Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I wish to share my time with Senator Terry. I welcome the Tánaiste and her officials to the House.

I am a bit puzzled over this Bill. What should have been a very simple Bill has now turned into a complex one, which is regrettable. When the Bill was published and people saw its Title,the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006, they expected it to be a stand-alone Bill dealing purely with the insurance aspect of the hepatitis C issue. Provisions concerning testing, which I understand the Tánaiste introduced half an hour before the Dáil debate last week, seem to have thrown a spanner in the works. The Tánaiste even admitted that there were problems with the ELISA test, as pointed out by interested groups, in that it might not prove that a person has hepatitis C. I am aware that, as a result of the groups' representations, she has included other tests but it also shows that the Bill was not thought out properly.

The ELISA test does not pick up on people who have hepatitis C but who have lost the antibody and those who are immunocompromised and who have kidney disease and leukaemia could lose out. Though the Tánaiste has included tests for those situations I am puzzled as to the reason for the introduction of the test. As far as I am aware the tribunal works very well and we on this side of the House have heard no complaints. She said the tribunal has heard over 2,000 cases and made awards to over 2,200 people, including most of the 1,700 people infected with hepatitis C or HIV and a significant proportion to spouses, partners or dependants. The total figure for awards made at the end of 2005 stood at €580 million. Is there a problem with the tribunal or has she been made aware of issues of which the public has not been made aware? There was no need to go down this road, because those who were infected with hepatitis C as a result of a blood transfusion are being compensated.

I get the impression from the Bill that the Government is terrified of an avalanche of claims. What is the basis for that? I cannot see any evidence for such an avalanche. The Bill deals with people who, in the process of having a blood transfusion, were infected because of negligence on the State's part. I am aware that people can contract hepatitis C from other sources but that is not involved in this Bill. Most people want to know why the Government anticipates an avalanche of claims and why, therefore, it is bringing in this draconian test. It is going down badly with the groups involved, with whom there seems to have been a lack of consultation. They were consulted for nine years on the Bill and were very surprised when these new elements were introduced.

The Minister referred to the fact that, for legal reasons, she could not brief the groups on that matter. Can she elaborate further on that? It seems surprising. What happened to these people was shocking and due to negligence on the State's part. Their infection from contaminated blood had a devastating effect on their and their spouses' and partners' lives. While we welcome many aspects of the Bill, we are unhappy with the late introduction of some elements of it and we will vote against it tonight for that reason. By introducing the tests at this stage is the Government overreacting?