It was bad enough that we did not receive a copy of the Bill until 10.10 p.m. last night, but now we have not received a copy of the Minister's speech.
Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, 2002: Second Stage.
Let us give the Minister a chance. He is just starting.
We have given him every possible chance. To introduce the Bill at this stage—
The Minister has not opened his mouth yet.
He has not produced a speech.
I assume it will be available when he begins.
I have arranged for copies to be distributed.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Rarely has a Bill come before this House which has its origins in circumstances which have resulted in so much grief, suffering and the loss of so many loved ones. The premature loss of fathers, husbands, brothers and sons within the haemophilia community is a tragedy of immense proportions. That it should happen to a relatively small group of our citizens is all the more poignant. The haemophilia community in this country has suffered to a truly extraordinary degree.
The Government's proposals outlined in this Bill are about compensation and how the State addresses or, to be more accurate, re-addresses this historic and tragic episode which has had deep and bitter consequences for so many people. The proposals will, I am confident, bring closure to the efforts of the State to compensate persons with haemophilia and their families arising out of the consequences of the HIV virus with its associated heavy burden of sickness, suffering and premature death.
As we know, however, financial compensation cannot undo the harm that has been done to so many, or make up for the loss of life, health or well being. Financial compensation is nevertheless one measure which can assist those haemophiliacs who have the virus and the families who are living with its consequences and so ease the burden of the loss they have suffered and continue to suffer.
As Minister for Health and Children, I am especially pleased to be in a position to bring to the House these proposals to extend the entitlements of HIV infected haemophiliacs and their dependants. The proposals will also benefit the dependants of persons with hepatitis C who have died as a result of receiving blood or a blood product or where hepatitis C was a significant contributory factor to the cause of death.
The particular circumstances associated with the infection of haemophiliacs with both hepatitis C and HIV have been investigated at the Lindsay tribunal, which was established in September 1999. Deputies will recall the graphic testimony of haemophiliacs who are infected with hepatitis C and HIV. The evidence presented by the families of those who died from hepatitis C or HIV was especially moving. The House awaits the report of the tribunal, which will address the role of treating physicians and State agencies who had a responsibility in regard to the treatment and care of such persons.
In 1999, during discussions between my Department and the Irish Haemophilia Society in relation to the terms of reference of the Lindsay tribunal, the society raised the question of compensation for haemophiliacs with HIV. The society considered that the 1991 settlement was inadequate and did not represent fair compensation. In particular, the society pointed out that whereas the hepatitis C claims are calculated on the basis of awards of the High Court, the 1991 settlement did not provide compensation in line with that available in the High Court in similar circumstances.
In the light of the very strong representations made by the society on behalf of its members, the Government and my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, accepted in December 1999 that it would be fair and equitable to compensate HIV infected haemophiliacs and dependants of deceased HIV infected haemophiliacs in a similar way to persons infected with hepatitis C. The Government committed itself to bringing forward proposals following detailed discussions with the society which would achieve the objective of ensuring compensation for HIV haemophiliacs and their families on a similar basis to those per sons infected with hepatitis C, subject to such modifications as might be necessary to take account of the special circumstances of those infected with HIV and their dependants. Detailed discussions followed between the society and its legal advisers and my Department and its legal advisers. It was accepted by all the relevant parties that the circumstances involved were unique and that the development of compensation proposals would be extremely complex. The fact that there had been a full and final settlement in 1991 was one of the complicating factors.
Apart from the legal complexities, the preparation of proposals was unfortunately delayed due to the fact that both the society and my Department were heavily involved in the Lindsay tribunal. It was necessary for my Department to devote considerable time and commitment to its participation in the tribunal. The tribunal heard evidence during 196 days and completed its public hearings on 28 November 2001. The involvement of the Department in the tribunal significantly affected the timescales involved in bringing forward proposals to the House.
The special circumstances of persons infected with HIV and their dependants was the subject of detailed submissions by the society. The society has extensive experience in dealing with HIV and its tragic impact on so many lives. It is, therefore, uniquely and ideally placed to advise on the special circumstances associated with HIV. It also has members who are infected with hepatitis C, some of whom have died arising from their infection.
I wish to summarise for the House the special circumstances relating to HIV which the society has outlined to me. HIV infection in the 1980s and early 1990s was effectively a death sentence with little if any effective treatment options apart from palliative care measures; those infected became seriously ill very quickly and died harrowing deaths; many died relatively young, including some children; the rapid deterioration of the health of those infected was extremely difficult for their families; the stigma and fear associated with the virus, especially around the time of the bereavement, added immensely to the trauma and suffering of the family; the support and counselling services for the primary victims and their families was wholly inadequate and this inadequacy aggravated the pain and suffering; and there was a significant risk of onward transmission of HIV, especially in sexual relations.
I am pleased to inform the House that I, on behalf of the Government, have reached agreement with the society which resolves the issue of additional compensation arising from the HIV infection. The principal terms of this agreement are as follows: persons who are infected with HIV from the administration of blood products within the State will have access to the compensation tribunal; dependants of those HIV infected haemophiliacs who have died will be entitled to claim the general damages, including pain and suffering, to which the deceased would be entitled were he or she in a position to make his or her claim to the tribunal; dependants will also be entitled to claim for financial loss arising from the injury and death of the person with HIV; a dependent spouse, child, mother or father may claim if he or she has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder arising from the death of the primary victim; dependent spouses or children may claim for the loss of society, including the loss of care, companionship and affection, of the deceased; and a spouse or partner may claim in respect of the loss of consortium, including the impairment of sexual relations, arising from the risk of the transmission of HIV.
The Bill is extremely complex as it not only amends the current Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act, 1997, but also contains a novel approach to compensate the widows and children of persons who died from hepatitis C or HIV. The Bill provides that the dependants may claim for the general damages, mainly pain and suffering, that the deceased would have been entitled to if he or she had survived and brought a claim to the compensation tribunal. This is a significant departure from the civil liability provisions which exclude the dependants from claiming the pain and suffering of the deceased. The Government approved this provision because those who died of HIV were not in a position to make a claim on their own behalf before their death.
In addition, under the Civil Liability Acts, dependants may only claim from the date of death of the deceased and not from the date of injury. I have included a provision which will allow the dependants claim for financial loss from the date of injury. This will enable dependants to be awarded compensation, for example, where the deceased was unable to work because of his or her illness and the dependants lost out financially.
