The Director of Public Prosecutions has stated that under current criminal law he is satisfied it is not possible to initiate a criminal prosecution in respect of the hepatitis C scandal. He made his decision on the basis of the report of the tribunal of inquiry into the Blood Transfusion Service Board and on the basis of what he described as a preliminary Garda investigation. The vast majority of the public believes criminal prosecutions should be brought against those responsible for the worst public health scandal in the history of the State. I share that belief and am concerned about the basis upon which the Director of Public Prosecutions arrived at his decision.
The Minister for Health and Children should clarify the nature of the preliminary investigations conducted by the Garda. Were these sufficient to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to make an informed decision on whether a prosecution should be brought? Did the Garda Síochána seek to question those named in the Finlay report as culpable for what occurred and did they co-operate in the investigation that was conducted? Why was only a preliminary investigation conducted? Why was it not a full investigation? Why is the investigation qualified as being a preliminary investigation? Was the investigation a political optical illusion? These questions demand answers.
I anticipated the possibility that the Director of Public Prosecutions might determine it was not possible under present criminal law to institute proceedings against those responsible for the failings so graphically described in the Finlay report. I said it might be necessary to fill a gap in the law in this area and to enact specific criminal law legislation to provide that where a person vested with a public duty behaves with such recklessness or gross negligence as to endanger the life or health of others, such dereliction of duty should constitute a criminal offence. Such legislation is in force in a number of European Union countries. I refer to the examples of the laws in force in both France and Spain.
The Taoiseach said this morning the introduction of new legislation to address this area should be considered by the Law Reform Commission. That is not a satisfactory response. We must urgently introduce new legislation to ensure the full rigours of criminal law can apply in the future to any person responsible for another tragedy of this nature. It is the hope of all Members that the events at the BTSB are never repeated. If by the end of November the Government has not produced the necessary legislation, I intend to bring a Private Members' Bill before the House to address the issue in full.
We should not simply wring our hands with regard to the hepatitis C scandal and accept that no prosecutions can be brought. The late Mrs. Brigid McCole tragically died in October last year as a result of liver failure due to hepatitis C as a result of receiving batch 250 of anti-D. Gross or criminal negligence leading to the death of an individual can result in a charge of manslaughter being brought against those responsible for such conduct. The Minister must clarify whether the Garda Síochána investigated and considered in detail the circumstances surrounding the death of the late Mrs. McCole in the context of bringing criminal charges for manslaughter as a consequence of her death. If the investigation did not do so it should be reopened immediately with a view to allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the basis of the additional information that might be furnished to him, to make a further determination as to whether a prosecution for manslaughter can be brought.
I deeply regret the absence of the Minister for Health and Children for this debate. This is an extremely serious issue. It is the worst public health scandal in the history of the State. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to consider in detail the recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I fail to understand why the Minister is not doing his parliamentary duty by being present in the House tonight.
I wish to raise a particular issue which demands the Minister's response. It appears that on 6 October, over two weeks ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions advised the Minister that he did not propose to initiate prosecutions as a result of the BTSB scandal. The Minister must tell the House why he withheld that information from the public for two weeks. He must also explain what he was doing in Longfield House a week ago having dinner with Fintan Drury, the public relations adviser of the BTSB. Was the Minister advising Fintan Drury of the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not intend to proceed to criminal charges and was he considering and discussing with Mr. Drury how best to release that information to the public? Was he considering with him whether in a public relations context this issue was delicate in the context of the forthcoming presidential election? The Minister for Health has tried to make the lunchtime engagement of another Member of this House, in Longfield House on that very day, a matter of public controversy. When this Minister had that lunch he knew the DPP would not prosecute. He gave that information to the public relations consultant to the BTSB. I believe he discussed with that public relations consultant how to deal with this from a public relations perspective. I want the Minister to explain why he withheld that information from the public for a period of two weeks. That in itself is scandalous. This House was entitled to know what approach the DPP was taking.
It is not good enough for the Taoiseach, earlier in this House, and a junior Minister in the Department of Foreign Affairs, on the television news, to have feigned surprise at these events when they were known to Government for two weeks. The Minister should give the House an explanation for his conduct. It should not befall his colleague Deputy Woods to be put in a position where he has to deal with this issue.
