Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995

Vol. 459 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Hepatitis C Victims: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn on Tuesday, 12 December 1995:
That Dáil Éireann, mindful of the commitment given inA Government of Renewal to pay fair compensation to those infected with Hepatitis C, condemns the Government for its failure to establish a statutory tribunal to deal with Hepatitis C; recognises that the ad hoc tribunal falls short of meeting the needs of those infected, has been rejected by the groups acting on behalf of victims and fails to deal with serious issues such as the right of appeal and the loss of medical records; and calls on the Government to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency to establish a tribunal on a statutory basis.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, being of the view that—
(i) the amended scheme of compensation published by the Minister for Health on 1st December 1995, which will continue indefinitely as an alternative to court proceedings will serve the best interests of persons who have contracted Hepatitis C from Human Immunoglobulin Anti-D, blood transfusion or other blood products; and
(ii) the proposals set out in the Health Care Document published by the Minister for Health on 1st December 1995, in relation to the long-term health care needs of persons diagnosed positive for Hepatitis C provide statutory guarantees in respect of the future provision of health care services,
approves the amended scheme of compensation and the Health Care Document published by the Minister for Health on 1 December 1995, copies of which have been sent to each Deputy and placed in the Dáil Library on 11 December 1995."
—(Minister for Health).

I would like to share my remaining time with Deputy McDaid. The hepatitis C problem should never have arisen. It was caused by contamination of products from the Blood Transfusion Service and subsequently blood transfusions with contaminated viral entity in blood.

The Minister has taken steps since to take the product off the market and set up numerous entities to solve the problem. Initially he established an identity process to see how many people were affected with hepatitis C. From there he went on to see what treatment was available, and organised treatment at GP level, at hospitals and at tertiary centres. That has progressed quite well. Nevertheless the people involved, Positive Action and Transfusion Positive, are not happy with the progress or with the fact that the Minister is only setting up an ad hoc tribunal rather than a statutorily based one.

The problem is that we do knot now what will happen in the future to the women, men and children who are affected. Some people will be positive because they had hepatitis C, some will have active viraemia or develop chronic active hepatitis, severe hepatitis, in-stage hepatitis, and some people will require liver transplantation. These people are not interested primarily in compensation per se. What they want is a continuum of care for as long as it is required. They are worried that the ad hoc tribunal will not give them that guarantee. The Minister moved the goal posts at various stages, and has improved on his starting position. Nevertheless they are still worried.

The outbreak of hepatitis C is one of the recurring nightmares experienced from time to time by most people who have anything to do with the practice of medicine. Like most professions today, medicine has been greatly enhanced by the addition of high technology to its resources. However, it is also a science which depends more than most on the application of human resources. Therefore, it is also one which is subject to human error, and sometimes what might appear to be a small error either in the performance of physical duties or in the correct keeping of records can start a chain reaction which could eventually result in something like the hepatitis C tragedy which is the subject of this debate.

As a general rule, someone who makes a genuine error on a rare occasion can be forgiven provided he or she, on realising the mistake, does everything possible to minimise the consequences. This did not occur in the present case. We are talking here about a State agency which showed itself to be appallingly negligent by ignoring a written warning from Middlesex Hospital that alerted it to the dangers. This letter was apparently acknowledged when it was received in December 1991, but no further action was taken until almost three years later. It should be remembered that the warning letter concerned tests carried out in the Middlesex Hospital on samples which were still in the archives from the time in 1977 when women who had received anti-D Immunoglobulin developed clinical jaundice. These samples at the same time tested negative to hepatitis B which was an indication in itself. The samples were reclaimed until a new test for hepatitis C was developed in 1991. The condition had only been first recognised two years earlier, but no reliable test had been available.

The negligence was in ignoring the warning letter from the Middlesex Hospital in 1991. The result was that almost three years were lost not just through negligence but through gross negligence. As was pointed out by my party's Health spokesperson, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, the senior management who were ultimately responsible were rewarded with golden handshakes on being asked to leave.

I can well understand the dilemma in which the Minister finds himself. He naturally shudders at the prospect of a repeat of something like the beef tribunal with all its fiscal consequences, mostly in enormous legal fees. However, when I received a letter from the Department last week one line caught my attention immediately. That line described the proposed tribunal as one which "will assess compensation on an ex gratia basis” for the victims of the Blood Transfusion Board's negligence. This is, in effect, saying to all these unfortunately people, “we are not to blame, nobody is to blame but we will give you a few quid out of the generosity of our hearts. Are we not leaving ourselves open to legal action further down the road? I am not a legal expert but I will be surprised if the State does not find itself in the courts on a very sticky wicket on this issue.

The programme for Government includes a commitment to fair compensation. In the eyes of the law who decides what is fair compensation? When the money is distributed I hope the Minister will categorise patients according to need. Some patients had renal transplants and received blood transfusions. Their condition worsened as a result of receiving contaminated blood and they contracted hepatitis C. Such patients should be the first to be compensated as they have borne the burden of extra medical expenses.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Fitzgerald, Shatter, Shortall and Lynch. We are debating the future of women who have been infected with the potentially life threatening hepatitis C virus through contaminated anti-D. These women and their families know the nightmare behind the newspaper headlines of February 1994 and must live with the results of the contamination whatever they may be. I have spoken to some of the women and they tell their story effectively. It is a sad story of suffering, isolation, frustration, desperation, ill health and uncertainty. My deepest regret is that agreement on full and fair compensation for these women should be the subject of debate in the House. They have suffered enough and should not have to listen to a debate on their future.

Sadly agreement has not been reached between Positive Action and the Minister for Health on the payment of compensation. It is hard to know who to blame. Positive Action must at all costs protect their future and well being and the Minister trusts that what he proposes is in the best interests of all involved. I acknowledge that he has encompassed many of the requests made by Positive Action in his proposals to date.