In breaking new ground in relation to damages I am very conscious of the challenges these provisions will have for the compensation tribunal. It is the tribunal which will be charged with the assessment of such damages and there is no case law in this country for some of the elements I have outlined. Indeed, I suspect that there will be little if any case law in any other jurisdiction. The tribunal has, however, extensive experience and expertise in the assessment of injuries in relation to hepatitis C and I have no doubt it will be well capable of addressing these complex matters.
I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Section 1 defines various terms used in the Bill. I draw attention to the definition of "relevant product" which is defined as a blood product or a blood component used to treat persons with haemophilia or other blood clotting disorders in respect of those conditions. As Deputies will be aware, the use of such products has been implicated with the transmission of HIV to members of the haemophilia community here.
Section 2 provides for a change in the title of the compensation tribunal, which in future will be known as the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal. The references in any Act or regulation to the tribunal will be construed accordingly.
Section 3 provides for two technical amendments of section 3 of the 1997 Act. Paragraph (a) provides that certain notices which may be issued by the tribunal may be delivered to the place where a person to whom the notice is directed carries on any trade, business or profession rather than delivering it to his or her home address. Paragraph (b) inserts a new provision in the 1997 Act which provides that certain requirements of the tribunal may be enforced by High Court. These may require a person to attend the tribunal to give evidence or produce documents to the tribunal. The compensation tribunal has received full co-operation from all relevant State agencies, doctors and others. Nevertheless, it is considered desirable to make such provision now that we have an opportunity to do so.
Section 4 provides for a series of amendments to section 4 of the 1997 Act. Paragraph (a)(i) is a technical amendment to clarify the intention of section 4(1)(c) of the 1997 Act. Paragraph (a)(ii) amends the provision in the 1997 Act in relation to carers of persons with hepatitis C. The existing provision enables a carer to make a claim for financial loss or expenses he or she has incurred. This is now being extended to include financial loss or expenses which he or she will incur. Paragraph (a)(iii) extends the categories of persons who may apply for compensation to the tribunal to include persons affected by HIV infection.
The new provisions are at paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j). Paragraphs (e) and (k) already appear in the 1997 Act and are being repeated here for drafting reasons. Paragraph (f) refers to a person who has been diagnosed positive for HIV as result of receiving a relevant product within the State. Paragraph (g) refers to children or spouses of such a person who have been infected with HIV. Paragraph (h) refers to a person who is married to or cohabiting with an infected person and enables that spouse or partner to make a claim for loss of consortium, including impairment of sexual relations arising from the risk of transmission of HIV. Paragraph (i) enables a person who is responsible for the care of a HIV infected person to make a claim for the financial loss or expenses he or she has incurred or will incur. Paragraph (j) enables dependants of HIV infected persons who have died to make a claim for compensation to the tribunal.
Section 4(b) inserts a new provision after section 4(2) of the 1997 Act which provides that a person may not be entitled to make a claim to the tribunal if he or she has received an award from any court or a settlement arising out of the circumstances which could give rise to a claim at the tribunal. The new subsection (2A) provides that this prohibition will not apply to any person who has received a payment under the 1991 settlement or an award from any court, including an award from a court on appeal from the tribunal, or a payment in respect of an action against a party other than the State or a relevant agency. This provision is necessary to ensure the persons who received payments under the 1991 settlement or in settlement of litigation against the pharmaceutical companies are not debarred from making a claim to the tribunal. It will also ensure co-infected persons, that is, persons infected with both hepatitis C and HIV, will not be debarred from making a claim in respect of their HIV condition where they have previously received an award in respect of hepatitis C.
Section 4(c) inserts a new subsection (6A). Paragraph (a) requires claimants to advise the tribunal whether he or she has previously made a claim to the tribunal or received a payment under the 1991 settlement. In the case of claims by dependants, the dependants will also be asked to indicate whether the deceased person had previously made a claim to the tribunal or received a payment under the 1991 settlement. Paragraph (b) authorises the Minister to furnish the tribunal with particulars of the 1991 settlement if the tribunal requires this in order to process any particular claim. Paragraph (c) provides that persons making their first claim after the commencement of the Bill will be required to make one claim only in respect of all their heads of damages. This will enable the tribunal to consider all aspects of a particular case and help to eliminate duplication and delay. I propose to bring forward a technical amendment of this provision tomorrow. Paragraph (d) is a transitional provision which provides that where there are claims pending before the Bill comes into force, the tribunal may deal with these and any fresh claims from the same claimant at the same time if it considers this appropriate. Section 4(d) is a cross-referencing adjustment.
Section 4(e) sets out the proofs which persons making claims in relation to HIV infection will be required to satisfy on the balance of probabilities. An HIV infected person will be required to show that his or her infection resulted from the use of a relevant product within the State. Children or spouses infected via an infected person will be required to show that this was the source of their infection. Carers will be required to show that the HIV infected person they are looking after was infected following the receipt of a relevant product. Dependants will be required to show that the deceased was infected following the receipt of a relevant product.
Section 4(f) provides that in making a claim for aggravated or exemplary damages a claimant may rely on the facts found in any report of the tribunal of inquiry into the infection with HIV and hepatitis C of persons with haemophilia, that is, the report of the Lindsay tribunal. Section 4(g) is a cross-referencing adjustment.
Section 4(h) sets out the time limits within which claimants must bring claims arising from the infection of persons with HIV. These follow the format used in the 1997 Act in relation to hepatitis C claims. In summary, the time limit is three years from the date of the relevant event, for example, the date of injury or date of death, or three years from the date of commencement of the Bill, whichever is the later. Paragraphs (i) and (j) are cross-referencing adjustments.
Section 5 provides for the amendment of section 5 of the 1997 Act which sets out the basis on which awards are to be calculated by the compensation tribunal. Generally, the tribunal is required to apply the principles which govern the measure of damages in the law of torts and relevant statutory provisions, including Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961. The new section 5 provides for a series of important and novel modifications of the usual rules covering personal injury actions and fatal claims. These modifications are required to take account of the special circumstances in which we find ourselves legislating to compensate HIV infected persons and their dependants many years after the event.
Section 5(a) contains three significant modifications to the way in which dependency claims are usually handled which will be of significant financial advantage to the dependants of deceased HIV infected persons. The first provision in paragraph (a) provides that damages in a dependency claim will accrue from the date of injury of the deceased rather than from the date of death of the deceased which is the usual rule. The second modification at paragraph (b) enables the tribunal to make an award to a dependant consisting of an amount equal to the amount of general damages, including damages for pain and suffering which the deceased suffered during his or her lifetime and to which the deceased would have been entitled had he or she survived and brought a claim for compensation to the tribunal. This is a ground breaking provision. Normally, as I have explained, damages for pain and suffering can only be recovered by the primary victim, not by his or her dependants. However, the situation with which we are dealing is unique and the usual rules should be set aside in this instance.
