Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Given that the people in question do not tend to spend 16 weeks in hospital, the Tánaiste has accepted that people could develop jaundice long after they leave hospital. I do not doubt the Tánaiste's bona fides. As I have said on three or four occasions — I do not intend to test the Leas-Chathaoirleach's limitless patience much further on the last day of the session — we have been hijacked by people who have a wrong understanding of science.

I do not doubt there is a clear possibility that somebody could have jaundice without it being clinically diagnosed. There is clear scientific evidence from well-tested studies across Europe that people who were originally infected could have tested negative, under all three tests, three years later. The study to which I refer was conducted between three and 23 years after the event. Therefore, the Tánaiste accepts that there could be people who will test negative under all three tests. She is relying on there being a clinical diagnosis of jaundice in the cases of such people. I do not know much about jaundice, but I have been told that not everyone who has it goes to a doctor and gets a clinical diagnosis. It is possible that genuine people will be affected in this way.

I do not want to get into a debate on the origins of this problem, because it was not the Tánaiste's fault — she was not there at the time. I do not dispute for a second that the Tánaiste has dealt with many of the State's failings in this instance with considerable courage. A tone that is becoming evident in her defence, however, reminds me of words which were put in the mouth of a former Minister for Health, who spoke about the need to defend the financial position of the State. We are talking in this instance about people who were poisoned by the State. There are many ways of reducing the numbers involved — it has been decided that the people in question must be likely to have been recipients of contaminated blood over a period of time.

Somebody in the Office of the Attorney General got involved with this Bill and decided it was nice to have scientific tests. I accept that the advisory group said that too. It should be borne in mind that hepatitis C is an illness with a limited history. It is new in the sense that it did not exist, or was not known, 20 years ago. It is not the subject of a great deal of history. I assume the advice that was given and accepted seven or eight years ago was based on what was known then. I presume we are having this argument because what we know now is more comprehensive than what was known then.

I am absolutely certain that a small but significant number of cases will, regrettably, become causes célèbres, like some other tragic cases in this country in the past, because it will transpire that the people in question are not covered by any of the provisions which are being made in this Bill. I refer to people who, from now on, will be diagnosed late and, as a result, will not be able to go before a tribunal. Such problems will have developed because somebody in the Office of the Attorney General got the wobbles about crooked lawyers and developed what could be most generously described as a naive view of the universal validity of scientific tests. We now have comprehensive scientific evidence that the three tests mentioned in the legislation are not universal and do not always apply. If I have to choose between an analyst in a laboratory and a clinical hepatologist, I will believe somebody like Liz Kenny because I think practitioners are the best judges.

That is my final word, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. It is a matter of considerable regret that the Tánaiste is walking into something that could end up seriously tarnishing her reputation.