who are entitled to be included in the insurance scheme. The Tánaiste should listen to the voices on every side of the House, the organisations concerned and the individuals concerned, who are not in this small group of 100 or so people who will be covered because they have tested in accordance with the requirement, but who are concerned for the other people who will be excluded if the Tánaiste gets her way. It is essential that the Tánaiste listens to the voices that have been raised.

As has been pointed out by other speakers, only 2,000 people benefited from the money that has already been expended. A large proportion of that money went on legal fees and the costs of running the tribunals. It is disingenuous to suggest that a great deal of money has been expended and paid out to the people concerned.

Like many Members of the House, I know people who are directly affected and I know the effect it has had on their lives. These people have to plan everything they do to have the energy to do it. These people have to make sure they get the necessary rest so they will have the energy to do something with their day. This can be as simple as baking a cake, looking after their children or picking children up from school. Their illness is a recurring factor in all aspects of their lives on a daily basis. While in some cases people may not have tested positive in the tests to which we have referred, they have been affected and they have the clinical symptoms. That is the human side of the issue. In most cases, the people directly involved cannot hold down jobs and they cannot do many of the normal things other people take for granted.

Before I come to the issue of loss of consortium, I wish to refer to an article which indicates that the HSE has cut funding for the "look-back reassurance programme" that has been carried out by the Blood Bank, which is designed specifically to identify women at risk of hepatitis C from anti-D. Is cost-cutting at work here? Is that what this is all about? If this programme, which is specifically aimed at trying to find out if there are still women who were infected by anti-D, is affected by cost-cutting, is this legislation also about saving money? If that is the case, it is despicable because it is saving money at the expense of a vulnerable sector. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is shaking his head.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The transfusion board is in surplus at present so there is no cut-back here.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a specific programme called Look Back. The funding has never come from the HSE. The money is simply not available.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with the matter in due course.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would welcome if someone dealt with the matter because it is strange that the specific programme investigating the infection of women with hepatitis C who were given anti-D is no longer being funded. I do not know if funding is being cut for other Blood Bank programmes. It would be interesting to know what is the position. The fact that it is this particular programme certainly looks pointed.

Many speakers referred to the issue of loss of consortium which is dealt with in section 2. I find this provision extraordinarily mean. This suggests that if a person was married or had been living with someone for a significant length of time when they were diagnosed, they are entitled to be included. However, if a young person has not had any relationship his or her future spouse or partner is not entitled to compensation. This seems extraordinarily mean as, undoubtedly, that person's life will be affected along with the person who is infected. Why add this stipulation? Why not simply leave things as they were in the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997? Why amend it so in section 1, 2 and 6? Such thinking appears to be entirely legalistic and does not take into consideration the people concerned.

I imagine the money involved is quite small and I do not think any public representative or member of the public would begrudge compensation to a person in such a situation where he or she has, as Deputy Lynch said, fallen in love and decided to have a long-term relationship knowing his or her partner is infected and that the relationship may be affected at a physical level and at other levels. The State is responsible for the condition of the person he or she has fallen in love with, it is not due to anything that person has done. The sufferer's condition is due to actions taken in the past, when, in many cases, people did not know what they were doing.

I do not understand why the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has exposed her Government to the mess it is in today when she could have left the previous legislation alone. She could have introduced an insurance scheme, which would have been applauded by all and we would not be here at 7.40 p.m. arguing with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children Deputy Lenihan and arguing with the Government. The backbenchers would not be arguing with the Government either. It is very telling that the Fianna Fáil backbenchers who have spoken this evening have all argued for this Bill to be significantly amended, if not withdrawn. They want to see a way out for the Government as do we in the opposition. None of us want this legislation to be the last thing we do this term in the Dáil because it will not leave a good record for the Oireachtas.