I understand there are four outstanding issues on which agreement has not been reached. One is the provisional awards. Positive Action believes they should be at the discretion of the claimant whereas the Minister proposes they should be at the discretion of the tribunal. Positive Action is rightly concerned about whether the proposed scheme is intended to be long-term. It debates how much it can trust the words "indefinite tribunal". It argues that the proposal should include the right to compel witnesses to attend and secure documents. However, that is not included. It is disappointed that the decisions of the tribunal are open to judicial review only.

Following the debate I hope the Minister will have further consultation with Positive Action and that agreement can be reached on the outstanding matters. The fears and concerns of those involved should be met where possible. I would be satisfied if the Minister agreed to meet representatives of Positive Action again to see if there is any way he could accede to the requests of this serious and hard working group. The debate will be worthwhile if negotiations continue between the Minister and Positive Action. I am hopeful that agreement can be reached on the few outstanding issues.

I agree with Deputy Ahearn's comments. One of my abiding memories of this health care scandal is being in a room with 700 women who invited a consultant from England to speak to them on the prognosis for their future. He asked how many of the women present had had a lung biopsy. A large number of women indicated they had such a procedure. As I drove him to the station afterwards he spoke of his shock at the number of women who had to undergo this difficult and invasive procedure.

I am not surprised that those in Positive Action and other groups are so tenacious and determined to ensure they get the health care they need because of the uncertainties that surround themselves and their families. I congratulate it on its work which most of us followed closely. We know how it lobbied so effectively and informed and supported its members. I know from talking with representatives of the group that they feel the health care package which has evolved is a good one and deals with the various elements they were concerned with.

The Government is concerned to provide proper health care services and fair compensation. Following the discussions that have taken place between the Department of Health and the women's representatives the services are broadly based and cover all aspects of health care including counselling.

Positive Action is now focusing its concern on some of the conditions attaching to the tribunal rather than on whether it is statutory based. There is a fear there may be a tendency within the tribunal to give lump sum awards even if this is not what the claimant wants. Positive Action believes the women and their families will not receive the same protection as they could if the claimant had more power over the acceptance of the award.

I understand that anxiety but I am not sure how a tribunal such as this would work, although I know its terms are spelled out. I hope the tribunal being set up will meet those concerns. I expect it would be responsive to the concerns and medical needs of the women appearing before it.

I know representatives of the groups accept that if the terms can be worked out properly a tribunal is the right course to take. It is speedier and more informal; it should have the flexibility and privacy demanded; negligence need not be proved; the right of court action is completely preserved unless and until an award is accepted and proceedings before the tribunal are not excluded from judicial review.

Following meetings between the Department and the Minister and Positive Action and Transfusion Positive the amended compensation scheme has taken many of the concerns into account. However, there are three or four outstanding matters. The Minister has outlined the terms of the tribunal but is there flexibility? It appears that the statutory element is not the key issue but rather the ways in which the tribunal will work. It is hard to be sure of some of these matters in advance of the operation of the tribunal, which is a concern of the groups. I join my colleague, Deputy Theresa Ahern, in saying that I hope there is room for flexibility and further discussion to deal with the few clear and well argued points put forward by the groups.

I am pleased with the comprehensive health care package that has been arrived at. If the tribunal can be agreed and the women are satisfied they will get what they need from the tribunal, it is the best course of action.

I will not repeat the points already made. The State has a profund duty to all those who have suffered as a result of the use of contaminated blood products to ensure that adequate compensation is fully and promptly paid and that all medical treatments and supports required are provided on a continuing basis.

Concern has been expressed that the tribunal is not on a statutory basis. I am not unduly concerned about that and I reassure people not to be concerned about it for one basic reason. There is often contention in this House on different issues. I do not criticise Fianna Fáil for tabling a motion on this issue. As the deliberations on how to tackle this major problem in the interests of those affected are coming to a conclusion and as the tribunal is being formed, it is only proper to debate the issues in the House.

Members on all sides express a concern and an identity of intent to ensure compensation is fully paid and proper medical care and supports provided. No matter what the future political complexion of this House that will remain the position. I do not believe any political party or any Member will renege on that commitment. I see an advantage in establishing a tribunal on an informal basis without the panoply of a statutory provision which could result in further months passing before the necessary structures are put in place.

There is a great concern about the issue of provisional awards. As a lawyer who is familiar with how the courts work I am aware that when someone seeks damages as a result of a wrong done to them by the State or an individual the courts normally make a final decision and a sum of money is ordered to be paid on the basis of the injuries known to have been suffered. There is no provision in our ordinary civil law system for provisional awards. In the tragic and unique circumstances in which many people now find themselves it is essential to have a structure which allows for making provisional awards.

In the Minister's scheme the applicant seeking an award can first choose whether they want a final or provisional award. If they opt for a provisional award I understand the concern that it remains at the discretion of the person adjudicating to determine whether an award is provisional or final. However, in the context of the medical difficulties and uncertainties involved in this area, I would find it almost incredible that any person appointed to such a tribunal when asked to make a provisional award would do anything other than make a provisional award. I would find it difficult to see anybody adjudicating and reaching a decision that they now know the full prognosis of the implications and that a final award can be made. I do not believe there is a doctor in or outside this country who will give evidence to the tribunal that there is no need with regard to any particular individual to keep in place the possibility of reviewing the original award.

I understand the concerns in this regard but looking at the manner in which this should work and the way I believe it will work in practice, if someone asks for a once-off overall compensation payment that is the award the tribunal will make. If they ask for a provisional award it will take something extraordinary for the tribunal to decide anything other than it will simply make a provisional award.

The State has a profound duty to all those who have suffered as a result of use of contaminated blood products. After lengthy discussions between those affected and the Minister we are putting in place structures that will seek to provide for compensation and supports. However, one matter has not been dealt with, which should have been dealt with and which will have to be addressed. What happened in this instance is a national scandal. The use of contaminated blood products at a time when it was not known they were contaminated is understandable. However, to continue to distribute them and put people at risk for a period after it has become known the blood products are contaminated is scandalous beyond comprehension.

