I wish to remind the House it was agreed last week that we would take Items Nos. 4 and 5 together.
HIV-Infected Haemophiliacs: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Health to recognise the special problems of the haemophiliacs infected with AIDS and HIV positive through transfusions of contaminated blood, and to set up a trust fund to help meet the basic needs of themselves and their families.
—(Senator Doyle.)
The particular problems facing haemophiliacs were outlined in detail last week and, consequently, I do not propose to go over that ground again. Having said that, however, I think the two motions are welcome and represent a valuable initiative as far as this House is concerned, not least because they provide an opportunity for discussion on the topic of AIDS, and in particular the impact on haemophiliacs. Our level of awareness should be increased all the more for that reason.
AIDS is clearly a tragic disease and has the potential to reach frightening proportions on a worldwide scale. Only a few days ago I heard a person on radio refer to the possibility that four African countries would lose half their populations in a relatively short space of time. That is a very frightening picture. We must hope that a cure will be found and research is particularly important in that regard. As far as Ireland is concerned, it is only a few short decades since tuberculosis was rampant in this country and was responsible for many thousands of deaths but today the situation is greatly corrected following advances in medicine. Despite the fact that AIDS is a killer disease, we must certainly hope that research will come up with solutions to the problem.
Pending a solution through the avenue of research, there is the important consideration of what can be done in the educational area in the meantime. This debate provides an opportunity for us to raise our level of awareness in relation to AIDS but there is clearly a case for a deeper understanding of the problem and a need to reduce the prejudice and the fear relating to it. There is a need for a shift in attitudes in relation to this disease.
In Ireland the Haemophilia Society is deserving of a sensitive response. I suggest that the Minister and the Minister of State have shown a caring response to date in relation to the problem and a sum of £450,000 has been allocated from lottery funds. A sum of £50,000 has been given to the Haemophilia Society which they have chosen to use for counselling services. Action has already been taken in the educational area which offers the possibility of deepening understanding and reducing prejudice among the population at large. Nobody goes out to get AIDS deliberately. Neither we in the House nor the Minister or the Department can be in the business of apportioning blame or innocence in relation to AIDS.
The Haemophilia Society have presented their case in a comprehensive, factual and moderate way and they should be complimented on that. The society believe they have a special claim and they clearly deserve a sympathetic approach by the Members of the Seanad in the course of this debate. As we noted last week, there are 106 Irish haemophiliacs who have been infected, of whom ten have fully-blown AIDS and six have died. This is a sad picture.
The point was made last week that patients have a right to a certain quality of help and patient care and I fully subscribe to that view. It must be said, however, that when the State provided the necessary blood products which constituted the necessary treatment for haemophiliacs some years ago, the hazards of the treatment given at that time were unknown and, therefore, unforseen. So the State continued to provide blood products to help haemophiliacs to maintain their health levels but they were in the dark in relation to the impact of particular treatments of plasmas at that time. The blood transfusion service responded quickly to ensure that the risk of infected blood transfusion would be removed.
Haemophiliacs believe they have a special claim but this, as my objective reading of the situation shows, presents a difficulty for the Minister for Health and for the Department. Nobody goes out to get AIDS deliberately but once the disease is contracted all are patients and that raises the question as to how the Minister can differentiate between one patient who is an haemophiliac and another who is not, or between one set of dependants and others who are not dependants. It is true that the haemophiliacs make a special case which they have placed before us but could a special case not also be made for infants of AIDS-infected drug-addicted mothers? It seems to me that the need is to look after all affected patients. Towards that end a Ministerial review group on services for AIDS sufferers has been set up under the Minister of State who is in the House. This group is concerning itself with the problems facing all AIDS sufferers. I might add that the Haemophilia Society is represented on that review group.
One cannot but feel sympathetic for haemophiliacs. In conclusion, therefore may I make an appeal first, to the Minister and then to the Haemophilia Society. I appeal to the Minister to keep the door open in relation to the claims of the Haemophilia Society and, at the same time, I also appeal to the Haemophilia Society to await the conclusions of the review group which, as I understand it, will report as a matter of urgency.
I would like to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Leydon, to listen to the debate and reply to it. It is probably good that the Minister is here to take up the continuity of the last Adjournment debate we had on this subject. Naturally, I regret that the Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon cannot be here also as I would like him to hear what we have to say.
He will be here. We are sending for him at the moment.
Thank you very much. I feel the case for support for the Haemophilia Society members have been very ably put. We have had a great deal of debate here, questions in the Dáil since that debate and a lot of media coverage and discussion about it. I think it is a case that stands on its own merits. I believe no one can continue to say that the people who are haemophiliac and are now HIV positive or have AIDS because of contaminated blood do not deserve all the necessary support that can be given to them. We know that in other countries financial support has been forthcoming. The Minister has from previous speeches a list of the countries and the amounts of money that were given and the latest country to join that list is Japan. They have recently recognised the special position of haemophiliacs who are HIV positive or AIDS sufferers.
This is a case where the Taoiseach, Deputy Charles Haughey, has an opportunity to demonstrate his care and concern. Last Sunday I listened, with many other people to his RTE interview where he stressed again and again that Fianna Fáil under his leadership have a compassionate and caring philosophy and that this is the philosophy of his Government. That is very worthy and very commendable and it presupposes that he and his Government will act to relieve intense suffering. That philosophy of care and concern needs to be demonstrated more than ever before in this debate and on the issue before us. It is not an issue of party gain or advantage. Members of all parties have a deep human regard for suffering. Fianna Fáil members are no less moved by the plight of haemophiliacs, as at present described, than members of the Labour Party, Fine Gael, The Workers' Party or the Progressive Democrats.
The public are expecting a positive response to this campaign. They speak about the problem in their workplaces, in their pubs, in their clubs and in their homes and there will be public disappointment, to say the least, if no solution is arrived at. This is not a threat, I am just stating the reality and the facts, as I see them. We need a generous response, one that will create the machinery for speedy action for the people concerned and their families. Unless this group get help from the Government they face a dismal future and small, inoffensive, innocent number of 100 individuals approximately will be abandoned and asked to solve their own problems without the necessary financial resources.
While I sympathise with the position in which Senator Lanigan found himself last week and Senator Hillery this evening, defending a stance they cannot honestly agree with, I question the sensitivity of Senator Lanigan in telling haemophiliacs last week to take legal action as a solution. He must know the tedious and difficult course that entails. It can take years and years to prepare a case and it is desperately costly. The people we are talking about have neither the time — the years and years — nor do they have the money. No, this cannot be the solution. It is a matter of natural justice. If the Minister needs greater consultation or time to explore all the possibilities for funding that this needs, he will get all the necessary support from us. I ask him not to close the door on this appeal.