The third modification is as paragraph (c) which allows the tribunal to make an award to a dependant in respect of aggravated and exemplary damages if the dependant can establish that the deceased would have had a legal entitlement to such damages against a relevant agency or the Minister had he or she survived. This is another significant departure from the existing law under which aggravated and exemplary damages are only payable to the primary victim, not his or her dependants.
Section 5(b) makes special provision for the children, spouses, fathers or mothers or persons who died as a result of contracting HIV or hepatitis C or where either of those conditions was a significant contributory factor to the cause of death. The tribunal is being empowered to make an award to such a dependant in respect of post-traumatic stress disorder or nervous shock they suffered arising from the death of their loved one. I have already alluded to the graphic testimony given at the Lindsay tribunal and also at the Fin lay tribunal of the devastating impact that such deaths have had on family members. This will allow the tribunal to make awards of damages for post-traumatic stress disorder, also known as nervous shock, in appropriate cases.
Section 5(b) inserts a new section 5(3B) into the 1997 Act. Paragraph (a) will enable the tribunal to make an award in respect of the loss of consortium, including the impairment of sexual relations suffered by a person who is married to or the partner of an infected person arising from the risk of transmission of HIV. Paragraph (b) allows certain dependants of persons with HIV, that is, children or spouses, to make a claim in respect of the loss of society of the deceased, including the loss of care, companionship and affection of their loved one. Following representations I have received from the society as well as from Positive Action and Transfusion Positive, I propose to bring forward an amendment to extend this provision in two respects: first, to extend the provision to parents of the deceased and, second, to extend the entire provision to dependants of persons infected with hepatitis C.
The new subsection (3D) provides that in considering the claim of a HIV infected person, the spouse or partner, or the carer, of such a person of such a person, the tribunal may consider any award previously made by it or by the High Court on an appeal and may consider any payment made to that person under the 1991 settlement. I give notice of my intention to bring forward an amendment to delete paragraph (a)(i) and (b)(i) of subsection (3D). This is in response to discussions I had earlier today with the society. I will deal with the matter in more detail on Committee Stage.
Section 5(c) provides that the making of an award arising from the infection of a person with HIV will not serve to revive any claims that were discharged or waived under the 1991 settlement and is also without prejudice to any indemnity given under that settlement. Section 5(d) and 5(e) are minor technical provisions.
Section 5(f) and 5(g) provide for the extension of certain time limits. Paragraph (f) provides that a person making a claim may decide whether to seek a single lump sum award or a provisional award up to the conclusion of the hearing rather than at the commencement of the hearing as is currently the case. Paragraph (g) enables the Minister to extend by regulation the period of one month within which awards by the tribunal to minors must be submitted to the High Court for approval. Provision is also made for an extension of the time available to a claimant who is a minor to make up his or her mind as to whether to accept an award. In the special circumstances which apply in respect of awards to minors, it has been represented to me that the period of one month may be too short and this will enable me to extend the relevant period.
Section 6 provides for an amendment of section 9 of the 1997 Act. That section enables the Minister by regulation to extend the class or classes of persons who may bring a claim for compensation to the tribunal. That provision was used by my predecessor some years ago to allow certain relatives of hepatitis C-infected persons who had themselves become infected to apply for compensation. The main effect of this provision will be to enable the Minister to make similar regulations in relation to persons infected with HIV.
Section 7 amends section 10 of the 1997 Act. That section provides for the establishment of a special account which is used to fund awards made by the tribunal. In 1998, regulations were made by my predecessor to enable funds from the special account to be used to pay awards made by the High Court on appeal from the tribunal. The opportunity is being taken to consolidate the provisions of those regulations into primary legislation.
Section 8 provides for amendments to section 11 of the 1997 Act. That section provides for the establishment of a reparation fund from which an additional amount equivalent to 20% of the tribunal's award is paid to persons in lieu of aggravated or exemplary damages. The 1998 regulations which I mentioned a moment ago were used to enable payments from the reparation fund to be made in a case of awards by the High Court on appeal from the tribunal. The opportunity is being taken in paragraph (a) to consolidate that provision into primary legislation. Paragraph (b) is designed to remove any possible ambiguity relating to the interaction of section 5(7) and section 11 of the 1997 Act. It makes clear that where a claimant has received a provisional award and returns to the tribunal for further compensation under section 5(7), he or she will be entitled to have a 20% top-up payment from the reparation fund. This will also apply in the case of awards from the High Court on appeal under section 5(7).
Section 9 provides that if any difficulty arises during the first 12 months of the operation of the Bill, the Minister may by regulation do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing the provisions into operation. In normal circumstances, one would hesitate to include such a provision in legislation. However, a similar provision in the 1997 Act proved its worth and it is desirable that we should have such a facility available in the event of difficulties arising during the first 12 months of the operation of the new legislation.
Section 10 provides that nothing in this Act or in section 5(10)(a) of the 1997 Act shall prevent a person from instituting or continuing proceedings for damages by a party other than the State and the other parties to the 1991 settlement. This will ensure that there is no interference with ongoing litigation between certain haemophiliacs and certain pharmaceutical companies. Section 11 contains the usual provisions in relation to Short Title, collective citation, construction and commencement. The Act will come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may fix by order. It is my intention that the Act will come into operation at a very early date. As soon as the Bill is passed my officials will make contact with the compensation tribunal to agree a time scale for the commencement of the legislation.
It was both the Government's and the society's priority that a Bill would be brought before the House this week. This objective has been achieved as a result of considerable and exhaustive efforts by staff in my Department and in the Attorney General's office. I record my appreciation of the substantial efforts of all those involved. I acknowledge the co-operation of Opposition Deputies in facilitating the discussion tonight on this Bill and their assistance in ensuring that it has a speedy passage through the Dáil. I apologise for and regret the late presentation of the Bill to the Deputies last evening. There were certain issues that had to be resolved late yesterday which delayed the handing over of the Bill to Opposition Deputies. I regret that and I understand the difficulties caused to Deputies. I would of course welcome their reflections on the Bill during this debate and tomorrow on Committee, Report and Final Stages.
