Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

There is no question but loss of consortium is covered by the compensation scheme. In fact, Judge Murphy from the tribunal has assured us that this is fully taken into account because I was sympathetic to introducing an amendment to ensure that young people were not adversely affected because they had not yet formed relationships. What we are doing here is removing the possibility that somebody could get compensation for loss of consortium in a situation where the diagnosis had been made before the relationship began and therefore they could not lose something they did not already have. Loss of consortium is the change in a relationship as a result of a diagnosis and clearly if a diagnosis is known before a relationship begins, that does not arise.

I understand that in five cases where compensation has already been paid for loss of consortia, second relationships have been formed. I do not think it is reasonable or fair that in those circumstances compensation would be paid for loss of consortia. However, partners or spouses are entitled to get out of pocket expenses or to be compensated for mental distress, loss of society and other things. There is no question of that.

Young people infected with hepatitis C who have not yet formed relationships will, as part of their compensation package, get damages for future loss of consortia. The judge has reassured us on that point so therefore there is no need to introduce an amendment. All we seek to do is to bring clarity to what is the intention, namely, that loss of consortia should be given in cases where there is a loss of consortium, but in cases where the partner or spouse was aware of the infection at the time the relationship began, clearly he or she cannot claim for loss of consortium although he or she can claim for a host of other things. I think that is fair and reasonable.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.