Last week, Senator Doyle referred to the campaign appeal in the UK and how at the beginning that campaign mirrored our situation here. The British Government would not accept responsibility for the matter initially but after an all-party meeting which put the facts of the case before members the Minister for Health there changed his attitude very dramatically in a matter of months. Now, infected haemophiliacs in the UK are beginning to enjoy the dividends of that change of mind.
Having money, of course, will not make everything right — how could it? The people concerned can never have a normal lifestyle as enjoyed by us but at least they can have the relative luxury of not worrying about their families if they die and they can afford to buy the best medical attention. I know the Minister, Deputy O'Hanlon, has met members of the society and has had from them at first hand details of their difficulties but he has not been in a position to make them a meaningful offer. I hope this evening he can tell us he has had Government approval to meet their request. The Government of the day should accept responsibility for the policies or acts of a previous Government and this has been borne out by former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, in the Dáil. He contends that because the official blood collection and distributions policies in the eighties have led to this tragedy, the matter lies with the Executive, with the Government. If the situation were reversed and we were now in Government I have no doubt that we would meet our obligations in this matter. This is a very exceptional, unique situation and it requires a special response.
The members of the society representing haemophiliacs have campaigned with great dignity and great dedication to get help from us. They have been appealing to us since last May. I have to confess that I was only remotely conscious of their situation. It is in the way of politics that when you meet a particular deserving case you presume, it being such a glaring injustice as it is in this case, that surely it is being corrected and that you do not have to worry too much about it because the people concerned, the Minister and the Department of Health, would have taken all this on board. It was only when I got the society's booklet which was published last April in the midst of my Christmas post that I was motivated into action. There it was with all its sad detail in the midst of all the happy Christmas wishes.
Later on, I talked to the mother of a ten-year-old boy. Her child has full-blown AIDS through contaminated blood. She is a young mother and she is trying to cope with this awful tragedy. She told me he is slowly dying, that he changed from a lively, normal little boy to a child who cannot go to school, who spends most of this time sleeping but is bright enough to know he is seriously ill and asks her several times a week if he has cancer. These are the real cases; these are the statistics, the children and individuals who are suffering either with AIDS or with the HIV positive virus. I appeal to the Minister to give us an answer tonight that will either resolve the situation or lead very quickly to it being resolved.
I understand that in the first part of this debate last week there was considerable reference to the biochemistry and biology of haemophilia and also the necessity for Factor 8. There was reference to the difficulties with Factor 8, and the fact that it has been impossible for small countries to create sufficient supplies to meet the needs of the haemophilia population and that this led to the importation of Factor 8 already infected with the HIV virus. I am sure that the difficulty of recognising infection of HIV virus due to the period which is required before there is sero-conversion was also alluded to. Therefore, I do not intend to deal with that part of my prepared speech this afternoon because I would only be going over what, presumably, other Senators have already dealt with.
I would, however, like to give some credit to the authorities in Northern Ireland — perhaps credit for intuition as much as for organisation — because Northern Ireland is well recognised as having the lowest recorded incidence of HIV infection among its haemophiliacs. This has led to some difficulties because the person who is largely responsible had female intuition and for no other reason that I can understand — and I have explored this — she decided early on that she would take a pool of blood from Europe rather than from America to treat haemophiliacs with Factors 8 and 9. The net result of this, of course, was that the HIV virus had not penetrated European blood until much later than it had penetrated American blood.
The reason I mention that is that an argument has been used by some claimants in England looking for compensation that members of the medical profession in other countries were tardy or negligent in looking at the implications of infected Factor 8. While I support the case of the haemophiliacs I believe the medical profession should not be left as a scapegoat to pay the compensation, as could easily happen. One of the problems we are up against today as far as our profession is concerned is the media bombardment, instant communication and the concept that the latest must be the best. If one adopts that theory it leads us into all sorts of unsatisfactory avenues. It takes time to dissect and distil what is appropriate for medical care and medical need. It is easy to say it was known for a number of years that Factor 8 might be infected and nothing was done about it. It takes time to circulate information throughout the profession as a whole. I certainly feel quite sympathetic to doctors who have — and I am more sympathetic, of course, to the haemophiliacs who have suffered — been involved somewhere in giving Factor 8 which was shown subsequently to be infected HIV virus.
Having said that, I must take issue with my good friend, Senator Hillery. He has said that no one goes out to get AIDS and, therefore, he feels that the person who gets AIDS is in exactly the same situation as the person who is given AIDS with no thought of it — at least initially no thought of it — by treatment received from the State in order to prevent the worst aspects of their disease. From what I have heard there is far too much talk about sympathy and not enough about action, and urgent action. It is very easy to get off the hook by talking about sympathy. I agree with Senator Fennell on this point: I read the Taoiseach's speech on Sunday, and heard part of it, and I was greatly impressed by the emphasis he laid in Ireland being a caring society. I do feel the Minister must address himself to the special claims, the unique position of people who have been infected in this way. Therefore, my first point is that we must see two things: first, not to use the profession as a scapegoat for defects which have occurred, — and admittedly occurred and, secondly, to look at this problem as it faces us and acknowledge the special case of people with haemophilia. I think it should also be understood that even with the best screening techniques available, a negative result for HIV is not an insurance that the blood is free of disease as it takes about six to eight weeks for the sero-conversion I mentioned.
The matter of compensation which has also been mentioned is certainly one the Haemophilia Society is bound to pursue. It has no other option but to pursue it, but whether it is by action taken against the therapists, local authority or the health authority or the State, nevertheless and I think this should be emphasised — it is a legal minefield and full of pitfalls and could, in fact, take years to sort our properly. This brings us back to the point at issue, the need to set up a trust fund in Ireland to deal with the appalling problem and the appalling consequences of this treatment of this disease of haemophilia by contaminated Factors 8 and 9. I think we must be chiefly concerned here with the social obligation on a national scale to provide unqualified support to meet the special needs of a special group of people. This is primarily a humanitarian motion and, as such, should obtain the full support of the Seanad and, hopefully, a sympathetic, urgent, practical, pragmatic and constructive response by the Government.
Haemophiliacs are born with a defect which cannot yet be changed. It is tragic irony that the treatment which they require to sustain a reasonable expectation of life and an acceptable quality of life now strikes them down. There is fear of the effect of the next treatment, fear of the expectation of what will happen without treatment. They are indeed caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of therapy.