I wish to put on the record of the House an extract from the statement which was made on my behalf at the Lindsay tribunal.
I and my Department very much regret the pain and suffering caused to all of those who have been infected by blood and blood products and acknowledge that the impact on the haemophilia community has been particularly devastating. The toll in human lives has been great and the loss of so many children is a tragedy of immense proportions. That such an immense tragedy should befall citizens of this State whilst availing themselves of State health services is a matter of profound regret.
I commend the Bill to the House.
In the limited time available to me, I hope that I can do justice to the important legislation before us. The Minister got it wrong when he said that it was a priority of his and the Irish Haemophilia Society to have this Bill passed this evening – it was their priority to have this Bill passed last year. The Minister promised this Bill last autumn and Deputy McManus and I have been standing up on the Order of Business day in, day out looking for the Bill. Now that we are in the 95th minute of extra time, the Bill has been put before the House in this way. I accept the Minister's statement of regret but, from an Opposition point of view, to receive this legislation by fax to my home at 10.45 p.m. on the night before we were to take the Bill is not acceptable.
I put that on the record because I have been a while in this House and know that sometimes when the detail of legislation is looked at it does not mean what it was first thought to mean. I hope that the Irish Haemophilia Society, Positive Action and others, when they read this Bill in time to come, or when lawyers read it on their behalf or judges read it under challenge, find that what they thought was in the Bill is in it. The Minister said that this is an extremely complex Bill. I agree and that is why I am concerned at the rush with which it is being taken. If it was for any other purpose, I would not agree with it being taken tonight. It is only because of the suffering that has been endured that I agree. I suggest to all who have an interest in this Bill that they have it examined in great detail. I have been around for long enough to know that the devil is in the detail. If we do not have time to reflect on legislation, we may do a disservice to those we are attempting to serve tonight.
Tonight is another step on the road to righting a terrible wrong. Some of our fellow citizens had their lives damaged and, in some cases, ended tragically and prematurely due to the action of a State body in supplying infected blood to fellow citizens. It is not a day for point-scoring but rather a day to apologise and to finally give the victims access to an adequate compensation scheme. In case this matter ever comes up for challenge or consideration, I want to record some of the concerns raised by the Irish Haemophilia Society, which the Minister says we are addressing tonight and which I hope in the detail we are helping.
The society said that by virtue of the introduction by the Government of additional restrictions in the draft Bill, it found it impossible to support the draft legislation as it stood. It saw the attempt by the Minister to introduce a punitive requirement at the last moment without the advance knowledge of the society as an attempt to penalise persons with haemophilia for having been infected with both viruses. The society accepted that the loss of earnings may be taken into account but utterly rejected any proposal that the pain and suffering of a person with haemophilia, and infected with both HIV and hepatitis C, should be taken into account in any deduction in this area.
The society already indicated that to the Minister. It said, for example, that if a driver knocks down a pedestrian and the pedestrian sustains a broken arm, pursues a claim which is settled and years later the same driver knocks down the same pedestrian causing a leg injury, the driver would not expect that the award for the leg injury could be reduced or a deduction would be made in respect of the amount of the second injury because he discharged his obligation for compensation on the first injury. The Irish Haemophilia Society expressed its extreme disappointment that the opportunity for fair and equitable compensation for people with haemophilia infected with HIV was now diminishing rapidly due to the introduction of a section in the draft legislation. I wish to put that on the record because there were reasonable concerns about the draft Bill.
I hope that this will be an adequate scheme. I am guided by the attitude of the representatives of those infected, in particular the Irish Haemophilia Society. I note the society's concern that the compensation tribunal would take into account any previous awards for compensation made to an applicant by it or by the High Court. I note the precise concerns about section 5(b)(3D)(a) expressed by the Irish Haemophilia Society, if the Minister's intention is to merely protect the State from the risk of double payment in regard to loss of earnings. I wish to put their argument on the record and I ask the Minister to confirm in his reply that in both spirit and detail these concerns have been met. The Irish Haemophilia Society proposes that:
In considering the claim of a person referred to in paragraph (f), (g) or (i) of the Tribunal–
(iii) may consider any award of Special Damages in regard to loss of earnings previously made by it or by the High Court on an appeal from the Tribunal to the person, and
(iv) may consider any payment made to the person under the 1991 settlement.
The society's arguments to the Minister were as follows: the present law allows the Tribunal to calculate damages on the same basis as an award of the High Court by the application of the principles of the laws of tort and with reference to any relevant statutory provision; an award of the High Court and the application of the principles of the laws of tort mean if a person is injured in two separate events such person has two separate causes of action; infection with hepatitis C and infection with HIV represent two separate and distinct events, each of which give rise to a separate cause of action, and there is no overlap between the occurrence of hepatitis C and the separate occurrence of HIV; the present law allows all the circumstances of an individual's claim including his medical history to be taken into account. The amended section will allow the tribunal take a previous award itself into account and not the circumstances of the award; in doing so the tribunal will have powers greater than those of the High Court – a High Court judge is obliged to take all the circumstances into account, not just the amount of the award; distinguishing HIV/hepatitis C co-infected person's right to compensation in this way is in breach of their constitutional right to access before the Courts and to equal treatment before the law as is contained in Article 34 and Article 41 of the Constitution; applying the rules of statutory interpretation, the section must have a purpose or else it is meaningless, its purpose being to increase the power of the tribunal, allowing it to take previous awards into account so as to reduce awards of compensation for persons with HIV/HCV co-infection. The result is either the section is meaningless, confirming section 5 as it stands, or it has the meaning of giving the tribunal more power than that of a High Court judge; and the Irish Haemophilia Society acknowledges that compensation for loss of earnings in an award of compensation for hepatitis C infection may be taken into account in any subsequent award of compensation for HIV provided the circumstances so warrant, as permitted by the present section 5.
Given that there is very little time to consider this Bill this evening I ask the Minister to confirm that all of those concerns have been addressed both in the spirit and in the content of the legislation. I am informed that these concerns were finally and with some difficulty addressed today. I presume this will mean amendments will be made to the Bill on Committee Stage. I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that those amendments will meet all those concerns.
However, I am also aware of concerns expressed by Positive Action, the hepatitis C/anti-D support group. They feel the Bill creates an invidious distinction between those infected with hepatitis C and those infected with HIV. They seek limited amendments to the Bill and I will be moving such amendments on Committee Stage to include partners and spouses of people with hepatitis C in section 4; to include partners and spouses in section 5(b)(3B)(a); to include children and spouses of persons who died as a result of having contracted Hepatitis C in section 5(b)(3B)(b). I am asking the Minister to take these concerns on board. It is not clear from what the Minister said here this evening whether his amendments meet those concerns.
