I join other Members in thanking Mr. Justice Finlay for his work, the manner in which he dealt with the presentations and witnesses before him and his speedy delivery of the report to this House.
I wish to address the comments made by the chief executive of the Blood Transfusion Service Board who claimed that the debate about the blood supply has gone beyond reasonable debate. He made accusations of scaremongering against politicians, but Fianna Fáil has not participated in any scaremongering. Any comment we made was reasonable and balanced. As pointed out today by the president of the Irish Medical Organisation, many matters need to be exposed if there is to be change, and I would have thought everybody would agree with that. Fianna Fáil is interested in ensuring we have the best blood supply system possible and that we will not cower from that task, which is a matter of major public importance.
The chief executive of the BTSB suggested in his radio interview this morning that there was something underhand in the way the woman infected by anti-D who was asked to give blood had sought an apology. I felt her credentials and motivations were being questioned in a most unfair and unjust way. He also said a spin had been put on the story, as if the facts were not extraordinary in their own right. The BTSB may not have liked what it heard which was all backed up by facts. Shooting the messenger will not solve the problem.
We were informed last week that following the revelation of this episode involving a hepatitis C infected woman being called to give blood, the Minister called the chairman and chief executive of the BTSB to his office, gave them a dressing down and an error was acknowledged. Based on this morning's interview it does not appear the Minister gave any significant dressing down to the people involved. Even though the BTSB apologised last week, this week it appears to have returned to a defensive stance and it continues to display an arrogance in the face of bungling.
It also appears to be warning patients who come forward that if they complain they may be criticised in public. Did the Minister authorise that course of action? Is he in charge? It was only last Friday, more than three months after the incident, that the woman received a written apology from the BTSB, despite requests from her and her family. It must also be noted that, despite everything, the BTSB still does not ask donors if they have received anti-D. The Minister for Health has claimed on many occasions that the new management he has put in place in the blood bank has reformed it. However, it is clear from this episode and the one at the end of last year in relation to HIV infection of blood that the BTSB has a long way to go before it is a model of public accountability, which is what we all want to see it achieve.
The judicial inquiry into hepatitis C concluded that the actions of the Minister for Health in reforming the BTSB were quite adequate. However, there must be doubts about those conclusions and the adequacy of the political response to reforming the BTSB. It is ironic that those charged with maintaining confidence in the blood supply are most likely to damage that confidence. Through the media, they have attacked politicians for prolonging the story. Once again the Minister for Health has failed to take charge of the situation and left the BTSB to its own devices. Surveys have indicated public concern about the BTSB. The Government has failed to allay that concern. The lack of confidence is not helped by the Government saying that the recipients of potentially infected blood or blood products were not a priority. These people have a right to know what happened and to seek treatment if necessary. They should be told the truth. The Minister should insist that the BTSB contacts these people as a priority.
Fianna Fáil and the victims have called for a national study of the true incidence of hepatitis C. Will the Minister address this matter this evening? The BTSB should come clean on how many people received infected blood or blood products but have not presented for testing. Last week's Sunday Business Post alleged that the BTSB knew that some people who have only now presented for testing had received suspect anti-D batches. The BTSB is also aware of at least 335 deceased people who received these products. No relatives have been notified, even though the BTSB has known the names since 1985. The Minister should instruct the BTSB to inform the relatives.
One of the key elements of our amendment is our condemnation of the Government's failure to allow an investigation into who authorised the despicable legal strategy in the McCole case. It was a disgrace that the Government did not allow the tribunal to address this issue. That strategy was designed to intimidate victims under the false guise of the BTSB having a defence. The BTSB did not have any defence for its actions. However, the Minister for Health allowed the board to block the victims' legal actions even though he knew it had no defence since the 1976 file was discovered. There are aggravated damages claims today because of this outrageous bully boy defence directed by the Minister for Health. Justice demands that these damages be paid.
Fianna Fáil has argued that the 1976 file clearly showed that the BTSB had no defence. That file is crucial because it showed the BTSB's state of mind when the anti-D was made. The Minister claimed that the expert group supported his insistence on fighting the McCole case and his refusal to establish a judicial inquiry. Both these assertions were shattered by the Finlay findings.
Last Thursday the Minister engaged in selective quoting from the tribunal report in a vain attempt to justify his behaviour. He had the nerve to suggest that we withdraw our charges about the significance of the 1976 file. We will not do so because there is nothing to withdraw. The tribunal report supports this view. The Minister should stop attempting to apply a veneer of vindication to himself.
The investigation into who authorised the McCole legal strategy remains a matter of public policy. The Minister has resisted all attempts to allow the tribunal consider this matter. He even refused to admit question No. 5 as put by the McCole family. The Minister has been aided and abetted in this cover up by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. They have a duty to protect the public interest and ensure that citizens are treated fairly and honestly. They promised higher standards in Government so that no one would ever mislead this House. This has not happened. Both men stood idly by while the Cabinet was briefed by the Minister on how Mrs. McCole would be dragged to every possible legal extreme.