In 1987 the Haemophilia Society of the United Kingdom started a campaign for recompense. This campaign highlighted the fact that the blood product safety was now so improved that we were dealing with a finite number of cases. One has to see here that while AIDS may be escalating — although for reasons I have mentioned here before not escalating in the way people had anticipated initially because of the special population that is affected, in spite of what we have heard here today about Africa — what we are dealing with here is the haemophiliac population treated with Factors 8 and 9. Now that there is awareness of the danger in Factors 8 and 9, an enormous amount is being done to ensure they are safe. We are dealing with a finite population, a population in this respect which is unlikely to increase, and a population, sadly, in which we will know the results in the not too distant future.
There are other aspects of this — not only the effect on the person who may be doomed to an early death but also the effect on families. Consider the effect on the wife of the haemophiliac. As we know, it is a disease which rarely affects a woman, that is unless a female carrier were to marry a male who has the disease, which would be a fairly unusual occurrence. On the whole, we are talking about men who are affected and the effect on the woman who could, first, develop HIV virus infection or full-blown AIDS as a result of intercourse and, secondly, the terrible dread that any woman must have that she will give birth to a child which is in any way defective but in this particular case, through no fault of her own and no fault of her husband, a child which will come into the world with a fatal disease and has nothing whatever to look forward to. It has side-effects with regard to obtaining life insurance, house mortgage, seeking and retaining jobs and perhaps most of all, there is the great difficulty being a wage-earner because you are so sick with this disease at times that you may not be able to hold down a job. It also means that on the death of the husband, the widow, who may or may not be affected has to face up to similar problems.
As I said before in this House I had a very dear friend who died of AIDS in St. Mary's Hospital, London way back when it was practically unknown and where he was extremely well cared for. I can assure you that anyone who went down that row of single cubicles in which those young men were being treated, could not but have sympathy for them but also had to recognise that the haemophiliac who has been given the disease by treatment the State says is the only treatment we can provide for them, has a special urgent need of our understanding but — more important — of our action.
It is argued here that there should be no distinction made between the AIDS sufferer and the sufferer from haemophilia who acquires the disease. May I just make this point? We must do something about AIDS; there is no doubt about that. We must give some acknowledgment of a disease which, not unlike the scourges of the past smallpox, syphilis or other diseases, has special demands on a so-called caring society and on the resources of the society. These demands are of a distinctly different quality from the demands of the haemophiliac. The haemophiliacs are a relatively small group and the numbers affected are around 20 per cent of the total and, hopefully, that can now be contained as there is more knowledge of how the disease is spread and how it affects people.
In The Times of 6 November 1987 there was a full report of the meeting between the Haemophilia Society and a cross-party group of almost 60 parliamentarians in the House of Commons. Julian Millar, a haemophiliac who had contracted HIV and Simon Taylor who detailed the financial recompense which the society was seeking, were credited — and I quote from that article in The Times “with having achieved the near impossible by welding together MPs from every strand of political opinion into a united body determined to force the Government to give financial support to the 1,200 HIV positive people with haemophilia in Britain.” As a result of that, a £10 million fund was raised to be established as a trust, properly governed, with various rules and reference points for distribution as fairly and as equitably as possible between the people who are affected.
A further point was made that some Senator had remarked, if you please, that haemophiliacs infected with this disease should go out and get compensation, that that is the way to deal with the problem. I would like to quote from Hansard, from the speech of the man who had the conversion on his way to meeting the Haemophilia Society or after meeting with them. I quote from the House of Commons Hansard of 16 November 1987, Col. 3774. Mr. Newton, the British Minister of Health, said:
On a number of occasions I have commented on the difficulty of a compensation scheme. This
— that is, the trust —
is not a compensation scheme. That must be made clear. It is a recognition of a special and unique combination of circumstances and I am glad to make that recognition.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to see this group as a group which has distinctive requirements and which should have a distinctive claim on the finances of the nation. In particular, because we claim to be a caring nation, we must recognise that we are now in a situation which has got a finite quality to it. It has also, alas, with regard to those who are affected, a certain limited span of time. We must show to the people at large that we do care and that it is not enough to make a sympathetic response. That response will only be adequate when discussion is backed up with action and when action can be felt and perceived by those who have been affected by this abomination.
I should like to fully support the motion proposed by the Opposition parties. I would like to congratulate the Haemophilia Society on their campaign to make Members of this House and of the other House aware of the real difficulties in which they found themselves as a result of contracting HIV positive. We should all ask ourselves if we are supporting this motion not for purely emotional reasons, not simply because they have run a very successful campaign which has touched everybody's hearts and drawn in a great deal of public sympathy. We should ask ourselves why these people should be treated differently from any other particular unfortunate group in our society. The answer is moderately simple. They were born with haemophilia. They already had an unfortunate and unhappy situation in their lives — they drew the short straw. Now they have come across this second appalling tragedy and accident in their lives. That makes them almost unique as a group and as an indentifiable group. The second reason is purely practical: they are a very small group and a group which is not going to increase at any particular rate.
It is unreasonable for the Minister on fiscal grounds, on emotional grounds or on any practical grounds to say they should not be helped. Were it a group, however unfortunate, who was possibly going to increase at such a rate that the State's finances could not sustain it or a gruop which was impossible to identify in the size into which it was going to grow, then perhaps he could say we cannot afford this or may not be able to afford this, but he knows, the Government know and everybody involved in this particular campaign knows, that this group will not grow at a rate which the State cannot sustain in terms of supporting. It is very difficult to justify the refusal of the Government to support their very meagre and very modest demands. The figure of £400,000, which I understand is what they are looking for, is an absolute pittance in governmental terms. It is a small amount which I cannot understand the Government refusing to give.
I do not really care, and I cannot understand how anybody else cares and why it is offered as an excuse, who is responsible for what happened to these unfortunate people. It is wrong for anyone, in defence of not paying this money to say the Government technically have no responsibility, the Government do not have the guilt so they should not pay. I do not think it matters who carries the responsibility, whether it is ourselves, whether it is certain individuals, whether it is people overseas, whether it is the people themselves. The fact of the matter is that they are in this situation. The fact of the matter is that they live in this country and that, irrespective of whoever is responsible for what happened we have a responsibility for them now. That is what we have to face up to. That is the reality. To say otherwise or to try to lay the blame elsewhere is not only unsympathetic, it is also dishonest.