In countries such as Spain and France criminal law would have been invoked in such circumstances. Those guilty of such criminal negligence or those against whom such criminal negligence could be alleged would find themselves prosecuted through the court system and at risk of being jailed. It is not good enough that servants of the State who are given a sacred trust to ensure the safety of our medical system can get away with this act of gross negligence, walk away from it and be at no personal risk. We have seen it in other areas of our national life and this lesson should have been learned before this tragedy.

If we put in place the measures so badly needed to assist those who have been affected there is other business left to be done. It is time for the House to enact legislation to ensure that any person acting in a public capacity as a servant of the State, in a State body or a Government Department, who behaves in a manner so grossly negligent as to affect the lives and health of other people should find themselves at risk of criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

It is a disgrace that the Director of Public Prosecutions has not seen fit to look into the report on the background to what occurred and to consider whether in the context of our legal system there is a form of prosecution which could be brought. In the absence of statutory provision we should not take the view that prosecution is impossible. The Government should ask the DPP and the Office of the Attorney General to look into the matter further and I would like to see some development. If the response from the Office of the Attorney General is that it is not possible within current law, the Department of Health, the Department of Justice or the Office of the Attorney General must ensure that if tragedies of this nature occur, our Statute Book contains a criminal law which will bring those responsible to justice.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. The development of hepatitis by any person is a serious matter but to develop it as a result of treatment provided by the State compounds even further the problem and the misery involved. The most important issue to be dealt with when circumstances such as these arise is to ensure that they do not recur. I congratulate the Minister and his Department for the speed with which the product was withdrawn and a virally inactivated anti-D product was distributed to hospitals. The Minister has also committed himself to ongoing research by the Health Research Board into the effects of hepatitis C on those who have contracted it through anti-D. I assume the results of this work will be made readily available to the public, given the provision allowed for within the compensation scheme to make provisional awards to claimants.

The issue which now arises is how to deal with the problems facing the women who through no fault of their own have contracted this disease. The response can be roughly divided into two categories — health care and compensation — and I am satisfied with both aspects of this approach. In particular, I welcome the Government's open approach to the award of compensation where, in the strict legal sense, there is some doubt as to whether negligence can be proven.

I am pleased the Minister has recognised that the responsibility of the State to its citizens has a moral dimension. Ultimately, whether it was aware of it or whether it was even feasible to be aware of it, the State is the agency by which these women have contracted this virus. While the numbers involved represent a small proportion of the women who received anti-D, each case represents a personal disaster for that woman and her family.

The response of the Government to the health requirements of those in this unfortunate situation in terms of primary and secondary health care services has been comprehensive and clear. Those affected are entitled to no less from the State. I am pleased also that this treatment will be the subject of continuous assessment by the monitoring board to be established before the end of the year. The long-term consequences of hepatitis C are uncertain so it is essential that the requirements of those infected be kept under review and appropriate responses be determined.

In addition to the obvious medical requirements of those suffering from the hepatitis C virus, I welcome the fact that counselling services will be part and parcel of the overall package of services to be provided. All sufferers of serious illnesses experience extreme mental anguish at their fate, yet I imagine that the sense of anguish is exacerbated in this case where the conditions has been contracted by way of a medically administered process.

It is somewhat ironic that Fianna Fáil should feel so passionately about the issue of compensation. There was a time when one would not have been surprised to see the Government disclaim any responsibility in an area like this. It is only six years since a Fianna Fáil Government unnecessarily precipitated a general election when defeated in the Dáil on the issue of compensation payable to haemophiliacs who had contracted the HIV virus. Their view, even at that stage, contrasted with the approach taken by the Coalition Government of 1982 to 1987, of which my party was a member, to the disaster at the Stardust nightclub. I am glad to see the current Government has confirmed that approach as the appropriate one to take in situations of this kind.

As Members are aware, the Minister has not acted unilaterally on this issue. The latest draft of the compensation scheme published by the Minister is the result of extensive negotiations between himself and interested parties. This is by no means a ministerial diktat. The Minister, in his contribution last night, set out the advantages of a tribunal without statutory powers. The principal attraction of this scheme is the speed, flexibility and privacy it can bring to its task. Our experience with statutory tribunals in this regard has not been exemplary. Do we seriously wish to engage ourselves in the kind of legal complexities, not to mention huge costs, which have dominated other tribunals?

As the Minister pointed out, statutory tribunals need not be any more permanent than others. The right of access to the courts, either by way of enforcement action or judicial review, should be sufficient to assuage concerns in this regard. There are a number of other reasons why the compensation scheme published by the Minister commends itself. For example, claimants under the scheme are not obliged to waive their right to legal action upon their application to the tribunal. It is also important that the tribunal has been empowered to make provisional awards, a remedy of particular relevance in this area and one not available to claimants were they to pursue legal action in the courts. If these measures were not included in the Minister's scheme my attitude to it might be quite different.

A number of concerns have been raised by interested bodies namely Positive Action and Transfusion Positive, which are partly addressed by the amendments tabled by the Progressive Democrats. Contrary to the impression given by the Progressive Democrats amendment, oral evidence is not precluded by the tribunal's terms of reference. While it is true to say that the tribunal will usually deal with written medical reports a practice common in the courts, provision exists for oral medical evidence to be given. This too should work to the advantage of the climant as it appears from the terms of the scheme that oral evidence will only be requested if there is some dispute about the granting of compensation. By definition then, oral evidence will be given in the interest of the claimant.

From my reading of the scheme, the nature of the climant's application-either for a provisional or a lump sum award — is not determined by the tribunal. Section 11 of the scheme states quite clearly that it is up to the claimant to apply for either a lump sum award or a provisional payment. It is also possible that, in advance of hearing any particular claim, the claimant can change the nature of the application with the tribunal's consent.

