The public is entitled to be sceptic about the tribunal of inquiry into the hepatitis C controversy, the terms of reference for which were announced by the Minister for Health, Mr Noonan, yesterday. The manner in which the beef tribunal descended into an unwieldy and hugely expensive exercise, while having little discernible impact on the management of the beef industry, does not inspire confidence. There will be concern that the inexplicable pain and suffering already inflicted on up to 1,600 women and their families by this State could be exacerbated by another long and complex inquiry which fails to apportion blame adequately.
That said, the terms of reference for the inquiry gives solid grounds for optimism that this inquiry will shed light on one of the least distinguished chapters in the public life of this State. On first reading, the terms of reference give sufficient latitude to allow the tribunal establish the full medical and political facts of the scandal. But the insistence on an interim report after 20 days of oral hearings and the very specific range of questions in the terms of reference mean that the tribunal is not overburdened with luck this tribunal could be a worthy successor, not to the beef tribunal, but to the Whiddy and Stardust inquiries, both of which went a long way to assuaging public concern.
The real scandal is that it has come to this; that a tribunal of inquiry is necessary to establish facts which must already be known in the Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB), in the Department of Health and, perhaps, in other State agencies. The hepatitis C scandal is not just about the manner in which the BTSB administered contaminated products to its clients; it is also underlines a fundamental lack of accountability in public administration. It is already abundantly clear that the management and, more importantly, the supervision of the BTSB was grossly inadequate. It is clear that the expert committee established by the Minister for Health had not been given all the necessary information before it presented its report on the affair and it is clear that all the facts of the case were not properly ventilated before the Dail.
Given this background, the Government's decision to allow the public interest to be specifically represented at the Tribunal is welcome. This should help the Tribunal to establish how the normal chain of public accountability failed so lamentably in this case. The Government will no doubt be relieved by the favourable response to the terms of reference by Positive Action, the main group representing infected women. It deserves credit for framing terms of reference which meet the precise needs of those infected. But this is only part of the story: this Government remains vulnerable to the charge that it has acted in a mean-spirited way towards the late Mrs Brigid McCole and the other victims. The Government, and Mr Noonan in particular, still have much explaining to do in today's Dail debate and again before the tribunal.