We should also look at the situation overseas. I have an incomplete picture of what the situation is overseas. I have an incomplete picture of what the situation is overseas as regards victims of this sort but it is quite clear from the information I have received from the Haemophilia Society that it it normal in Britain and in other EC countries who can afford it to make large and generous and adequate grants for the victims of this condition. I do not understand why we should be exceptions to this rule. The figure of £50,000 seems to be too little.
While stating categorically that these people should be helped, I do not think we should fall into the trap, which happened so often in the debate in the other House on this matter, of saying that they are innocent victims. To my mind all victims of AIDS or the HIV virus are innocent victims. I do not believe there is any great difference in terms of conscience or guilt for those who contracted the disease or that they should necessarily be differentiated on those grounds. These people, because of their tragic situation initially and throughout their lives, because of their second tragic situation and because of their small numbers, their containable numbers, should be given special consideration and should be granted the modest demands they are asking of the Government.
I think we all agree that the Irish Haemophilia Society have a very genuine case to put forward, and indeed they have done so magnificently. They were formed, I understand, some 20 odd years ago to represent the needs of haemophiliacs in Ireland. It is true to say that little did they know that the eighties would bring this very real problem to them, not just to the 106 Irish haemophiliacs who are affected with HIV but also the other 200-odd haemophiliacs and their families. I understand from this debate that there are ten full-blown AIDS victims and that six have died from this terrible disease. I recognise the very special problem of haemophiliacs who are affected with AIDS and HIV positive through transfusions of contaminated blood. The reality of life is clear: AIDS is a reality which is with us and affects people, whether they be drug addicts, homosexuals, or haemophiliacs. One way or the other, we have a duty to come to terms with this problem.
The case made for the haemophiliacs is different to the other groups. They are in many ways the innocent victims of a system which was regarded as being of help to them. It is a Catch-22 situation for the Government. I am inclined to the view that the members of the Government are very sympathetic to their case and I would think the same applies to the Minister who is with us this evening.
The question then is: can the Government categorise one section of a disease? Should they not treat all victims of the disease the same? As far as I am concerned, my heart would clearly be on the side of the small special group who have this problem we are discussing this evening. At the same time we must recognise the position of the Government, and I am pleased they have set up a review group under the chairmanship of Deputy Leyden, the Minister of State, to examine the problems of all AIDS sufferers. We should give this group a chance to come forward very quickly with their findings, recommendations and proposals.
From the start haemophiliacs have had problems from birth. Haemophilia is a hereditary blood disorder. The affected haemophiliacs in this instance feel badly let down on the grounds that they came to be infected by a health service to which they turned for treatment. They have a special problem and a very unique, real one and my hope is that the very special case they have would get special consideration from the review body. I am aware that the Irish Haemophilia Society have a representative on this body and I would like to think that the chairman of that body, Deputy Leyden, would be very sympathetic to their cause.
On a point of order, could I have some details of this review body? It is totally new to me.
I understood it was common knowledge that a new body was being set up. The chairman of this body is Deputy Leyden and I imagine he would be very much on the side of the Irish haemophiliacs.
The Minister for Health is with us and will reply in detail at the end of the debate. In the knowledge that people on both sides of the House are interested in this cause and are sympathetic to it, I would hope that would have no vote this evening but would wait to see the outcome of this review body, ask for its findings to be implemented very speedily, and at the end of the day perhaps something positive might come out of it.
First, my apologies for interrupting Senator Fallon but I thought there had been some new development of which I was unaware.
All Senators who have spoken have covered the facts of this case very well and in particular Senator Robb, Senator Ross and Senator Fennell have very graphically described the situation. The basic fact is that the people we are talking about were infected while taking treatment which was intended to keep them healthy. Their HIV antibody positive status is a result of the medical treatment received through the health services. Infection with HIV was the direct result of services provided by the Department of Health. Blood products are manufactured from two sources — from commercially obtained clotting factor concentrates drawn from the blood of paid donors abroad and bought and given to the health service, and from domestically obtained Factor 8 and Factor 9 clotting factor concentrates from voluntary donations in Ireland. Since 1985 all Factor 8 and Factor 9 has been treated to prevent infection and all individual donors have been tested. Commercially obtained concentrates from plasma of paid donors were first suspected of carrying HIV positive virus in 1982. Yet, concentrates produced from Irish volunteer donors were not available until 1986 and in March 1988 we were still not totally self-sufficient. Thankfully, we are now almost completely self-sufficient.
The implication of HIV infection for families of people with haemophilia has been devastating. Haemophilia, as a disease, is itself worrying for a family, but HIV and AIDS places an intolerable pressure on family life. The problem is even more acute because the HIV and AIDS virus can be passed on and there is often more than one sufferer in a family unit. Due to the hysteria associated with AIDS and haemophilia, many haemophiliacs, and even those not infected by the HIV virus, have had to publicly deny their blood disorder. They feel ostracised and rejected by society at large. The financial problem adds to the burden on those victims of AIDS and HIV positive. Because of the infection they cannot obtain endowment or life insurance to protect homes and families; thus they cannot make adequate provision for their families. It is, I believe — and I am slow to attribute responsibility to any particular Minister or Department — the responsibility of the Minister to help these individuals and their families who are in desperate need and that is why we believe the Minister must set up a trust fund to help them.
The Minister, on 9 February in the Dáil, stated it was his responsibility to ensure that all AIDS sufferers were properly treated and looked after by the State. This is a welcome stance, but surely a special case must be made for those suffering from AIDS or HIV positive because of their medical treatment? This treatment was provided by the Government and therefore the Government, the State, have a clear moral obligation to help these people.
The issue in relation to haemophiliacs is completely separate from the general issue of medical or other assistance being given to people with the HIV antibody or AIDS or other people with fatal illnesses. This group of 106 people were injected with plasma that was infected with the HIV antibody as a result of which a significant proportion have or will contract AIDS. The decision to compensate people infected in this way would not create any kind of general precedent. We on this side of the House would be very happy to underline this fact: that we do not see this as in any way creating any sort of general precedent.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the different question of helping AIDS sufferers generally and the Minister cannot and must not be allowed to avoid the issue of helping haemophiliacs with AIDS or HIV positive by confusing these two distinct groups of AIDS sufferers. Other countries that face the same problem as we do in Ireland have risen to the challenge and have provided generous compensation for their own haemophiliacs infected with AIDS and HIV positive. Britain, Spain, West Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria and New Zealand have all compensated haemophiliacs who have become infected with AIDS as a result of treatment with infected blood products.