On the matter of judicial review, I welcome the fact that the Minister has limited his own powers to amend the scheme. Any change to the scheme which claimants perceive to have damaged their position can be subject to judicial review. I hope such a measure will prove to be precautionary and given the open manner in which the Minister has approached this issue to date, I am confident that will remain the case. By its nature, this issue is emotive and consequently, it is difficult to deal with it. Nevertheless, I believe the Minister's proposals are balanced and fair and I support his amendment.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Flood and O'Donnell.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, for placing this matter before the House and calling for legislation as a matter of urgency to establish a statutory tribunal. I note the Minister's statement of his commitment to fair compensation and to meeting the long-term health care needs of those who have contracted hepatitis C from a blood transfusion or blood product. The Minister has recognised that there are long-term health consequences arising from hepatitis C and his health care programme, outlined in the House last night, is welcome. I substantially agree with the Minister that the primary and secondary health care services, which are now clearly set out, show the openness and generosity of spirit with which he has addressed this problem, recognising that he had to respond to a most difficult situation.

While I do not have a medical background, the documentation issued by the Minister dealing with primary and secondary care aspects seems comprehensive. I ask the Minister to be flexible in responding to any additional needs suggested by Positive Action or Transfusion Positive and those which may be identified in the normal way on an ongoing basis as the full impact of these services are brought to bear on the group of persons affected.

Legislative arrangements have been approved by Cabinet to give effect to this comprehensive package. Some of the ingredients of the health care package can be provided under existing legislative or regulatory frameworks and even some ad hoc services provided to the public at present are intended to be offered to the affected hepatitis C group on a statutory basis. This legislation should receive an easy passage through this House but if our party feels that it does not go far enough, then suitable amendments will be suggested. It will extend a permanency to what I consider to be as important as the question of compensation, namely the day to day health care of the large group of women, their partners and children identified under the programme as having been affected.

I accept that substantial progress has been made since this first came into the public domain. The fact that, at present, ad hoc treatment is being given a statutory framework has substantially won the support of the groups representing the people affected. If the Minister and his Department had continued to provide the level of services now intended only on an ad hoc basis, little or no progress could have been reported. A statutory basis for general practitioner, dental, ophthalmic, oral, counselling, home help and home nursing services and the additional services which are intended to be extended to children and partners ensures that full and proper recognition and resources are provided on a permanent basis which can only be changed in the future by amending legislation, regardless of which party or parties form that Government.

Ad hoc services can, over time, take on a degree of permanency but, with delegated authority to chief executive officers of health boards, these services and the level of their delivery and effectiveness can vary widely. Priorities within board areas vary and while I have commended the Minister on the approach he has adopted in giving statutory effect to the health care portion of the programme, politically this was the only approach which would have been accepted.

The programme of research to be carried out by the health research board and the establishment of a statutory consultative council is noteworthy. I presume that such a consultative council could have also been set up on an ad hoc basis but ad hoc consultative councils in the past have had a short and uncertain life span, particularly in times of fiscal rectitude. My colleague, Deputy Moffatt, stated last night that not all is known about the effects of hepatitis C. Long term research projects will have to be carried out and the full range of programmes monitored so that changes and new services can be provided where the need is identified.

Certain words have been used ad nauseam in this debate such as ad hoc, statutory and ex gratia in our efforts to address the real needs and concerns of the person affected. Ex gratia is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a favour, especially not under legal compulsion. The Government's proposal to pay ex gratia compensation to anti-D recipients who are infected with hepatitis C antibodies or virus, their partners and children who are also infected with hepatitis C antibodies or virus and those persons who contracted hepatitis C from a blood transfusion or blood product does not go far enough for compensation to be assessed by an ad hoc tribunal. The Minister's proposals, at face value, look generous and promise informality and speed. They also promise attractive early settlements and any other proposals or suggestions made by this side of the House are summarily dismissed.

Positive Action and Transfusion Positive strike me as representative groups whose sole aim is the well-being and welfare of the people they represent. Nothing I have seen or heard would convince me that they wish to see the work of the statutory tribunal undermined by awards accompanied by large bills for costs paid out to teams of legal representatives. Because of the potentially large group of people involved in this tragedy, no one wants a rerun of the beef tribunal, the saga of which continues with the commencement shortly of the taxation of horrendous legal bills.

Many of the proposals of the ad hoc scheme if given statutory effect would have the effect of substantially reducing the legal costs payable on an award. I am not convinced that the presumption that a non-statutory tribunal will avoid formality, inflexibility, delays and the other reasons put forward by the Minister last night will stand the test of time. It will be chaired by an eminent jurist, trained and experienced in the ways and means of assessing evidence, quantifying compensation — either by way of lump or interim awards — and fully conscious of the rules of natural justice and the rights of the injured party to be fully facilitated in presenting their evidence. If procedures are adopted by the compensation tribunal which will not allow the legal teams of the injured parties to fully present their cases, then not only will there be a substantial number of judicial review cases but also the potential of a double set of legal costs.

A statutory tribunal is required to give permanency. Who can say with any certainty that it will not be abolished in five, ten or 30 years' time? The present proposal could be abolished at the whim of a Government. To suggest that the High Court — as suggested last night — will step in to stop such an arbitrary decision does not fully take into account various decisions of our superior courts which have refused to interfere with administrative and executive decisions. To suggest that already affected people can go to a statutory body, namely the High Court, is unfair to the people in question and does not take into account the substantial delays which those persons would have to endure on top of an already intolerable burden of stress, upset and anxiety. At present, delays of several years are the norm in High Court personal injuries cases.

The Minister suggested that if he was to establish a statutory tribunal he, or any other Minister, could be forced to extend that notion of provisional awards to every forthcoming idea. What is wrong with that, even if his logic stands up? Such a system of provisional awards has much to recommend it, has been called for by various bodies over many years and would be a much more accurate way of assesing future pain and suffering and future loss of earnings. It could have the effect of reducing the totality of the sums awarded and allow recipients to manage their affairs in a way to which they are accustomed rather than being the recipients of large lump sums which, in some instances, can have a disastrous effect on people's lifestyles and families.