I know the Tánaiste has stepped back a little, but it is not enough to address the issue at the heart of this. I urge that she step back further and acknowledge that she has been misled. No Member will hold it against her, rather we will applaud her for recognising it. I urge that she and the Government make a quick decision this evening on this issue and then give the necessary time to it and have real, required consultation with the four representative organisations. Otherwise she is, again, forcing them to fight the State when they believed the battle was over, that this legislation was the final piece of the jigsaw that would give them what they need. Their lives will never be returned to them but they could, at least, be given the financial security and insurance they expected. They could then feel that the State understands it is responsible and recognises the need for recompense in all of the aspects that concern them. I ask the Government to rethink this issue and do the decent, humane thing. It should recognise that this small group of people will not cost the State a huge amount of money and are deserving of and entitled to our care and consideration.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the reassurance programme mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan, it was originally funded at a time when the Irish Blood Transfusion Service was in deficit. The board has subsequently been in surplus and has met the costs from its own resources. While in public financial terms it may appear the Health Service Executive, HSE, is no longer funding the programme it has had no effect on the provision of the programme. The reassurance programme is as it has always been and the suggestion that there has been a cutback relating to it is inaccurate.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not suggest there had been a cutback in the programme, only in Government funding for it.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a play on words. The programme is being delivered.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The blood bank is making this statement, not us.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason the HSE is no longer providing the funds is they are provided by the blood bank from its profits. To suggest there has somehow been a cutback in the services that are rightly provided, in terms of the reassurance people need, is simply not correct. There has been no cutback in services; there is an allocation of resources from a different source.

We all acknowledge the pain and suffering inflicted on more than 1,700 of our citizens infected with hepatitis C and HIV through the administration of blood and blood products within the State. It is an emotive issue and the Tánaiste has already stated that no compensation or support scheme will ever set right the wrong done. The State stands as a legal wrongdoer. People say we should not be legalistic about issues like this. The State, as a juristic person, is the legal wrongdoer in this case and must account for its wrongdoing like any other wrongdoer.

We are, on all sides of the House seeking to do this through difficult legislation. There are three prongs to providing support to infected persons. The first, compensation, has been provided through the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal which was put on a statutory footing in 1997. To date around 2,200 people have received awards and, happily, we were able to facilitate the making of these claims for compensation in a non-adversarial fashion.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is being changed.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with that in a moment. Claimants may appeal their awards to the High Court. Infected persons, their spouses, partners and next of kin have been presenting claims to the tribunal since its establishment. The total cost of the tribunal to the end of 2005 is more than €660 million which includes legal costs, fees and administration costs. The actual amount of awards is €580 million so legal costs have not been as disproportionate as costs have been in many other schemes.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State mean €580 million in actual awards? That cannot be right. That is almost €3 million per claimant.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The number of claims is far more substantial. There have been around 2,200 awards and the total cost of the tribunal has been more than €660 million. The actual amount of awards is almost €580 million. That has been provided by the Exchequer.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Exchequer that lost all the money that was never found.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The State has a proud record on this issue under this Government. The second prong in providing support to infected persons is the Health (Amendment) Act card, which entitled the holder to a range of health care services free of charge. I will not take the House through all of the details relating to the card, but health care costs under the Health (Amendment) Act are approximately €15 million per annum. The expert group on hepatitis C, chaired by the Department's chief medical officer and including leading consultants and a member of Positive Action, agreed in 1998 that eligibility for the card should be on the basis of a positive diagnostic test for hepatitis C. The Department has prepared a detailed guide to the services available through the card which includes hospital and primary care services, home support and, this year, a new home nursing scheme being piloted in the east. The representative groups are involved in shaping the development of all new services to ensure they meet their needs.

The third and vital prong is the insurance scheme that is, at long last, before us. With the enactment of this Bill, the unease the victims had about life insurance support will be addressed. I welcome broad welcome for that aspect of the legislation in the House. This will cost approximately €90 million over the lifetime of the scheme, which will run for at least 30 years. Under the proposed scheme, the State will pay the additional risk premium where the life assurer is willing to provide cover subject to an additional premium or the State will assume the risk on the life cover where the assurer is not willing to provide cover. In each case, the person requiring insurance will pay the average basic premium which an uninfected person of the same age and gender would pay.