Haemophiliacs with AIDS and HIV positive are different from other AIDS sufferers and must be treated accordingly. The treatment they receive to help their handicap has now led to a double disadvantage where not alone are they haemophiliacs but they have now developed HIV positive or full-blown AIDS. The Government must find a solution to alleviate the distress of these haemophiliacs and they must do it quickly. The Haemophilia Society has made a reasonable and well-thought out modest request to the Minister but to date we have had no response. The Minister and the Government must now face up to their responsibilities in this issue. They must provide much more funding than the tiny sum of £50,000, which is the sort of grant a small town would get from the national lottery for one project. They must do far better than the money already offered to the Irish Haemophilia Society to help it engage in the self-help programme. I know that despite the financial constraints which the Minister faces there would be universal heart-felt approval for giving the kind of support requested by the Irish Haemophilia Society. I now call on the Minister to respond adequately and comprehensively to the needs of this small, disadvantaged group who, through no fault of their own or of the Irish health care system, have been dealt a very cruel hand by fate.
When Senator Fallon says he hopes there will not be a vote on this matter, one part of me agrees with him. I do not want to have a vote on this issue, but I have to say at this stage that unless the Minister in his reply can go much more than half-way towards meeting the very modest request of the Irish Haemophilia Society, we will have no option but to oppose him in the division lobby this evening. I hope that in his reply he will not give us reason to do that.
I think the facts, figures and statistics regarding the position of people with haemophilia who have become HIV positive have been well presented by other Members here. I would like to home in on one area in particular, that is, the special position of these people. They were given a treatment which was provided by the State. Obviously, the State did not know there was any problem there, but unfortunately 106 people have become HIV positive because of the treatment.
We can talk about the legal question of responsibility but the process through the courts is a long and expensive one. I believe that the real issue here is not the legal issue but the moral responsibility the State has to the people who have become HIV positive. One of the frightening statistics which was given to me when we attended a meeting in Buswells Hotel and met with members of the Irish Haemophilia Society was that it seems now about three people per annum will develop full-blown AIDS as a result of having become HIV positive. So, I believe that there is a moral responsibility to these people.
In order to get around the legalities of the situation, the Labour Party instanced the Stardust agreement whereby a precedent was set. There are a number of parallels here with the people who have become HIV positive. These were people who received Factors 8 and 9 before 1985; in other words, it is a group that is contained, it is a group that, thankfully, is not going to grow any larger. As with the Stardust Tribunal you had a limited number of people there. The courts were not going to reach a conclusion quickly or effectively enough, so the previous Government decided to deal with the problem in a way that allowed people adequate compensation.
Regarding the issue before us tonight, these people deserve our sympathy, but they also need a lot more. They need effective action and financial help, and they need it now. Going along the lines of the settlement that was made with the Stardust victims, we are opening up an avenue that can give quick and effective financial help to those concerned. Other people — and I am not going to go back over statistics — have instanced the help that is given in other countries. Whatever they do in other countries, this country, which prides itself on being a Christian country, through its Legislature must stand up and be counted and take on board its moral responsibility to these people. I do not want to get into any hassle on this because an issue like this must be treated calmly, but at the end of the day we must be strong in seeking immediate justice for these people.
The first motion before us tonight refers to people being infected with AIDS and HIV positive through transfusions of contaminated blood. I wonder if that is quite accurate, because I have a news report of a statement made by the Minister of State at the Department of Health who stated that blood transfusions had not given rise to AIDS, that it was the people who had received Factor 8 and Factor 9.
In conclusion, I would say that an important point has been made here by other speakers, that is, that we should not apply any moral criteria as to how all those who are HIV positive and all who have developed full-blown AIDS in our society became infected. They are infected and they have a problem. They deserve our sympathy but, more importantly, they deserve our help. The Labour Party position is that every public health facility should be made available to all those AIDS victims. That is not to say that the people who became HIV positive and developed full-blown AIDS through Factors 8 and 9, which were provided by a State agency, have not a special case. I make the analogy with the Stardust Tribunal. I await the Minister's response and I, too, hope that this issue will not be put to a vote.
I would say to the Minister that the Labour Party want effective action now. These people have suffered in silence for quite a long time. Recently, they have gone out into the public arena and sought the help of politicians. But all the suffering that has been caused, all the suffering that is there at present and all the suffering that is to come must be dealt with. We must deal with it effectively and we must deal with it now. We, as Labour Party Senators, are earnestly requesting the Minister to respond to this problem and to respond to the moral obligation this Legislature has and that he, as Minister, for Justice, has to these people.
Health.
As Minister for Health——
Justice is wanted, too.
A Chathaoirligh, if we are talking to the Minister for Health we are talking to the Minister for Health about justice. I would say in all sincerity that I know him to be a compassionate man. I know he takes on board the suffering of these people, but we believe this has gone on for far too long and that effective action is required now.
We are all learning about AIDS. It is something whose dimensions most of us have not yet grasped. It is a problem that is going to affect our generation and generations to come. It is a problem that is going to loom large for those of us who have children because it is a problem that is going to be even more of a threat to the health of our children as, sadly, the virus extends and multiplies and seems to take its inevitable course.
Like all things that are so large and so frightening, we do our best in many ways to ignore it, however genuinely concerned. For instance, most of us cannot contemplate nuclear war because of the concept of the obliteration of the human race. It is incomprehensible to us and we duck. Most of us cannot contemplate the possibility of the death of a loved one; it is so incomprehensible and so heartrending that we duck. People who smoke cigarettes cannot contemplate the possible consequences of what they are doing and so they duck. It is similar for many of us in regard to AIDS.
In some ways because the word "AIDS" is raised in a debate it can hypnotise us into inactivity, because of its dimensions, its complexity, the human and ethical problems, the problems for children, the problems for African societies and because of the increasing fear that this is going to be with us, is going to get worse and turn up in places where it was not expected. Scientific knowledge is never absolute; you can never say with certainty anything that has a scientific basis is absolutely true; all you can ever say is that this is the best we know at a particular moment in time.
We do not know where the AIDS virus will go. We do not know how the problem will develop. We do not know what effects it will have. We do not know even yet whether or what proportion of people who are HIV positive will become infected with full-blown AIDS. All of the information that I as a lay person has read suggests that as more and more information becomes available the proportion of HIV positive people who become infected with full blown AIDS will keep on going tragically and painfully up. That is the kind of context in which we are talking.