I have acknowledged that the Minister has come a long way in meeting the needs and concerns of the representative groups. He has, in the main, been reasonable in his approach. However, without being ungenerous to him, the approach of any Minister to this problem has been fashioned by the very serious negligence of the Blood Transfusion Services Board and the excellent representations made by Positive Action and Transfusion Positive on behalf of their members. It is essential that confidence is built upon in the type of tribunal offered to alleviate, by means of monetary compensation, the injury inflicted on this group of people. It has been clearly spelled out that the Minister's own proposals for a compensation tribunal are not acceptable. Going the extra 100 yards and giving statutory effect to this ad hoc board will ensure that most, if not all, claims will be processed through it with speed, informality and flexibility, provided the ingredients contained in the draft Bill prepared by Positive Action are given statutory effect.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate and I thank my colleagues, particularly Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, for tabling this motion so soon after we had an opportunity to discuss the issue at a recent select committee meeting. We are discussing a great human tragedy with regard to the infection of so many people with hepatitis C from contaminated blood products and associated contacts.

Positive Action and Transfusion Positive, who have been campaigning on this issue for some time — and did not make a great deal of progress in the early stages — recently indicated that, although they are satisfied with some of the proposals brought forward by the Minister for Health and the Government on this very important issue for them, there are still, as other speakers said, a number of issues which need to be tackled in a sympathetic way to meet the full needs of the people concerned and the representative organisations. Members on all sides called on the Minister in a gentle but forceful way to re-enter discussions with representative groups to ascertain if the divisive issues could be satisfactorily resolved. I support those calls.

In the short time available to me I do not propose to deal with the issues raised by my colleagues. While I accept there are some positive aspects to the Minister's health care package, it will give rise to many difficulties. There are substantial waiting lists for dental, ophthalmic and aural services. I do not know the background to the Minister's proposal, but perhaps he will allow those infected with hepatitis C to obtain such services in the private sector. If they have to depend on the public service for them they will experience considerable delays and that may add to their dilemma.

More detail is required on the placing and frequency of the independent counselling service and the length of waiting time that will be involved. While the Minister stated there would be a one month waiting period for such a service, those infected with hepatitis C may not be able to wait that long. Home help and home nursing services are overstretched. Will those infected with hepatitis C have to tap into existing services? If that is the case, unless the Minister proposes to expand the service by providing additional funding, others entitled to the service will have to forego entitlements. Four hospitals in Dublin, one in Cork and one in Galway provide secondary health care services. While this may be due to the availability of consultants and so on, in so far as providing additional funding for such hospitals is concerned, I fail to understand why those services could not be more evenly spead throughout the country, for example, in Galway, Sligo, Cavan and Dundalk. Surely the majority of those infected with hepatitis C are not from the Dublin region.

There are many flaws in the health care package. Its success will be measured on the willingness of this and future Governments to provide additional funding for those services. It will not be such a good package if hepatitis C sufferers are expected to tap into existing services. The tribunal should be placed on a statutory footing and Members on this side put forward strong arguments in that regard. When organisations and individuals request those services, they may not be as freely available as appears from the package. I hope that is not the case, but that will depend on the financial support of this and successive Governments. It will be interesting to note how the service develops and succeeds in responding to the needs of those whom the Minister indicated in his health package can tap into the service. Commitments made in this area must be honoured in hospitals and health boards.

The purpose of the Progressive Democrats' amendment is to home in on the outstanding issues which have taken from the negotiations entered into by the women infected with hepatitis C. These were referred to by Members on all sides.

The refusal of the Minister as late as last evening to concede on these last few issues is disappointing and falls short of what the women feel is fair, namely, the commitment in the programme A Government of Renewal to pay fair compensation to those infected with hepatitis C. Do we want to achieve what is fair in the eyes of the Minister or in the eyes of the women infected?

The Progressive Democrats believe all the victims infected with hepatitis C should be compensated by the State. It is unfortunate that the Taoiseach sought to politicise the matter in recent days when he was confronted with an accounting irregularity. The Opposition has a duty to point out when such an accounting irregularity is discovered. It is wrong for the Taoiseach to use the hepatitis C and compensation issue as an excuse for his sleight of hand in cooking the financial books.

Great passions were expended on the question of the budgetary irregularity. It is ironic that such great passions were not voiced on the scandal to which we are referring tonight. Outrage was expressed on the Order of Business today and yesterday about the budgetary irregularity but the reality of these women's lives did not meet with similar outrage and scandal. The Minister did not request the resignation of the people in the Blood Transfusion Service Board who are responsible for the scandal, that State board failed abjectly in its responsibility to the public and the women infected and in doing so breached its own guidelines. The DPP did not get involved. The Minister stated it was none of his business, his office is independent. When I asked the Minister if he had requested the resignation of those guilty of criminal negligence in their duties he said that would not be necessary as they had retired voluntarily with golden handshakes.

At the outset the State did not have a leg to stand on in respect of this issue. Every inch of territory that has been conceded was negotiated by the infected women and great credit is due to them. I applaud their continuing persistence as they are not yet happy with the deal being offered. They have been empowered by the tragedy and politicised by the injustice done to them by the State. One would have to be a woman to realise how badly this tragedy affected those concerned. It flowed from perhaps one of their happiest moments, that of pregnancy and childbirth. To link tragedy with such happiness must be a double tragedy for the women concerned.

The report by Dr. Hederman-O'Brien, which was damning in its criticism of the Blood Transfusion Service Board, should be debated by a committee of the House. Its implications are extremely serious. The scheme of compensation is offered by the Government to ensure the efficient and speedy payment of compensation to the victims of the biggest health scandal in the history of the State. It is right that compensation should be paid, but it is not acceptable for the Government to continue to ignore the remaining concerns of women who have been infected which relate to their basic rights and the need for fair play. It is not acceptable that the spirit of generosity which led to the decision to establish a tribunal has not been carried through to its framework.

The proposals set out by the Minister in the health care document relating to the long-term health care needs of women infected with hepatitis C are welcome and satisfy the concerns of the women concerned, but the amended scheme of compensation published by the Minister falls short of the commitment given in the policy document, A Government of Renewal, to provide fair compensation. The scheme should be acceptable to the women concerned who have been infected with a potentially life threatening illness for which there is no cure, but what they have been offered is not adequate. They received contaminated blood from a State board and everything possible should be done to ensure they are happy with the deal negotiated on their behalf.

Few outstanding issues remain such as the absence of permanence, the manner in which the women concerned will present their cases and the absence of a built-in appeals mechanism.