The main argument being made by the Minister is that the rate of transmission via sexual intercourse is greater from HIV than hepatitis C. These concerns have been expressed to me by Positive Action and it is important that they be addressed in the House. Hepatitis C can be transmitted via sexual intercourse and in fact has been transmitted in this way to the partners of women infected with hepatitis C from contaminated anti-D. Transmission is a possibility and people with hepatitis C are advised by their doctors to consider changing their sexual practices and to take extra precautions when they are diagnosed with hepatitis C. A recently published booklet called Living with Hepatitis C, produced by the Consultative Council on Hepatitis C, an advisory body to the Minister, advises people on this very issue. This is a matter of principle for Positive Action. In their view each individual should be able or allowed to state their case to the tribunal which will then judge the merits of each case. By excluding some victims from being able to do this the Minister is proposing something that is fundamentally discriminatory, unfair and unacceptable. The concerns raised by Positive Action should be addressed by the Minister in his reply to Second Stage so that they can be addressed tomorrow on Committee Stage. It is very wrong, given the history of this entire debacle, that two groups of people infected by blood products administered by State agencies should be treated differently. People were unaware that they had been infected with hepatitis C for many years and most people only became aware in the early 1990s. Many marriages and relationships had broken down because of fatigue, depression and general debili tation because of infection. Fear of infection was not a feature of the breakdown of marriages because people did not know they were infected. Relationships had broken down and in many more cases relationships broke down or were damaged when the diagnosis was made. Fear of transmission was then an element in the circumstances. Loss of society affects all the families of those who have died as a result of hepatitis C. The Minister is introducing an invidious discrimination and one which is of great concern to Positive Action. Consortium involves the totality of relationships between men and women and is a wider concept than that of impairment of sexual relations. They are the concerns which Positive Action have expressed to me. I ask the Minister to tell the House whether his proposed amendments fully meet the concerns of Positive Action or are there still matters of concern which he has not addressed?
The scale of the wrong done to our fellow citizens and their colleagues with hepatitis C beggars belief. It is time for a generous and full settlement. Through the Finlay and Lindsay tribunals we have sought to get to the root of what went wrong. It seems that difficulties in getting access to records in the United States may mean that we never get the full truth, but we now know enough and it is clear a terrible wrong was done.
The failure of the State to properly provide, until now, for these citizens whom State bodies infected is truly shocking. Everybody in the House now accepts that. We all now know and acknowledge the mistakes made in dealing with the case of Mrs. McCole and other hepatitis C sufferers. Many of those now temporally residing on the Government benches criticised how the State behaved in those cases. It is a terrible indictment of their cynicism and lack of real interest in the plight of the victims of State infection that it took the threat of further court actions and an imminent general election to finally bring the Government to its senses and to introduce this legislation this evening.
The legislation is being rushed through. As an Opposition spokesperson I only received the draft Bill late last night, which is unacceptable. I am worried that in the rush we may not do sufficient and long overdue justice to those wronged by the State. I recognise the need to resolve this matter quickly given that 64 haemophiliacs have already died from HIV as a result of receiving contaminated blood products. Why has it taken five long years to bring this proposal forward and why even now did the Minister drag his heels on introducing a scheme acceptable to the victims? I am afraid that to the end, meeting the real needs of those wronged by the State does not seem to have been given sufficient priority by a Government obsessed by glossy launches, taskforces and forums, but precious little action.
I hope that tonight we are taking an important step. I hope that with proper financial compen sation put in place and the advances in the treatment of HIV the victims can make a better life after these appalling events. This must never happen again. Never again must people die while negotiations continue. I hope that is something we on both sides of this House have learned. Let us agree a settlement now, which is fair to the victims, and let them and their families have some closure and a chance to get on with rebuilding lives shattered by this negligence.
I will briefly address some of the contents of the Bill. As it was circulated so late, I need some clarification. If the Minister is not in a position to give this to me this evening he might arrange to get it to me. The interpretation section mentions: "‘the 1991 settlement" means the agreement made in 1991 . . ." Are those words now necessary or is it intended to take that out of the definition?
Section 3 states:
Where a person refuses or fails to comply with or disobeys a requirement of the Tribunal, the High Court may, on application to it in a summary manner in that behalf by the Tribunal, order the person to comply with the requirement . . .
I have not had a chance to cross-reference this with the principal Act. What penalties apply? Are they the normal contempt of court penalties or are there other specific provisions? Is section 4(c)(6A)(a)(ii) necessary? It states: “whether he or she received a payment under the 1991 settlement”. Are those sections being left in or will they be deleted from the Bill?
I have not had time to take advice on section 5. Section 5(b)(3A)(a) states:
. . . the Tribunal may make an award to that dependant in respect of post-traumatic stress disorder or nervous shock if he or she satisfies the Tribunal that he or she has suffered or is suffering from that condition as a result of the death.
Will it only to apply as a result of a death? Are there no other circumstances when this form of post-traumatic stress disorder or nervous shock will be compensated?
Section 5(b)(3B)(b) refers to: “. . . the loss of the care, companionship and affection of the deceased as a result of the death.” Is the compensation only to run from the time of death? What about any loss of society, care or companionship during the illness itself?
I presume the Minister's main amendments will relate to section 5(b)(3D)(a) and 5(b)(3D)(b) in order to meet the concerns of the Irish Haemophilia Society. I ask the Minister to let us have those amendments as early as possible so that we can study them and prepare for Committee Stage.
I would appreciate it if the Minister can tell us his intentions regarding section 6(1) of the Bill. It states:
Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of "in respect of Hepatitis C or HIV and may by regulations amend or modify this Act for the purpose of enabling this Act to apply appropriately to the class or classes so extended". . .
How will these regulations be made? Will they be laid before the House and nullified only if we do not rescind them or will they be put before the House for positive affirmation? Either way I presume the Minister will lay the regulations before the House, but will they be dealt with by way of negative or positive amendment? A similar question on the regulations applies to section 9, which covers the power to remove difficulties. Are these regulations which will be laid before the House and we can rescind or will they come before the House for positive affirmation?