Suppose a group like the group of haemophiliacs in Irish society had been infected with a fatal ailment which was not AIDS, something totally different that was unknown and suddenly became apparent because of the use of Factor 8 and Factor 9, suppose therefore we could separate the problem of haemophiliacs from the problem of AIDS, suppose the human consequences were the same but it was not part of a bigger problem, we would work out without any great difficulty a way of dealing with it because we would not be worried about precedents and implications for other groups. Of course we should worry about precedent, of course we should worry about policy implications.
I was not here for last week's debate but if the argument was used it should not have been used — there are no distinctions between innocent and guilty victims of AIDS. Anybody who is infected with AIDS is innocent from that moment because of the scale of the human tragedy that is involved. There can be no talk about innocent and other victims of AIDS. That is not the line I would take on the problem we are addressing here and it is not the line I would avocate that anybody else should take on the issue. The issue is quite different.
The issue is that we are in a perpetual learning process about AIDS and its impact on society, and on particular groups in society from time to time. We have been able, and many of the moralists in our society have been somewhat smugly able, to talk about AIDS in terms of ethical behaviour. We have had unfortunate utterances that the safest way to avoid AIDS was to live according to certain moral principles. We now know that is nonsense for at least one group and probably in the future will be for a number of groups.
We now also know that haemophiliacs simply did what the best medical advice available to them said they should do. It was something brief, if was something temporary; in terms of the corpus of knowledge about AIDS, it was no more than a hiccup in scientific development. In human terms, on the other hand, it is an enormous, concentrated human tragedy affecting a small number of people, affecting more than one and in some cases more than two people within an immediate family group, affecting two generations of the same family.
It is impossible to stand back and say that we must talk about AIDS as if it was a similar problem for everybody. We must talk about AIDS at one level as if it was a similar problem for everybody but the fact that it is an extensive problem, a problem that affects all sorts of people in our society, a problem that in some cases is related to human behaviour and in some cases is not, does not mean we should draw an artificial bottomline common denominator and ignore the differences between groups of people who have been infected with AIDS and ignore the fact that in certain categories of risk the risk is rapidly diminishing. For instance, amongst haemophiliacs the risk must be close to zero now of further HIV infection.
What we are dealing with is not a group of people who are going to become more extensive but a fixed number who were caught at the interface between ignorance and knowledge, who were caught at a particular moment in time when our knowledge as a society fell behind the progress of a particularly frightening illness. They got caught at that interface and got left behind for one, two or three years and out of that came the fact that as well as being seriously ill with haemophilia a large number of them are now effectively going to die.
Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the fact that they are going to die. What we can do is try to minimise the human consequences of that. The human consequences of that are not helped incidentally — I say this because perhaps the Minister can do something about it — by an insurance industry which, by and large, penalises people simply for admitting that they have been tested for AIDS, irrespective of the outcome of the test. This particular group have told us in graphic detail about the problems of mortgages, life insurance and the desperate worry that many of them have of what will happen to their families if, or when, they die.
For a group like that who can see clearly from within their own perspective the clear definite, almost physical, boundaries that surround their problem, who can look around and say, "We are not a continuing expanding problem. Something happened to us once, some moment in history happened to go wrong for us and we are stuck with the problem. We feel we are entitled to the support of our brothers and sisters in Irish society simply because we got caught at the interface between ignorance and knowledge". That, it seems to me, is the crux of it. It is not a question of guilt or innocence. It is not a question of anything like that. It is a question of a tragic accident of history that struck these people at a moment in time when they could not know differently.
All over society it is true there are people who were caught because of an ignorance about the spread of AIDS. All over society there is a developing problem, the limits of which we do not yet understand, the sort of responses that we must produce to it we do not yet understand, the ways we can influence human behaviour to minimise the risk of AIDS we do not yet understand but the case of this particular group the one thing we do understand is, we know the limits of the problem, we know the cause of the problem, we know the extent of the problem and we can be 99 per cent certain that it is not a problem that will continue to grow, multiply and develop indefinitely. This is one human manifestation of what will become one of the biggest human tragedies of recent history. Because of the nature of that manifestation, we know the limits to the problem. We know the boundaries to the problem. We know the extent of the problem in a way that we do not know for any other group in society who are threatened by or infected with AIDS. That is why it is possible to deal with haemophiliacs differently because of the clear definition of the problem.
It seems to me that it is not good enough to talk about precedent. It is not good enough to pass it off in terms of the need to be concerned about all people suffering from AIDS because that fact is one on which we are all united. What is different here is, as I have and other Members have said, the clear parameters of the problem; the way it originated as a consequence of humanity's lack of knowledge of something that was changing very rapidly, the fact that we do not have to talk about an indefinite period of care and concern but are talking about a fixed group. All of that seemed to me from the very beginning to argue for particular treatment. I would rather use "particular" than "special" because it seems to me that all people who are infected with something as appalling as AIDS become special in society. This is a particular group within that overall group who have identified a particular need and I have yet to be convinced that there is any legal procedural precedent or indeed policy argument which can justify the continued resistance to what is not a significant sum of money — I think nobody can argue about that. I do not think the money is the fundamental issue.
There is an issue of policy, an issue of principle and an issue of precedent that is being used to avoid doing what is requested. It seems to me that the overwhelming view of Members of the Oireachtas from all sides, talking in public here and talking in private to many members of Fianna Fáil, is that something should be done. Something should be done without us having to repeat in public the tragedy we heard described at a recent meeting of a family with a child of ten years of age dying from AIDS.
There are children dying from AIDS all over the world. The problem here is that we have identified one group who know the dimensions of their problem, have told us in very painful ways about the extent of their pain and have asked us for a very specific response to their problem and to their need. It is up to us not to confuse ourselves with bigger issues, not to confuse the issue with longer-term problems but to identify one specific human problem and do something about it now. The best people to tell us what to do are those who are suffering. They have asked us for a specific sum of money over a number of years to meet very human needs and to give many of them the security at least of knowing that if they cannot be with their families indefinitely, at least their families are going to be protected from indigence and from poverty by our often compassionate society.
Senators in their contributions have encapsulated the difficulties which haemophiliacs who have contracted the AIDS virus have in leading a normal life and I can see that problems exist for this group. I have a difficulty however, in accepting that the problems which infected haemophiliacs face are unique or special to that particular group of persons to the extent that particular measures should be put in place to assist these, over and above what might be required for others who are infected with the virus. I regret, therefore, that as Minister for Health I cannot accept the thrust of resolutions before the House.
