Minister for Health Mary Harney defended the Government's decision not to meet the representative groups of those contaminated by bad blood.

She said it was a fair question to ask why the Government had not discussed the Bill with the groups. "If we are exposing the State to litigation, no minister or government in a deliberative process could enter into negotiations on such an issue.

"I do not want to compare this situation with another, but this House has often dealt with legal issues in a similar way for an obvious reason, namely, the State's exposure.

"We are not discussing €200,000 or €500,000. Extending the health card will cost €4 million or €5 million, but I do not have issue with that. While I do not lightly disregard money, I want to help those who genuinely need help. As such, the cost of helping them is not the issue.

"Rather, the issue is one of exposing the State to a large number of potential claims. We do not need to be experts to know the capacity in some quarters for seeking compensation."

Ms Harney insisted that the Bill did not victimise innocent people. "It is concerned with protecting a scheme on behalf of those for whom it was designed and ensuring that they get the health services, compensation and insurance to which they are entitled."

Speaking during the final stage debate on the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Bill 2006, Ms Harney said she intended introducing regulations relating to the insurance elements of the Bill, and appoint an administrator, with a three to six-month timeframe.

"Hopefully, the timeframe will be closer to three months, which is that requested by groups representing those affected. I understand the administrator will take between three and six months to administer both the life assurance and mortgage protection scheme and will, shortly afterwards, do what is necessary to introduce the travel insurance scheme."

She said she had also given a commitment that those individuals receiving compensation awards from the tribunal, but who did not qualify for the health card because of the test introduced in 1998, would now receive the card.

Resources would be made available to the Health Service Executive to bring that about.

Ms Harney said that if a person had a relationship with an infected person, either in the form of a marriage or another stable relationship, prior to diagnosis, there was no question that he or she was entitled to compensation for, among other things, loss of consortium.

"Groups representing affected people will confirm that we did not put people through stringent tests to prove the existence of relationships. We do not query people about their relationships." The change she was making, she said, related to where it was known before the beginning of the relationship that the person was infected, a scenario which arose in the case of a second relationship following the payment of compensation to a former partner or spouse. In such cases, she said, compensation for loss of consortium did not arise.

"Deputies appear to think that we will be taking compensation from the victims. I am bringing forward an amendment to make it clear that this will not happen.

"Clearly, someone who has a relationship with an infected person, even if it begins after diagnosis, is entitled to compensation for any out-of-pocket expenses, time off work, mental distress or loss of society.

"However, he or she is not entitled to compensation for something of which he or she was aware when the relationship began."