All the women in question face an uncertain and unpredictable future. The full extent of the damage will only manifest itself in time. That is probably the most frightening aspect. Many of them may suffer from cirrhosis of the liver and have to undergo a liver transplant. When they close their eyes they see a panorama of uncertainty. This is part and parcel of the damage caused through negligence on the part of the State apart from any physical injuries they may suffer.

They cannot be fobbed off with a once-off ad hoc payment. They want and deserve a contract. That is the only way to guarantee proper long-term provision. Those who are awarded a provisional or interim award must have the right to re-enter their claims, if the need so arises. The only way this can be guaranteed is to give the women concerned a proper contract.

It is the belief of the Progressive Democrats that the order setting up the tribunal should be debated in the House. At a minimum, all the parties which may make up future Governments must be morally committed to meeting the long-term needs of these innocent victims because of gross negligence on the part of a State agency.

The scheme provides for the making of provisional awards which is a key attraction of the tribunal as opposed to going to court. The scheme states, however, that the awards will be granted at the discretion of the tribunal. On medical grounds or for reasons of a strong personal fear that her hepatitis C condition could worsen, a woman may seek a provisional award. The tribunal may, however, grant her a lump sum and she would have no right of appeal. There is no entitlement, as of right, to a provisional award under the scheme. This denies provisional awards, the main advantage of the scheme, over and above a court, to a claimant, as of right. Women, through Positive Action, have indicated that the provisional award is a key feature of the scheme and one Positive Action has been campaigning for as it does not exist anywhere else in Irish law. The Minister and the State are making provision for such an award because hepatitis C is such an uncertain condition, but the restrictions imposed make this a major defect of the scheme.

The Minister said that the discretion of the tribunal has been deliberately inserted by the Government because lawyers in Ireland are not familiar with the concept of provisional awards and may advise applicants in a certain direction which may not be in their best interests. That is not the responsibility of the Minister, but of the women concerned. It is an insult to the victims of this tragedy.

It is unsatisfactory to indicate that the issue may be taken to the High Court if a claimant is not satisfied as only the tribunal can make such staged payments. The victims are concerned that the tribunal will not have permanence and, therefore, there may be a cut-off point for the making of provisional awards. A binding written contract should be made between the State and the women concerned outlining the terms of the award. This would be binding on any future Government, thereby preventing it from abolishing the tribunal. This may seem outlandish, but the women concerned have lost confidence in the authorities and who could blame them? They have a legitimate grievance. There is a need to restore their trust. It is a pity that these issues cannot be resolved.

This is an ad hoc scheme and the only reference to permanence is to be found in the following sentence: “The scheme shall continue indefinitely so as to give effect to said purpose”. This does not remove the feeling of victims that the scheme will be abandoned either in the short or long-term.

The scheme presented by the Minister does not guarantee the women in question the right to properly present their case. There is no guarantee that their doctor will be called to give what they believe to be vital evidence. The usual right to compel witnesses to attend or procure documents is not included in the terms of the scheme as outlined. All evidence will be heard at the discretion of the tribunal. The scheme indicates that the tribunal will rely primarily on written evidence.

Last week at a meeting of the Select Committee on Social Affairs the Minister stated that claimants may not be called to give evidence. This is unacceptable and blatantly unfair. We are talking about women who have been injured through no fault of their own, but through the fault of the State. They should have the right to present medical evidence orally at the tribunal, if they so wish.

These issues highlight the inadequacies of the scheme. They are serious omissions which the Minister is well aware of, but he is standing firm. I cannot see the difficulty with making these concessions. It causes concern among claimants that the tribunal will hear cases in a summary manner and will work to conclude all hearings by making final awards as quickly as possible. This problem should be resolved at the earliest possible date.

Those who contracted hepatitis C through blood transfusions face various legal difficulties. If they had a blood transfusion before October 1991, they will be deemed to have contracted hepatitis C as a result of having this transfusion. Where hospital records are not available a person should not be prevented from receiving compensation from the tribunal. In other words, they should not be punished for the failure of the hospital to retain or produce their medical records.

The women involved have outlined in detail their concerns to the Minister and all Members. These relate to the burden of proof at the tribunal.

Substantial progress has already been made in the past year in meeting the many complex and varied needs of those persons who have contracted hepatitis C from a blood product of blood transfusion. Deputy Moffatt indicated last night that much of the health care package is aspirational. This is not the case. The primary health care element of the package which includes general practitioner services, including prescribed drugs and medicines; dental, ophthalmic and aural services; independent counselling services; home help services and home nursing services will be the subject of legislation which will be published by 31 December 1995 providing for these services to be provided free of charge and without a means test for certain persons who have contracted hepatitis C. The hospital services for these patients are already covered by the health Acts.

In relation to the hospital services, specific funding will be provided in the Book of Estimates each year for special clinics and the annual level of funding will ensure open access to hospital facilities for hepatitis C or any related condition; adequate permanent staffing levels; that the required service is not disrupted, particularly in relation to staff replacement; that each unit will have a specialist liver consultant or hepatologist and a nurse-counsellor; that the equipment necessary to provide the required service is available; that no patient should have to wait more than one hour for a scheduled appointment, that no patient will have to wait more than two weeks for an appointment; that a minimum of five days hospital admission is offered to patients for viral therapy initiation, should such be requested; that adequate training for staff is provided; the non-payment of hospital charges; priority referral to consultants for conditions related to hepatitis C; access to liver transplant procedure where clinically indicated without delay and that each unit will have a designated ward area for hepatitis C patients who are admitted for testing, treatment or biopsy.

In relation to the designated ward area, this provision, like many of the other services being provided was specifically requested by Positive Action during the course of the recent negotiations between that group and the Department of Health. Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn said that some patients are objecting to such a designated ward because they may not have revealed to their relatives that they are hepatitis C positive. In such circumstances the hospitals will, as far as possible, accommodate the patient in an alternative unit in the hospital. All of the services are being provided under the Health Acts.

Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn raised the issue of counselling for persons with hepatitis C last night. It is the Minister for Health's intention to prescribe in regulations, among other services, that certain persons who have contracted hepatitis C shall be entitled to a counselling service free of charge. The health care package indicates in detail the scope of the counselling service, including that an appointment for counselling will be arranged within one month of request. Funding for the counselling service will be provided by the Department of Health to the health boards which will be responsible for the provision of the service.

Counselling is currently available at: Dublin, Donegal, Wexford, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, Cavan-Monaghan, Westmeath, Offaly-Laois, Kilkenny, Louth, Meath-Wicklow-Kildare, Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Waterford, Tipperary and Ennis.

The range of counselling services that will be provided will include: GP's providing counselling at their level of patient contact; nurse-counsellors at hepatitis C-anti-D clinics providing counselling services and assistance at hospital appointments and, if necessary, by follow up telephone contact; consultants at hepatitis C clinics may refer patients for specialist counselling and an independent counselling service to be provided through the health boards.

Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn spoke last night about the Bain report. Bain & Co. carried out a major consultancy project at the BTSB and reported to the Department of Health and the BTSB in May last. The objective of the Minister for Health is to ensure that the BTSB as the statutory health agency which provides blood and blood products to our hospital service is organised and structured to provide a public service to the highest possible standards of safety, efficiency and effectiveness in the best interests of patients and donors. The full and effective implementation of the recommendations of the Bain report is the top priority for the BTSB. The main thrust of the report is focused on identifying opportunities to improve levels of safety, patient care and donor care. The recommendations in the Bain report together with the changes in the management and organisation of the BTSB will facilitate the necessary reorganisation of the BTSB so that it can play its essential role in the overall health care system.

Positive Action has sought a statutory tribunal on the basis that a statute would guarantee the performance of such a tribunal. A statutory scheme offers no such absolute guarantees on the permanence of a tribunal. However, there are a number of safeguards against the abolition or future amendment of the Government's scheme to diminish the rights of applicants to the tribunal outlined by the Minister for Health last night which, in my view, are worth reiterating: the terms of any award made under the Government's scheme would be enforceable before the courts; and any abolition or future amendment of the Government's scheme to the effect of diminishing the rights of applicants to the tribunal would be subject to judicial review.

The Minister for Health also outlined the ten amendments which have been made to the compensation scheme following consultation and negotiation with Positive Action and Transfusion Positive. The position is that no further concessions can be made. The Minister for Health mindful that many claimants wish to apply to the tribunal for compensation without further delay is formally establishing the tribunal on Friday next, 15 December 1995.

On yesterday's Order of Business on behalf of the Government the Taoiseach accepted liability for the health scandal we are discussing this evening. He went on to say that the liability must be met and is being provided for. This morning on the Order of Business he said the credibility of the tribunal with the women who need compensation would be greatly diminished if the Government did not make the financial provision to meet it and that the credibility of the tribunal is enhanced by the fact that financial provision is being made this year. That is far from being accurate. As Deputy O'Donnell pointed out, it would be better if the Taoiseach did not use the victims of hepatitis C as the excuse for the questionable accounting procedures of this Government.

The Taoiseach's statement is inaccurate in several respects. It is hard to diminish credibility for the tribunal proposed by the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, when the groups representing victims are deeply unhappy with it. As far as they are concerned an ad hoc tribunal for hepatitis C victims has no credibility or very little credibility compared to the statutory one they have demanded.

The Taoiseach also suggests that the groups were pressing for financial provisions to be made for the tribunal and that was what spurred on the Government. The groups representing hepatitis C victims did not insist that the Government push through the Supplementary Estimate in such a hasty fashion. They wanted the detail of the tribunal sorted out and had not pressed for an Estimate. Some of the groups representing the victims had met the Minister for Health the night before the Supplementary Estimate was moved at the Select Committee on Social Affairs last week and were less than happy with what they were told about the arrangements for the Estimate and the tribunal. They were not satisfied with the terms proposed by the Minister and believed further talks were necessary. They also believed the Minister for Health had failed spectacularly to listen to the concerns of those infected and that he was wrong to move forward with the Estimate at that time when the detail of the matter was not agreed. However, the Minister ploughed on showing complete disregard for the victims of a State disaster. For the Taoiseach to claim at this stage that the credibility of this ad hoc tribunal is enhanced because of the financial provisions is insulting. He should withdraw the remarks he made this morning on the Order of Business tomorrow.

The Minister for Health made a number of points last night which need to be addressed. He presented the research carried out by the Department of Health and the Blood Transfusion Service Board into finding the victims of hepatitis C as comprehensive. He also presented the ad hoc tribunal as fair, balanced and as giving an opportunity to all victims to get a settlement. That is quite inaccurate. The group which represents the people who contracted hepatitis C from blood transfusions will have legal difficulties with the Minister's proposal. That group includes at least 500 people, made up of mothers who received transfusions when giving birth, children who needed blood transfusions to save their lives, male and female car accident victims, males and females who received transfusions during serious operations and those with rare blood diseases.

Under the Minister's proposals transfusee claimants, their children and partners will be required to establish on the balance of probabilities that the hepatitis C antibodies or hepatitis C virus in respect of which they have been diagnosed positive resulted from a blood transfusion or a blood product received by the claimant, parent or the partner of a claimant within the State. They foresee two difficulties in relation to this obligation which is to be placed on every claimant before the proposed tribunal. They understand that some medical records would have been lost or mislaid through the amalgamation of various hospitals in recent years and that in at least one case medical records have been destroyed. The individual in question was in hospital as a child over 20 years ago and they understand that, in accordance with administrative procedures in that hospital, the records relating to her have been destroyed. Such persons, therefore, will have to rely on other means of proving they received blood transfusions. However, the most crucial issue in their view relates to the obligation contained in section 6 (e) (ii) whereby claimants are required to establish on the balance of probabilities that they have contracted the hepatitis C virus from a blood transfusion or blood product. This means that a claimant must establish on the balance of probabilities, in a positive manner, that he or she contracted the infection from the blood transfusion or blood products. It is their view that it is not sufficient for a claimant to show that the infection could not be caused by other causes or from other sources. Accordingly, a claimant must show a positive connection between the infection and the receiving of a blood transfusion or blood product.

