BTSB board 'not told' of infections

It was reasonable to conclude from the evidence before the tribunal that the decision-making board of the Blood Transfusion Service Board was never informed of the agency's role in the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV through BTSB product, counsel for the Department of Health and Children submitted yesterday.

In a closing statement to the tribunal, Mr Ian Brennan SC said the Department should have been advised by the BTSB board that non-heat-treated Pelican House factor 9 was responsible for infecting seven haemophilia B patients with HIV. "That they did not do so must be attributed to the fact that they did not know."

He described as "outrageous" the allegation by the counsel for the Irish Haemophilia Society that ministerially nominated board members conspired with Department officials to conceal the BTSB's involvement in the matter.

The unsubstantiated accusation that a senior civil servant on the board, Mr Gerry McCartney, who was now deceased, was party to this alleged "State-sponsored concealment" was "monstrous and beyond any reasonable comment", he said.

"I respectfully request the tribunal to clearly vindicate the good name of this civil servant wrongly accused."

Mr Brennan said it was true that two ministers for health, Mr Barry Desmond and Dr Rory O'Hanlon, inadvertently misinformed the Dβil on this matter in 1985 and 1989 respectively. However, he said, both were "entirely blameless" as they were relying on information from Department officials.

That the information was inaccurate was "not acceptable" to the Department or the civil servants concerned.

He stressed the evidence of a former chief executive officer of the BTSB, Mr Ted Keyes, on this matter "can not be relied upon" as it "lacks any certainty".

Mr Keyes suggested that the board of the BTSB was informed of the factor 9 infections. However, Mr Brennan said, "it is submitted that it is not credible that the board, the members of which were people of good standing and who did not have any material interest, would not have apprised the Department had it been so aware".

Earlier, Mr Brennan explained how the Department viewed its relationship with the BTSB and the National Drugs Advisory Board.

He said the Department was not obliged to "second guess" or supervise the work of either agency. To set up "layers of supervision", even if it was possible to do so, would have been to defeat the purposes of establishing such agencies. In the case of the BTSB, Mr Brennan submitted, its "watchdog" was its own board.

Regarding financial support, he said, the Department made "very creditable and reasonable efforts" to assist the BTSB in the difficult economic circumstances of the 1980s.

"There is no evidence before this tribunal," he added, "to suggest that any financial difficulties which the BTSB may have experienced during the period had any adverse effects on product selection or manufacture."

On the State's policy objective of achieving self-sufficiency in blood products, Mr Brennan said the Department was under the impression that the BTSB had the matter in hand, and would achieve the goal by 1985.

He said the Department also held the "reasonable" belief in January 1985 that heat-treated BTSB product would shortly come on stream. The Department should have been informed of a change in that position, he submitted.

The tribunal is to hear applications on costs today before rising to allow the chairwoman to prepare her report.