Mary White (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I urge the Minister of State to make clear to the House the reasons behind the decision to incorporate certain amendments to the 1997 and 2002 Acts in this new Bill. Specifically, I would like him to clarify why sections 2 and 6 are not being considered separately to the rest. It is my understanding that discussions with victims' groups centred around the provision of an insurance scheme, and that the incorporation of new regulations into this Bill came as a surprise to them.

While I accept it is impossible to discuss every technicality ahead of the publication of a Bill, the response of interest groups to this legislation has been undeniably negative, and I must ask the Minister of State why that is the case. While he may defend the policy decisions behind the legislation, I find it difficult to accept the manner in which they were made. Victims' groups talk of feeling "ambushed" by this legislation. I do not understand why there was not more thorough consultation.

The provision of section 2, as I understand it, means that people who have been diagnosed with hepatitis C will not in future be allowed to claim compensation for the damage that this disease may cause to any relationship begun after diagnosis. Again, I am not clear why this is the case. One cannot choose when to enter a relationship. Would it not be fairer to pay compensation at the same level to all sufferers, regardless of their relationships? I also understand that future partners of children diagnosed with hepatitis C will have no right to compensation for the injury to their relationship and potential to have children that results from their infection.

Section 6 contains the provision that sufferers must pass specific tests that show they have hepatitis C in order to entitle them to compensation. It is my understanding that the tests referred to in the legislation, while used in some combination in Canada and the UK, are not fail-safe. In any case, I am not sure that the British health service is a fair indicator of best practice. In this circumstance, I would urge the Tánaiste to require an expert medical opinion instead. Surely this would allow doctors to perform accurate tests, without having to settle for a less than perfect result. It would be a travesty if a person who had suffered infection at the hands of the State were to suffer even further by being denied access to compensation for their suffering, or if they were told that the State did not believe them. I understand the desire to limit spurious claims, but under no circumstances should this be at the expense of a single legitimate case.

I believe the Tánaiste met with representative groups of those suffering as a result of the use of contaminated blood products, and that these groups were unaware that the Bill would contain anything beyond provisions for an insurance scheme. Will the Minister of State clarify whether the additional provisions of the Bill were developed in consultation with victims' groups? Surely the State should seek to ensure that every last person made to suffer as a result of this tragic situation is compensated generously — not that any compensation could ever be adequate.

The Tánaiste stated that over €500 million has already been spent on this scheme. I understand and largely agree with her desire to control claims under the nursing home charges scheme. However, I do not believe it is appropriate in this case to talk of limiting liability. This is not a technical illegality — it is a case of the State poisoning its citizens. I urge the Minister of State to ensure that we do absolutely everything we can to protect these unfortunate people from further trauma.