The difficulty arises from the fact that screening for hepatitis C was not introduced until 1 October 1991. Only on or after that date are donors of blood tested for the hepatitis C virus. Persons who gave blood prior to that date would not have been tested in a significant number of cases. As the facts become available, it appears that quite a number of donors did not continue to donate blood after 1 October 1991. It is, therefore, not possible to establish whether such donors donated blood contaminated with the hepatitis C virus. It appears that only in cases where donors continued to give blood after 1 October 1991 can blood donated to claimants be positively confirmed as having been infected.

The Blood Transfusion Service Board's Lookback programme is only capable of establishing whether contaminated blood was donated in cases where donors continued to give blood after 1 October 1991. Therefore, there is a crucial difficulty, if not an impossibility, for a claimant to establish that he or she received contaminated blood in the circumstances I have outlined. Even the Blood Transfusion Service Board's attempts to identify whether blood donated in the past was contaminated will not succeed in identifying such blood unless the donor or the donors in question continued to give blood after 1 October 1991. Its view is that the obligation to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a person's infection was caused by a blood transfusion or a blood product may be an impossible onus to discharge, through no fault of the individual claimant.

To sum up, the legal difficulty from the point of view of the blood transfusion victims is that, under the Minister's ad hoc tribunal, there is a major risk that a bona fide and deserving claimant may not be able to prove his or her case because of the imposition of an obligation to establish that blood was contaminated in certain circumstances that cannot be proved. It will not be possible to prove because testing for hepatitis C was not introduced until after 1 October 1991. If a person who had the virus donated blood prior to that date but did not donate again after that date they cannot be traced for hepatitis C.

The Blood Transfusion Service Board's Lookback study, which was requested by the Minister, has only established cases where infected blood was given after that cut-off date of 1 October 1991. The objections to the Minister's tribunal are compelling and put in context the incompleteness of records and tests so far. I say to Deputies on the other side of the House who have given commitments to the groups representing victims about a statutory tribunal that if they walk through the lobbies and vote down this motion, they are denying all these people compensation for a tragedy caused by the State.

The group representing blood transfusion victims has suggested some sensible changes that should be introduced to stop their members being locked out of the tribunal. So far, the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, has ignored these calls from a very vulnerable group.

I wish to raise a number of other points with the Minister, Deputy Noonan, who made some remarks about lawyers here last night. He implied that they would somehow devise a hepatitis C tribunal that would be complex, just to get exorbitant legal fees. I hold no brief for lawyers but I believe the Minister's remarks are offensive, especially to the senior counsel who have been involved in this controversy. In fact, instead of insulting them the Minister would do well to listen to them given that at least one of them has held very senior legal office in the State. The Minister is obviously sore because they have challenged his legal scheme and said it has a number of significant weaknesses. They have also said that the sentence in the scheme providing for the tribunal to continue indefinitely does not remove the real fears that the ad hoc tribunal could be abandoned by a Government even in the short-term.

Legal experts also point out that having regard to the provisions of Articles 17 and 28.4.3º of the Constitution there must be a real doubt as to the extent to which a Minister or the Government can purport to bind future Governments in the manner proposed in the scheme. The Minister said last night that even a statutory tribunal could be abolished by amending an Act of the Oireachtas. While I accept that could be done, a Government would think twice about doing this in that it would have to come before the House and have it voted on. It would be much more difficult to do that then to abolish an ad hoc tribunal where the only challenge would come from the courts and where such an action might not succeed.

All legal advice is that if the tribunal is not put on a statutory basis, then the best way to secure permanence is to provide for individual contracts between each claimant and the State, as Deputy O'Donnell suggested. I did not regard that as the best way forward and I would prefer a statutory tribunal but the Minister has not even offered the contracts route as a compromise in this affair.

The well considered advice I have been given by lawyers, close to this controversy, points to the Minister's scheme failing a fairness test on a number of counts. Claimants cannot present oral medical evidence to the ad hoc tribunal; there is no provision whereby witnesses can be compelled to attend hearings and claimants are not given an entitlement or a right to a provisional award. In all cases the tribunal has the discretion to make a lump sum award rather than a provisional award. The Minister's tribunal is not subject to judicial review and the ad hoc scheme excludes the right of appeal.

In his comments last night, the Minister said that proceedings before the tribunal are not excluded from judicial review but the victims and the lawyers do not share this certainty. It is their view that if there is a judicial review, it would only be after an onerous process. I heard what the Minister said on these points but advice from senior lawyers does not agree with the Minister's version of events. In fact, they believe that despite the Minister engaging the groups representing victims in a month of intensive negotiations, no significant improvement resulted in the proposals for the ad hoc tribunal. The lawyers came to the conclusion that the Minister's plan is that hepatitis C victims should be compensated, as Deputy O'Donnell said, with final lump sum awards at the earliest date, by the ad hoc tribunal, so that the problem is put into the past at the earliest opportunity.

I accept that the Minister made considerable headway on the health proposals. The health document put forward by him is satisfactory as it finally puts on paper the deal needed to copperfasten the guarantee of continuing quality health care given in 1994 by the former Government. It is a pity that guarantees had to be dragged, word for word, out of the Department of Health by the representative groups. The health document indicates that the representative groups will be consulted regarding the enabling legislation. When will the Minister, Deputy Noonan, fulfil that undertaking, given that his commitment in the House is to publish legislation by 31 December?

It must be remembered that hepatitis C is an unpredictable disease. It can arise at unexpected times and it can be fatal. That is why I would say to those on the other side of the House that if they vote down this motion, they are voting for a flawed half measure for the victims of a State tragedy. To say, as the Minister did last night, that a person falling into a pothole can be compared with a person infected with a life threatening virus at the hands of a State board shows clearly his lack of insensitivity and comprehension of the seriousness of this issue. The victims have fallen into a bottomless pit and the Minister wants to bury them there.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 63.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Bruton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 62.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share