Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome this Bill as an honest and conscientious attempt to repair, in so far as it is possible, the consequences of the tragic infection of people by State agencies. I do not often intervene in health debates. The reason for my contribution this evening is that a long-standing secretary of mine who has worked for many years in Leinster House is one of those infected by the anti-D product.

I do not share other Members' criticisms of the Department of Health and Children. One reason legislation comes before the Seanad is that we can explore with interested parties the possible flaws it may contain. This allows us to improve legislation as it passes through the Houses. Since the original Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act was introduced some improvements have been made. That is not a serious criticism of the Act's originators. The legislation is subject to a legislative process and has, therefore, significantly changed. That is simply how legislation is supposed to work.

I welcome the Bill's main features such as the compensation scheme, the State stepping into the insurance market where the private sector is unwilling to go — a classic role of the State. The pledge of the medical card to all who receive awards from the tribunal is also an important feature.

The remaining area of controversy centres on those who are eligible for compensation and the range of tests. It is important but not easy, as pointed out by Senator Ryan, to identify with certainty those who have been infected. It has been argued that a retrospective diagnosis by a competent hepatologist should be accepted. There are women who show the symptoms of hepatitis C yet do not respond to the tests. I understand public administrators must be careful that compensation goes to those who deserve it. If I was put to the pin of my collar, I would rather that somebody unjustly receive compensation than that somebody who justly deserved it be denied it. Most Members I suspect agree with this. The thinking must be inclusive and should not concentrate too much on how to stop the system being abused. Everyone who deserves to be included must be included. There is a moral obligation on the State to ensure this happens.

It is appropriate that there is a substantial discretion in terms of power of regulation. More scientific knowledge of hepatitis C may become available. A case can be made that in some instances it will be a substantial period before the disease manifests itself. I am uncomfortable about the idea of an absolute cut-off date. Not only can legislation be improved in the legislative process, but its implementation through regulation can also be ensured. If circumstances and knowledge require further legislation to be introduced, then so be it. We have an absolute obligation to ensure everyone contaminated by the anti-D product by a State agency is compensated in so far as it is possible. All the palliative measures part of this enlightened Bill are welcome. The only criticism against the Bill is that its provisions should be made more comprehensive and inclusive.