Section 8(b) states:
Where a claimant accepts an award of further compensation from the Tribunal under section 5(7) or from the High Court on an appeal from the Tribunal against that award, the claimant may apply to have an amount paid to him or her from the Fund.
Earlier the Minister said that section 7 amends section 10 of the 1997 Act and that section provides for the establishment of a special account that is used to fund awards made by the tribunal. I am working from the draft I got last night and I do not know if the green draft I got this afternoon is any different. The Minister referred to section 7 of the Bill but I am raising this question under section 8. In any event it is the same question. Is this an account with funds in it or how is it financed? Is it financed occasionally? The same query applies to the reparation fund mentioned on page 13 of the draft, which states: "in case of High Court awards on appeal from the Tribunal". What is the status of those funds? Where are they kept? Is the account financed only as awards are made?
Section 11(3) states:
This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as, by order or orders made by the Minister under this section, may be fixed therefor.
The Minister said he would consult with the tribunal and try to bring this into effect as soon as possible. Can he confirm that "as soon as possible" means not later than, for example, 30 days? Is that the sort of timescale he has in mind? I am pleased to see the Bill before the Dáil even at this late hour. I hope that in passing it in this hurried way, we will not do anyone an injustice. It is not a good way to make legislation. I hope the lawyers on behalf of the Irish Haemophilia Society and Positive Active have had adequate time to digest the legislation.
If there are five Supreme Court judges, three may interpret a Bill in one way, while the other two could interpret it in another way. The purpose of our job as legislators is to tease out all legislation, section by section, on Committee Stage and express our concerns by raising issues. I hope that by dealing with this Bill hurriedly, we will not pass into law something that is not intended.
People may think that cannot happen but I recall the debate in this House on Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution. Many people told us that was a necessary pro-life amendment to the Constitution and that the wording meant only one thing. At that time I took advice from a senior lawyer who asked me, "Are you concerned to enact something which is pro-life?" As a new Deputy in the early 1980s, I certainly was. The lawyer said, however, "Do not vote for that legislation because you are giving the Supreme Court the right to interpret the legislation in any way it wishes." After a long debate during which we had an opportunity to digest that Bill, nobody would have believed that in the very first case taken to the Supreme Court it would have interpreted the legislation not to mean what the Legislature thought and what the people thought it meant when they had voted for it. That is why I have raised these concerns in this debate. I will be supporting Second Stage of the Bill and I will raise more of these issues on Committee Stage tomorrow.
Like Deputy Mitchell and the Minister, I am conscious of the context within which we are having this debate – that is, the worst tragedy that has been experienced in the history of the modern health service. It is not doing the issue a good service to debate a Bill that is being rushed through the House. It is impossible for me, as a member of the Opposition, to do my job properly because of the approach that is being taken by the Government. I obviously welcome the Bill in principle, but it is wrong to corrode the parliamentary process in the way the Government has done.
This is a complex Bill and Opposition Deputies have a duty to ensure that it is the best possible Bill that can be agreed upon and passed by the House, not one that has not been subjected to proper scrutiny or fully assessed by the legal back-up we have, limited though it is. My experience has been that on a number of occasions, legislation coming from the Department of Health and Children has not been fully in accord with best practice. Indeed, the Minister has had to bring forward many amendments to legislation, even though one would expect the homework had been done and the preparation was complete.
In this instance, the Bill came through our fax machines last night. We are debating Second Stage today and Committee Stage will be taken tomorrow. It is impossible to deal with legislation in this way. I apologise to people who, I hope, will benefit from the provisions of the Bill because I am simply unable to fulfil my obligations in fully scrutinising such complicated legislation.
The record of the Government on the plight of haemophiliacs is one of very slow progress but now, facing a general election, a Bill is being rushed through the House. It is worth looking back at the experience of the past five years. In 1997, the Fianna Fáil manifesto spelt out a commitment to establish a tribunal of inquiry to investigate matters of concern to the Irish Haemophilia Society, as well as certain other matters relating to the HIV infection of blood and blood products. Yet, it took until late September 1999 for that tribunal to be established. At the time, all of us in the House welcomed the establishment of the tribunal but concerns were expressed at a number of aspects of the terms of reference, concerns that, unfortunately, proved to be prophetic.
One related to the investigation of international pharmaceutical companies and the restrictions, or, more accurately, the opt-out, permitted in the terms of reference. The Minister allowed for such an investigation but only as far as it was practicable, appropriate and reasonable. At the time, I urged that this caveat should not mean a lack of aggressive investigation of the role of international companies in relation to this scandal, but sadly it turned out to mean no investigation, aggressive or otherwise. We still do not know the extent of culpability of these powerful companies and until we do, the full story of this terrible tragedy will not be complete.
Another aspect of concern was the issue of full disclosure of documentation. At the time of the debate, I asked that all documentation from the Minister's Department, the IBTS and the hospitals should be made available to the Irish Haemophilia Society. Of course, as we know, it did not turn out that way. Under pressure, the Minister for Health and Children conceded ground but to this day the IBTS has resisted efforts to ensure full accountability.
Last but not least, there was the aspect of revisiting the issue of compensation which we are debating tonight. In June 1999, during the debate on the establishment of the tribunal I said:
The Government has given a welcome commitment to review the adequacy of the compensation package to ensure a fair and equitable settlement. It must also be a swift settlement as we are dealing, in many cases, with a race against time. There must not be a repeat of the two and a half year delay experienced in getting to this point. I understand that a simple change in legislation may be all that is required in regard to the issue but it is vital that the Minister expresses a determination to deal with this issue fairly and to commit himself to a speedy settlement. I am aware that at the same time the Cabinet agreed to the draft terms of reference for the tribunal, a decision was also made to re-open the compensation issue.
First, it did not require just a simple adjustment of legislation but it took a very long time to extract this legislation, even though it has been on the Order Paper and members of the Opposition have raised the issue on a number of occasions on the Order of Business. Looking at the record, it seems that there has been a lot of obfuscation, hesitation and, indeed, brinkmanship by the Minister in engaging with those infected with HIV and hepatitis C.
Even when the Bill was published last night, it was found to have significant flaws, first, in relation to the rights of people who contracted HIV as well as hepatitis C and, second, because it appears to create a new distinction for victims of contaminated blood and blood products, between those who are haemophiliacs and contracted HIV, and those who are not haemophiliacs but have contracted hepatitis C.