There were times when the Minister was under pressure in this House because it was beginning to be known that the BTSB had no defence. However, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste directly participated in ensuring that the cover up would not be exposed. They shored up the Minister for Health and Deputy Howlin even though their behaviour was unjustifiable. The hepatitis C affair is a clear example of where the people should have come before politics. This has not happened under the rainbow Government. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have not been held accountable. They have been invisible during this affair. The only leadership shown has been by the groups representing the victims. Despite the lip-service paid by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste they are culpable in this cover up. They turned a blind eye to the way the scandal was handled. They put politics above the rights of the victims to the truth and justice. They ignored the calls of victims and allowed terrible things to be done in the name of the State. Their indifference in a scandal of this magnitude displays a moral bankruptcy and a contempt for the public and the victims. The spoils of office have made them cavalier and arrogant.
Had the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste not supported the Minister for Health's handling of the affair, how could scandalous tactics have been used to browbeat the late Mrs. McCole? How else could there have been approval for the stone-walling, the barracking and the blocking? How could the Government shore up the BTSB in the full knowledge that it had no defence? For that reason alone the Minister should explain the matter in this House.
As a former colleague of Deputy Howlin, I was outraged when the facts emerged about his mishandling of the controversy. He was wrong to withhold information from his Cabinet colleagues, the Dáil, the public and the medical profession. Deputy Cowen has outlined his failings. Deputy Howlin failed to follow through on any of the seven goals he set himself at the beginning of the controversy. The most telling revelation was that he never called in anyone from the BTSB and kept the controversy at arm's length. It is impossible to imagine a Minister failing to call in the BTSB to see what it was doing.
Deputy Howlin's worst hour was when Positive Action told him of its concern regarding the questions being asked by the BTSB about the private lives of women who received anti-D after 1977. The Minister knew of the 1991 infection yet he never informed the women and allowed the outrageous BTSB behaviour to continue. He has tried to defend himself from Fianna Fáil's criticisms. In the process he has misrepresented our arguments. He has claimed that we called for people to be sacked from the outset. We never said this. We said that when he knew that the BTSB was facing down his authority and not co-operating with the expert group he should have done more than he did.
Deputy Howlin has tried to defend his role in the recall of the anti-D products. He accused Deputy Cowen of many things. On "Questions and Answers", Deputy Burton tried to write this off as sour grapes over 1994. What spin doctor dreamed that up? It will not carry much weight. When the Labour Party tries to write this off as a grudge from 1994 this indicates how out of touch it is on this issue. It is trying to minimise a very tragic matter. As Opposition we are highlighting this tragedy and seeking to get answers.
Ninety-five per cent of what offended Deputy Howlin were things which were said at the tribunal. The Minister's subjective view is that he did his best. However, his best is not good enough. Those of us who thought he was a hands-on Minister have been shocked by his incompetence on this issue. It was low of him to use Positive Action as a defence. The chairperson of Positive Action pointed out on Radio Ireland that the victims do not think that the Ministers did a good job. Deputy Howlin's defence shows that he is grasping at straws.
The Minister for Health is now promising to help hepatitis C victims. No doubt his object is to keep the focus off his failures in this scandal. However, he has a poor track record in delivering on promises made to the victims. For example, the promises in the programme of this rainbow coalition Government to pay fair compensation may only now be fulfilled, two years on. Another victim remembers the Minister's promise to consult them before publishing the health care Bill; that never occurred. Victims also remember that he announced the ad hoc compensation tribunal while negotiating with them about it. He needs to give legislative effect to his promises and introduce a Bill as a matter of urgency and, if that is not possible, he should follow the example of his colleague, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, who has just published the heads of a Bill on broadcasting. When replying he should clearly state whether that is his intention.
There has been much confusion about what the Minister proposes. He must spell out whether the State is admitting liability or whether that is to apply only to the Blood Transfusion Service Board. He must also state whether the compensation tribunal will have exactly the same powers as the High Court in relation to awards and whether a right of appeal will exist.
Victims in every category, including anti-D and transfusions, must be treated fairly by the Government, as must the families of those already deceased, such as the late Mrs. McCole. It would be an outrage if she, who exposed all of these matters, did not have her case reappraised in the light of the findings of the compensation tribunal she was instrumental in establishing.
I had an opportunity to listen to some comments of the former Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, on the RTE "Liveline" programme today. Would the current Minister clarify the position, since those comments appeared to be totally at odds with the line he has been adopting to date? In the course of that interview the former Minister for Health disclosed, in relation to the conduct of the State in the handling of the Brigid McCole case, that: "The legal strategy was decided by Government and that is a question that needs to be answered." When asked whether he had taken that decision he said, "Governments made a decision as to how all these things happen." He further admitted: "I now see that that did not suit certainly the McCole family and that they were right to go the course that they went." That explains why the fifth question in the McCole letter was excluded from the terms of reference of the hepatitis C tribunal. That is the first public admission by a Minister that collectively this Government was responsible for the strategy adopted in the McCole case, a damning indictment of all its members from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste down.