Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

I am not in a position, unfortunately, to accept the amendment. Senators made reference to this issue, yesterday, on Second Stage. We do not believe any genuine claimant will be affected by what is being done here. When legislation was proposed in this area in 1995-96, Mr. John Rogers SC and Ivor Fitzpatrick and Company Solicitors, on behalf of the affected groups, put forward the ELISA test as the diagnosis that should be acceptable in testifying to hepatitis C. I do not know why that was not accepted at the time.

In 1998, the expert group on hepatitis C chaired by the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Children — which includes representatives from the liver consultants' group in Ireland and Positive Action — agreed that the ELISA test should be the standard accepted for getting the health card. That was a unanimous agreement and there was no difficulty about it. The Senator might ask why we are taking the opportunity to do it in this legislation and why there was no consultation, and I want to address that. This test is used in Canada and the UK. In Canada, in fact, not only must a claimant satisfy the ELISA test, but the results must be confirmed by another test. We are prepared to accept the evidence of ELISA, RIBA, PCR or any test that arises. If within 16 weeks of getting the anti-D product, a person presents with jaundice, that clinical diagnosis will be acceptable as well.

Why are we doing this? A case was refused by the tribunal that went before the High Court. Essentially, on the basis of fatigue, even though the claimant had not presented before a doctor over many years and there were no records over a long period as regards illness, a substantial award was made, and there is another case pending. As a result, I believe it is important for the tribunal to have a scientific basis on which to be able to make awards. As everyone in this House has acknowledged, the tribunal has worked extraordinarily well. The tribunal is now bound to take on board the decision of the High Court, which clearly made its judgment on the basis that the legislation did not say any particular test criteria had to be met. We are therefore introducing internationally accepted scientific tests and saying that if a claimant was clinically diagnosed as having jaundice in the 16 weeks after getting the anti-D product, that will be acceptable. It is either one or another and it is not a case of the ELISA test being confirmed by something else. Any test will be acceptable.

Senator Ryan asked me yesterday why we had included RIBA and PCR, which, as he rightly said, were not in the initial draft. They have been inserted at the request of the various groups. As to why we did not discuss the issue with the various groups, clearly the Government is making a decision on something that can affect the public interest, where possible litigation can ensue, sometimes on a large scale. Remember, 15,000 people got the anti-D product in this country. We all accept that the vast majority, thankfully, were not affected with hepatitis C and the whole purpose of the compensation scheme and the insurance support as well as the health card is to support genuine claimants who were seriously infected as a result of the administration of blood and blood products in this State in the 1970s and the 1990s. I have described their situation as catastrophic. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept the Senator's amendment.