The scheme will be available in respect of all standard life assurance policies offered by life assurers authorised to transact life assurance business in Ireland and which opt to participate in the scheme. Life assurers which wish to participate in the scheme will enter into an agreement to abide by the rules of the scheme, which will provide for an appeal in the event of a dispute.

The scheme will be administered under the aegis of the Health Service Executive. Specific details on the administration of the scheme will be set out in regulations and an administrator will be recruited as soon as possible after enactment of the primary legislation. A travel insurance scheme will be developed within six months of the commencement of the main scheme.

The State has continued to honour its commitment to maximise the services available to persons with hepatitis C and HIV. Last week an international conference on hepatitis C was hosted by the consultative council on hepatitis C in Dublin Castle, funded by my Department. At this conference we saw how Irish clinicians are working with their international colleagues to improve knowledge about hepatitis C and to ensure the treatment provided to patients is of the highest possible standard to maximise their chances of clearing the virus and living a normal, healthy life. The news from this conference was very good and signalled that more breakthroughs in effective therapies are anticipated.

The conference had a parallel programme which allowed persons with hepatitis C to attend the scientific sessions. It also had specially designed sessions for patients. This was achieved through the excellent co-operation between the support groups, including the Irish Haemophilia Society, Transfusion Positive, Positive Action and the Irish Kidney Association, and clinicians, the HSE and my officials of the Department.

Much has been done in recent years to improve services for persons with haemophilia. The national haemophilia treatment centre at St. James's Hospital has evolved into the national centre for hereditary coagulation disorders and occupies premises at St. James's Hospital. The national centre is a state-of-the-art facility, fully equipped for the diagnosis and management of haemophilia and related disorders, staffed by a highly skilled and dedicated team of professionals and administrative staff——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why is the Government changing the compensation scheme?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with that matter. I am entitled to speak without interruption.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have not had an explanation.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Government has a very good record in this area and I will deal with the issue of compensation.

The National Haemophilia Council was set up under statute in 2004. It is chaired by Professor John Bonnar and includes clinicians, nurses, representatives of the Irish Haemophilia Society and health service officials, who work together to advise the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and others on all aspects of haemophilia. The council is an excellent example of co-operation between the service consumers and providers in helping to optimise the services provided.

We have also seen dramatic improvements in the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. The tragic episodes which took place in 1977 and again between 1991 and 1994 have been addressed. Every effort has been made by the State to make recompense to the victims of this terrible scandal.

As Deputies are aware, a multi-million pound investment was approved in the late 1990s to support the reorganisation and redevelopment of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service nationally. The primary objective was to ensure that the board was resourced to provide a transfusion service in line with best international standards. New testing programmes have been introduced by the IBTS in advance of most other international transfusion services. Continuous monitoring of international developments takes place, such as guarding against emerging threats, for example, variant CJD.

I will turn to the questions that have been at the heart of today's debate. I have already dealt with the matter of the reassurance programme, raised by Deputy O' Sullivan. Deputies generally, on all sides, raised two issues which were of concern to them regarding this legislation. One was the question of the introduction of a scientific test in the assessment of liability and the other was the question of consortium.

With regard to the issue of the scientific test, Deputy O'Sullivan argued that clinical diagnosis is not being taken into account. Of course, clinical diagnosis will still be taken into account——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will not.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——but it cannot be conclusive for evidential purposes.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State cannot say that. It will not be taken into account.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was suggested in the House that clinical diagnosis is not being taken into account.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the contrary, clinical diagnosis——