As I said in the Dáil recently, many families will, tragically, be affected by the AIDS virus. These effects will be very direct and immediate for haemophiliacs and their families and dependants and for intravenous drug abusers, for homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals and their families also. It is worth noting, for instance, that over half of the I.V. drug abusers infected have families and 53 babies born to such couples have been tested HIV positive.
It is against this background of the broadly based spread of the infection that I and the Government must assess the most equitable and pragmatic route to take in providing for all AIDS sufferers and a major consideration in this is to ensure that discrimination against, or the potential for generating feelings of guilt amongst persons for whom special measures would not be taken, does not enter into our strategy. If one particular group were singled out for special treatment in relation to this extremely sensitive condition, where the sources of infection are varied — it could be seen as discriminatory towards other categories of AIDS cases. Therefore, I am not convinced that it is appropriate to establish a trust fund for haemophiliacs. Rather, it is necessary to address equitably and pragmatically the problems of all AIDS sufferers.
It is with this objective in mind, that I have established a group under the chairmanship of my colleague, Deputy Leyden, Minister of State, to inquire urgently into the accessibility of services to AIDS sufferers generally. This group consists of representatives for the Irish Haemophilia Society, the health boards, the Department of Health, the Virus Reference Laboratory UCD, and the Drugs Treatment and Advisory Centre in Pearse Street, Dublin.
I have asked the group to report to me as a matter of urgency as I am conscious that difficulties of access to services could be damaging to infected persons and I am anxious that difficulties which individual AIDS sufferers experience should be comprehensively identified. The remit of the group is not confined to health services only and when it completes its work it would be my intention to bring its report to Government.
I would like to outline briefly to the House the measures which the Government have taken to protect the blood supply, as the quality of the blood supply is, to a significant extent, central to the issues raised. Protecting the blood supply was our first priority in developing the Irish strategy and we acted on this in all manners available to us as soon as we possibly could. As soon as HIV testing became available, it was introduced in Ireland and, as a result, no case of transfusion-related AIDS or HIV infection has occurred in this country and Ireland is the only EC country which has not had such a case. Similarly, HIV-tested and heat-treated blood products were introduced here as soon as they became available.
The National Blood Transfusion Service Board immediately took up, as a priority, the task of supplying the national requirements for blood products from the domestic supply. These measures now guarantee that the blood supply and the supply of blood products are free from HIV infection. These blood products represent a major medical advance in the control of haemophilia which has enabled haemophiliacs to live as normal a life as possible, reducing the trauma of treatment and the need for protracted periods of hospitalisation.
Thanks to these important measures those haemophiliacs who are not infected can now be reassured that their treatment is safe and will not result in HIV infection. Even prior to the availability of HIV testing and heat-treated blood products, the benefits of Factors 8 and 9 to haemophiliacs were considered to outweigh the risks of contracting AIDS.
A wide range of other measures have also been introduced to prevent the spread of AIDS and to care for those infected. In identifying and introducing measures, care has always been taken to ensure equity and easy access to services within the resources available. In this regard, the Government have provided a special allocation of £450,000 for special AIDS programmes out of national lottery funds, in addition to the normal costs of treatment and testing. Already the Department of Health have provided funding for additional counselling services at St. James's Hospital where the National Haemophilia Unit is located. The society itself has benefited from this funding and at my recent meeting with the society on 10 February, 1989 I offered a further grant of £50,000 to enable it to develop its counselling and support services — an offer which I made to them without prejudice to other considerations which might arise as a result of the working party's deliberations to which I referred earlier.
At the meeting of 10 February I had a full discussion with the society on the implications inherent in their proposal to establish a trust fund for one sector of the population affected by the virus.
Indeed there would be considerable practical difficulties in establishing and administering a trust fund on the lines suggested and it is with interest that I noted the comments of the former Minister for Health, Deputy Barry Desmond, in relation to this in the media recently.
I would now like to respond to specific points made during the debate. While they encapsulated the problems of infected haemophiliacs, Senators also underlined the difficulties which the Government have in dealing with this particular group in a specific way. Perhaps unwittingly, the concept of innocent and other categories of victims has, regrettably, been brought up in the debate and the thrust of the manner in which the motions have been promoted has revolved around the justification and need for special measures for haemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus, on the grounds that they contracted the virus in a manner which was not associated with lifestyle.
Senator Doyle referred to the infected haemophiliacs as "normal ordinary families living in this country with children going to local schools and wanting to live a normal happy life but, unfortunately, due to the medical problem which they have inherited through no fault of their own, they are now unable to do so." Senator Bulbulia also referred to the difficulties which these people and their children have both medically and socially and Senator Murphy referred to the "particular category of totally innocent people" who contracted the infection in "a totally involuntary way."
Identifying one group of AIDS sufferers as innocent on the basis of the source of their infection brings value and moral judgments to the situation which serve no useful purpose in trying to develop a compassionate approach towards caring for all AIDS sufferers. Rather they could serve only to drive a wedge between categories of AIDS sufferers and to alienate specific groups in the process and could ultimately prove counterproductive in the Governments objective of minimising the spread of infection through a broadly-based strategy. The graphic picture which Senator Doyle pointed out of the stigmatisation of the children of haemophiliacs is one which could apply equally to the children of HIV positive intravenous drug abusers, a situation which could be exacerbated for these people in the event of a sectoral approach to the question.
Senator O'Shea brought up the Stardust case. In that particular case everybody who was affected was considered for compensation and the same was true of those who suffered from the thalidomide tragedy and the brain damage from the three-in-one injection. In the thalidomide tragedy the firms involved were found to be negligent and in the three-in-one case the Government of the day invited parents to bring along their normal children for immunisation with the product, whereas in the case of those suffering from haemophilia the blood supplied was the normal treatment, and the necessary treatment at the time.
Senators have argued that the State has a moral obligation to provide especially for this group of AIDS sufferers, for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are a finite group. The obligations of the State, however, have to be assessed on criteria which go beyond the source of the infection and the numbers in a particular group. The State has to provide equitably and uniformly for all and, as Senators know, State services are developed, provided and are continually being updated in an equitable and uniform manner. Within this, care has to be taken in fulfilling the obligations of the State not to discriminate in favour of one or particular group. All persons infected with the AIDS virus are "victims" of the disease, just as others who suffer illness or disease or are disabled as a result of accident or injury — whether it be self-induced or otherwise — are victims but all must be treated equally and efficiently with the utmost support, compassion and care of both the State and of society.
