Brendan Ryan (Labour)

It is possible for somebody to have been infected and not test positive on any of these tests. We must accept that anybody who has been infected would have to have had such a severe level of jaundice that she would have it clinically diagnosed. I am not in a position to argue about that but I am told by people who know that it is not necessarily the case for everyone.

I must accept what Dr. Liz Kenny from Cork University Hospital says, namely, that a significant number of people would not show up under these tests and who she is satisfied are suffering from hepatitis C. She has been told that as an expert witness she will be manipulated by lawyers. She would have to swear a false oath. It would be possible to define the level of expertise necessary, namely, a consultant hepatologist and a consultant gastro-enterologist, or two of them. This happens all the time in company law cases and compensation cases across the spectrum. Expert witnesses swear on the basis of their professional judgment not according to some scientific test. That is universally accepted, except apparently in this case and I do not understand why.

We know that 15,000 people is the upper limit of possibility. The Tánaiste, however, seems to want me to believe that those 15,000 people would successfully persuade a consultant hepatologist, or two, to enter the witness box and swear an oath that the clinical symptoms indicated to their satisfaction that the person was infected with hepatitis C. I do not want to attribute negative motives to anyone but this Bill reflects a naive belief in the ability of science to solve the problem and so tidy it up.

I am something of a scientist. Science cannot prove what it cannot find. It can prove only what it can find experimentally. Science evolves by way of tests being done, experiments conducted and theories put forward. The theory is that these three tests are conclusive. The next level is to test that. That is done in the same way as the studies in Europe which showed that it is not scientifically valid to assume that those three tests are conclusive. The science the Tánaiste uses to justify this proves that it is wrong. One either believes science all the way or opts for a naive selective belief in science. The worst part of the Green movement is very good at picking out the little bits that suit its argument. To a degree the Tánaiste is culpable in the same way.

I do not believe the figure of 15,000 people. A colleague and I went through the analysis. People say the maximum number might be approximately 40. They are limited by certain categories, such as a time period, and being a woman who had a baby, who was rhesus negative and whose husband was rhesus positive. There may be 15,000 but there are few who would initially qualify.

I am at a loss to understand why a small amendment to section 1 to add the well-known symptoms cannot be accepted. The symptoms include fatigue, skin rashes, dry eyes and others with which the Tánaiste and her officials are more familiar than me. For a consultant hepatologist to say that he or she was satisfied is as scientific a conclusion as the one reached by somebody in a laboratory running a blood analysis. I am at a loss to understand the reluctance to accept science.