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State should read the relevant section.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I could continue, please. Clinical diagnosis will continue to be taken into account but it cannot be conclusive for evidential purposes.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will not be taken into account.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All diagnosis is based on the concept of testing. All diagnosis involves the application of some objective test to——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is based on symptoms.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It involves the examination of the symptoms and the application of tests on the patient showing the symptoms. In this legislation the Minister has prescribed a test, one which is internationally accepted. It is a test which has not caused dispute in other jurisdictions.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The legislation excludes clinical diagnosis.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has agreed to table further amendments to permit the application of other tests in case there would be concern——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

But not to permit clinical diagnosis.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Clinical diagnosis is based on the application of a test and this is the point——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is based on a history and symptoms.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but all clinical diagnosis has to rely on a test. It cannot be just plucked out of the air on the basis of the history——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No it does not.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State without interruption, please.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——or the symptoms of a particular patient.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is not telling the truth.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is not allowed to allege that in the House. I am trying to address the legislation to the best of my ability. I do not pretend to be perfect in this matter but I do not accept that I am not telling the truth. I am trying to explain to the House——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has obviously not read the Bill.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——that the application of an objective standard is necessarily an inherent element of any form of clinical diagnosis in this context and the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children is legislating for that. She has indicated, because of the concerns that have been raised, that she is prepared to examine the possibility of recognising, in legislative form, other tests. She will bring forward an amendment in that context. She is also prepared to say that this legislation will not be the last word on what tests can be applied because our state of scientific awareness on any particular medical condition changes and evolves over time. It may well be the case, in years hence, with advances in medical science, that other tests will be devised and she is prepared to provide for their recognition.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why is the Government not prepared to take the word of the specialists in this area, which has been accepted up to now?

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State without interruption, please.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All the Minister is doing is providing that the specialist opinion must have——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is retrospectively taking away rights from people. That is what the Minister is doing.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All she is doing is providing that the specialist opinion must have a foundation in a reputable scientific test. How can the Minister and the Government——

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is she suggesting that the specialists are wrong?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Specialists differ. Anyone who is familiar with the operation of the courts will testify to that, as will anyone giving an account of the treatment of his or her own condition.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are internationally recognised specialists but their opinion is no longer accepted or valid.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not only decent, straightforward general practitioners, like the Fine Gael spokesperson on health who differ, but also specialists of great eminence, repute and qualifications.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What if it turns out that they are right?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All the Minister is providing for here is a series of recognised scientific tests. Why this should create so much hot air on the Opposition benches eludes me.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The test is not 100% reliable and cannot be so.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste is prepared to incorporate into an amendment a recognition of other tests, with the possibility of scientific evolution in the recognition of tests.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Other tests with a similar failure rate.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also wish to deal with the question of consortium. It is a highly technical issue.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No it is not.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One key point about consortium is that the victim ——

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is nothing technical about it at all. I can explain it to the Minister of State if he wishes, in very plain language.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know exactly the society to whom it refers. We all know what consortium refers to but in its legal aspect it is somewhat technical because the claim does not belong to the victim. It is not a claim of the victim but one which has always existed for the partner or the spouse of a victim who has been deprived of that consortium.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children is now changing the rules to say that people with this particular complaint can only have one partner and if that partnership fails, tough luck.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Deputy might allow me to conclude on that issue. The history of this matter in common law was always that if someone was involved in an accident, the partner or spouse had a claim for the loss of consortium. However, that claim in common law never applied to someone whom the person who had suffered in the accident might subsequently marry. That is the key point. By not enacting the consortium provision, one is putting the State in a worse position than any other wrongdoer. No other wrongdoer must compensate on this basis an indeterminate class that may arise in future.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These people's cases have been compared with Army deafness claims and road traffic accidents.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not doing that. I have not said that.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The State infected these people.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying that.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has a direct effect on relationships.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No one can have anything but sympathy for those suffering.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They want rather more than sympathy; they want the Government to withdraw this Bill.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As legislators, we must draw a line that reflects the traditions that always existed and applied to all other wrongdoers.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This never happened before. How can the Minister of State possibly make such comparisons?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is not prepared to do that in the context of this legislation.