In conclusion, I wish to assure the House that I fully share its concern about haemophiliacs who are infected by HIV but, for the reasons stated, this concern has to extend to all AIDS sufferers to ensure that all are treated equitably, and effectively in relation to the health and welfare services available. While I recognise the case being made by Senators, it is with regret that I must inform the House I cannot find it possible to accept the motion as proposed.
I would ask the House to note the establishment of the committee chaired by Deputy Terry Leyden, with two officials of my Department, Dr. Jimmy Walsh, the medical co-ordinator of the AIDS programme in the country and Michael Lyons, Principal Officer, who has been dealing with the problems arising from AIDS in the public health division, the CEO of the Eastern Health Board, Ciaran Hickey, Programme Manager on the Southern Health Board, Sean Hurley, three representatives from outside, Brian O'Mahoney has been invited from the Irish Haemophilia Society, Dr. John O'Connor from the National Drugs Treatment Centre in Pearse Street and Professor Irene Hillery from the university. I have asked the committee to report back to me as rapidly as possible and what I would suggest is that we could arrange that the committee would meet a representative group of Members of Seanad Éireann at a very early stage, within the next couple of weeks.
On a point of information, may I ask the Minister if he has the terms of reference of the committee?
The terms of reference of the committee are to look at the accessibility to service for all those suffering from AIDS. I did state here tonight that it is not confined to the health services only. I ask the House to note the establishment of the committee, to let it complete its work, and I will report back to the House on progress. Therefore, I ask the House not to press the motion.
I was somewhat taken aback by the contribution of Senator Lanigan to this debate last Wednesday and I regret to have to say I am horrified by the Minister's response tonight.
The Minister tonight has once again endeavoured to merge a question of financial assistance for haemophiliacs injected with infected plasma with the more general question of AIDS sufferers. Haemophiliacs have been infected with AIDS through receiving medical treatment to help them to overcome the handicap which they were born with. A decision to give financial assistance to people in this category has nothing whatever to do with the quite different question of AIDS sufferers. Let me say now that everyone is most sympathetic to AIDS sufferers and wants to help them.
The Minister said if one particular group was singled out for special treatment what would happen but that group by its very nature has been singled out. They were persons who were receiving treatment for a handicap they already had and were receiving it in order to help them to lead a happy, productive life. They are now burdened with a double handicap and that is what distinguishes them clearly and distinctly from the rest of AIDS sufferers.
I have never been more moved by anything in my political career, except for the situation in the northern part of our country, than I have been by the motion before us in the House tonight. All reasonable people would agree it is a genuine request and has to be met by civilised people. I cannot understand the stance the Minister has taken because I know him to be a compassionate and an understanding man. The only pointer I got to the Minister's view in this matter was when he answered questions in the Dáil on 9 February last. I said in my speech last week — and I tried to indicate the situation as I understood it — that those people are in a quite different situation. It is regrettable that the Minister was not in for Senator Robb's contribution here tonight because he made that distinction very well. I must congratulate all the Senators who contributed, and especially Senator Ryan because he made that distinction crystal-clear. The Minister was here to hear his contribution.
There can be only two reasons why the Minister and his Department are taking this view. Either the Minister's advisers in his Department are pulling him by the arm and saying "listen, Minister, you cannot do this because you will be setting a precedent" or else there is some difficulty in finding £400,000 per year to meet the requirements of this trust fund. After the Taoiseach's speech of last weekend where he said this Government are a compassionate and caring Government, I rule out any difficulty in getting £400,000 per year to meet their needs.
There cannot be a precedent in this matter because we know that there are a finite number of persons who are suffering from AIDS. We know there are a number who have full-blown AIDS and they are in urgent need of financial assistance and to be set up some kind of advisory group to look at the question is just ridiculous in this case. Indeed, last week — and I regret to say the Minister did not even bother to mention it tonight — I asked him to reflect on the situation as it obtained in Britain. The Minister there held the same view as he is holding and yet, because of an all-party meeting, he changed his view. I want to say to the House, a Chathaoirleach that the British Minister came into the House of Commons and announced a trust fund of £10 million for haemophiliacs. Even though there are a number of cases pending in the courts, a number of haemophiliacs have taken action against the Government in Great Britain but, leaving that aside, the Government made an exgratia payment of £10 million. I know of no one here taking legal action. Time is running out. These people need assistance urgently.
We all came into politics to serve people and especially to serve those most in need. I can think of no group of people more in need of the support of the State than the 106 HIV positive haemophiliacs. It must be a terrible tragedy for people with this problem, facing death and not knowing what security there is for their family. We had an example before Christmas of a man making an appeal through the media and some anonymous generous person responded with £25,000 to meet the needs of that family. That man said he would die happy because he knew his wife and family were being looked after. While we may not want to call it a moral responsibility, surely we have a civil responsibility to address ourselves to this question by providing financial assistance for these people who are trying to lead normal and happy lives.
I ask the Minister to reflect on what Senators said in this debate. It has been a most touching debate. Everyone spoke with sincerity because it is a question of which we are all aware. We know these people. We know their needs. We know that for a number of them, their life span is short. What more can I ask than that a Government who claim to be compassionate should address themselves to an issue like this? The Minister will have to change his stance at some time in the future because this is a justifiable and righteous case which stands on in good foundation. The Minister will have to change his view and give financial assistance to those in this special category who have, by the very nature of their illness, singled themselves out from general AIDS sufferers. The Minister should not be afraid to change his view. We will all admire him and think he is a far more compassionate man and that the Government are a far more compassionate Government if the Minister accedes at some time in the near future to this request.
An Leas-Cathaoirleach
Is the motion being pressed?
Senators: Yes.
On a point of order, I seek clarification on the wording in the first motion which will be decided on by the House. It is in the name of Senators Fennell, Manning, Bulbulia and Cregan. After the word "positive" the words "through transfusions of contaminated blood" have been recorded as being inaccurate. What procedure is there to remove the inaccuracies before we make a decision on it?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair can do nothing about that. The motion is as it is before the House and it is on that motion that I must get a decision. The question is "That the motion be agreed to".
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Robb, John D.A.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Bromell, John A. (Tony)
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Fennell and Doyle; Níl, Senators Haughey and W. Ryan.
Question declared lost.
Is motion No. 5 being moved?
It was not formally moved because we can have one motion only before the House at a time. Now that the other motion has been disposed of and in view of the Minister's commitment to get a report back from the committee he has set up I am prepared not to move my motion.
Motion No. 5 not moved.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 March 1989.