This afternoon, at the 11th hour, the Minister had discussions on the Bill with the Irish Haemophilia Society. He resolved one issue but it appears that he has left another unresolved or, certainly, not fully resolved. The Minister has indicated that he will amend the Bill but as I read it, he has not dealt completely with the issues raised by Positive Action. However, I do not have his amendments so we will have to debate them tomorrow on Committee Stage without preparation.
This provision must be welcomed, of course, as must the fact that the Irish Haemophilia Society is supportive of the legislation. However, the way in which the Bill has been published and rushed through the Oireachtas, as we approach a general election, is simply disgraceful. It has been produced magically from the Attorney General's office and the Minister is now rushing it through the House, even though he knows, more than anybody, that it is a matter for concern for other groups such as Positive Action and Transfusion Positive. They have made clear, publicly, their opposition, not to the principles of the Bill, but to the knock-on impact it may have for their members.
I object strenuously to the way the Bill has been handled. It was received last night by spokespersons on the Opposition side, with no explanatory memorandum attached. I cannot recall a similar situation, during my time in the House since 1992, when an explanatory memorandum was not provided with a Bill, not just to facilitate us – we are simply here to do our job – but to inform the public at large of exactly what we are doing in this Parliament. What we are debating should not be a secret, obfuscated or occluded in any way, yet that is exactly what has happened in this case. We are expected to take on trust that the Minister and the Department of Health and Children know what they are doing. I find it difficult to be fully confident in that regard.
The nature of the consultation with the Irish Haemophilia Society is not to the credit of the Minister or his Department. It involved a great deal of publicity. The society came to an arrangement with the Minister and was satisfied to go back to its members, stating the outstanding matters which it had brought to the Minister and the Department had been resolved. Then, suddenly, the Bill was published, including a provision that had not been discussed and with which the society did not agree. There was an eleventh hour meeting today and the Minister has backed off. That is not the way to deal with legislation. I am glad the Minister made that decision, but it is not satisfactory.
One must ask whether this would be happening now if the general election was not imminent. We still have to hear the Minister's views in relation to a later meeting he had with the members of Positive Action and Transfusion Positive. Certainly, their impression has been that the issues – I will not repeat the points Deputy Gay Mitchell made – in relation to personal, intimate sexual relations have not been resolved. I find no indication in the Minister's speech that that has been taken on board, but look forward to his reply. The statement by Positive Action reads:
The concern is that the Bill will introduce discrimination between HIV and hepatitis C victims in the manner in which their claims are to be dealt with in future. Whereas the partners of HIV victims are to be entitled to bring claims for loss of consortium and impairment of sexual relations, this is not being extended to the partners of hepatitis C victims. Equally importantly, the Bill proposes that, whereas the children and spouses of HIV victims are to be entitled to compensation for loss of society, care, companionship and affection of the deceased, this entitlement is not being extended to the children and spouses of hepatitis C victims who die.
The Minister should explain his position as to how he set out to create a discrimination and whether he now intends to address it fully. We have not got his amendments before us and, in a sense, have to presume either the best or the worst of his intentions. Clarity is most important in this regard. If the Minister does not deal with this matter fully, it will be an extraordinary anomaly to have created whereby he is dealing with one particular issue and, as a by-product, creating a whole new injustice to a group of people who have already experienced grave injustice on the part of the State. The Labour Party will table an amendment to deal with this discrimination. I hope the Minister will accept it or bring forward a more appropriate one.
Looking back over the record of recent years, it is not one of which the Government can be proud, in terms of dealing with the Irish Haemophilia Society and how often it had to go public in order to get the response its members needed from the Department of Health and Children. In many ways, it was difficult for the society to have to go into the public arena and make its case yet again, but it did so with great dignity. I must pay tribute to the extraordinary resilience and commitment of the people in the society charged with the responsibility of making their case and overseeing what the Government was doing to meet their needs.
The stories which emerged from the Lindsay tribunal were harrowing. They made the general public and Members of the House much more aware of the horror of what was being experienced by the victims. On a daily basis, we heard from families of victims who had to watch their loved ones suffer and die, often with little or no support from the State. To compound their suffering, they were often – even up to this day – pushed from pillar to post in pursuit of an investigation of their infection by blood products and compensation.
Has the Minister any idea at this stage as to the likely cost? I am aware of an estimate of €100 million. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comments. Obviously, the amount must be honoured. I am sure haemophiliacs and their families will forgive me for raising issues which, although not directly related, are still germane. This money must be earmarked and ring-fenced for this purpose, a point on which we are all at one. While the Government has produced a much vaunted health strategy, it has failed to provide the money to deliver on it. In relation to the compensation we are now discussing, we need to know, roughly, how much it will cost. Will it come from the existing budget for the Department of Health and Children or is there to be an additional allocation from the Department of Finance? How will it actually be implemented?
Already, a disturbing volume of complaints are landing on my desk in relation to cutbacks and shortfalls in existing services in the health sector. The major hospitals have expressed concerns. There is also grave concern on the part of those dealing with people with disabilities. Step Enterprises, which operates under the auspices of the St. John of God institution and provides employment opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities and respite services in that regard, suffered a cutback in the 2002 budget, as a result of which it has been forced to stop providing a non-residential respite service. This is extremely serious and, even though it may be somewhat peripheral to the current debate, I urge the Minister to consider what has happened in relation to Step Enterprises and ensure the shortfall is met.
The money now being allocated to provide compensation for haemophiliacs who contracted HIV must not be at the expense of any other person who needs to avail of health services. That is very important and it is something we all recognise. No reform favouring victims of such terrible injustice as has been experienced by haemophiliacs should ever be provided at the expense of any other group of vulnerable people, whether it is those who suffer disability or who contracted hepatitis C and were, in effect, poisoned by the State. That is the reality of the tragedy with which we are dealing. Women, children and men were injured in a terrible way by the State. Compensation, no matter how large or small, cannot undo that damage. It cannot bring back the dead, nor can it make the sick healthy. However, it is the substance that confirms and underlines the words of regret which the Minister rightly restated tonight and which every Member of the House shares. It is overdue in the form of this Bill.
While I welcome the Bill, the task is not fully complete. I hope that tomorrow we can reach agreement on the outstanding issues – they are not big and it is a matter of tweaking rather than fundamentally changing the provisions – and that the Bill will be passed by the House. Presumably it will be one of the last pieces of legislation to be passed by this Dáil.
I thank Deputies for their contributions to this debate and I acknowledge the difficulties they have experienced in terms of being in a position to contribute. It is important that the legislation is passed for all the reasons that have been outlined.
I indicated that it is our intention to delete section 5(b)(3D)(a)(i) and 5(b)(3D)(b)(i), which were the subject of the difficulty that arose with the published Bill last evening. To a certain extent there was a misunderstanding of the impact of these provisions. There was no attempt to reduce any reward or anything like that. When I reconsidered the matter this morning and following our meeting with the society this afternoon, it was pointed out that section 5 of the original Bill achieves the same purpose that was attempted to be achieved by the new subsections which, in essence, ensure that the normal High Court principles and the normal principles governing tort law would apply to the situation.
There was agreement today on that. We decided that the cleanest way to resolve the difficulty that had arisen, which to a certain extent has been overstated, was to introduce an amendment deleting these subsections from the Bill. In this way the spirit and the letter of the issue have been adequately addressed. Our meeting today also addressed other minor amendments, to which I referred earlier.
When I met with Positive Action and Transfusion Positive I believe they accepted the bona fides of our position on the provision relating to the loss of consortium for haemophiliacs with HIV. The Irish Haemophilia Society made a strong submission on this issue. From the time people contracted HIV and so on, they were advised not to have sexual intercourse as there was very strong evidence about the high risk of transmission of infection, etc. The society made very detailed submissions on that point and it was in the context of these that we made the provision on the loss of consortium. It was not done to discriminate one group against another, but in good faith on the basis of a submission made by the society. To be fair to all the other groups, they accept the bona fides of the self-evident nature of the submission, given the enormous stigma attached to it at the time and also in terms of the medical advice people received. At that stage it was a sentence of death and that was the basis on which the provision was made.
With regard to the loss of society issue, which Positive Action and Transfusion Positive also raised this evening, I indicated that an amendment will be introduced to meet the concerns of both groups. We will also be giving wider consideration to the issue of consortium overnight and tomorrow during the debate on Committee Stage.
Deputy McManus referred to the issue of costs. There is a list of a range of issues by which we applied the agreement we reached with the Irish Haemophilia Society to the hepatitis C community as well. The following will apply in the case of hepatitis C. First, the dependants of hepatitis C victims who have died will be entitled to claim the general damages, including pain and suffering, to which the deceased would be entitled were he in a position to make his claim to the tribunal. Second, dependants of hepatitis C victims will also be entitled to claim for financial loss arising from the injury and death of the person with hepatitis C. Third, a dependent spouse, child, mother or father of hepatitis C victims may claim if they have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder arising from the death of the primary victim. I have indicated my intention to amend the Bill so that dependent spouses or children of hepatitis C victims may claim for the loss of society, including the loss of care, companionship and affection of the deceased. These new areas were agreed with the Irish Haemophilia Society and they are also being applied to the hepatitis C situation.
I do not like to refer to costs, but the bulk of the overall package results from the extension of those issues to the hepatitis C community because of the greatly superior numbers in that community who where infected as a result of what happened. Overall, the package we have introduced is fair and it is additional to that which has been received in the context of the ongoing compensation tribunal. To be fair to all concerned, when one is commenting on this it is easy to dwell on one issue, but if one looks at the overall package it will be apparent that significant and genuine efforts have been made to facilitate equity of treatment across all the headings.
Deputy Mitchell referred to other issues. It did not take us five years to reach this stage. In 1999 the Government decided that the 1991 settlement needed to be added to. The Government also decided to reopen the case for haemophiliacs to provide for fair and equitable compensation. That did not happen prior to 1999 under successive Governments, of which both Deputies were members. Nor did it seem to arise. We can all be critical and seek to score points. I do not wish to do that, but given what the Opposition Deputies have said I must put that on the record. For almost a decade, from 1991 to 1999, nothing happened regarding the consideration or establishment of a compensation tribunal. Despite the fact that the Finlay tribunal was established to con sider the hepatitis C issue and so on, it took until the late 1990s to establish the Lindsay tribunal of inquiry into the cause of the infection of haemophiliacs. That did not happen throughout the 1990s under successive Governments.
I acknowledge there have been difficulties. There is also a timeframe within which all this must be achieved. However, during the lifetime of this Government, the Lindsay tribunal was established and it made a huge impact on society in terms of the testimony that was given and so on. It left an enduring mark—
Fianna Fáil have been in Government since 1987 except for two and a half years.
—on people's perspective on the wider issue of how haemophiliacs were infected and so forth. It led to the decision to amend the Act to provide for a new compensation arrangement. That is now happening.
There are some details which can be dealt with more fully tomorrow. The provisions of the 1991 settlement will remain in the Act. I can get the details of the penalties for the Deputy later. Deputy Mitchell also asked about the regulations. They will come before the House in the traditional manner and can be nullified by the House. To do it another way could delay the commencement of the Act and the introduction of certain matters pertaining to its commencement. The regulations in relation to difficulties were provided for in the original Act establishing the hepatitis C compensation tribunal. They worked effectively for those who were making claims and for the representative groups. In other words, it is a facility that allows the Minister of the day to respond to genuine issues that arise in terms of whether the tribunal is working for certain categories and so forth. It enables the Minister to make amendments for the benefit of the two groups involved. Again, regulations would be laid before the House and if Members disagree, they can put down a motion to nullify them.
I can get details of the special account for the Deputy tomorrow. It relates to Department of Finance arrangements with our Department with regard to how claims to the High Court etc. are handled.
Can I have a note on it?
Of course. Deputy McManus raised the issue of cost. It will be separate to the health budget, as is the compensation being paid under the hepatitis C tribunal which is also ringfenced from the health budget. I reject the suggestion that there have been cutbacks in the health budget. There has been a substantial increase in the allocation to all health boards and the ERHA.
I have the evidence here.
We have allocated funding under the disabilities heading. It is earmarked funding as far as I am concerned. Over €40 million extra came to the Department from the Department of Finance in the budget. They were additional moneys, revenue and capital, which were subsequently allocated to the boards. It is not open to the boards to hold onto that money or to use it for other purposes. It must be used to make provision for people with intellectual disabilities and we have so advised the boards. In relation to other matters, we will be in discussion with the ERHA and the boards about the Dublin hospitals, etc. I will take up the issue the Deputy raised in respect of Step Enterprises and investigate it further.
We have had quick hits financially in the health strategy in terms of primary care, extra beds, disability, care of the elderly and across the board. I look forward to debating the amendments I and Members of the Opposition will put down on Committee Stage tomorrow. I thank them for their contribution to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 18 April 2002.