Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. Deputy O'Sullivan made some remarks in 2008 during the debate on this matter. I went back to the transcript to see what others had said and it was interesting that one Member, who was not known to me, said this was a decision that was penny wise and pound foolish and shortsighted. I suppose we are now seeing the appropriateness of that remark - during a Second Stage debate I think - in terms of the prospective cost to the taxpayer. As members of this committee, it should be important for us to note that the precise nature of the settlement of the case in respect of the extraordinarily brave Vicky Phelan was met by the US lab and not the taxpayer. That is the first thing and it is an interesting point for us to note in the context of the discussion on a redress scheme being established. Deputy Cullinane hit the nail on the head when he asked whether the laboratory will meet the cost. Is there redress for the State? These things will have to be discussed in the context of the HSE or the unit appearing before this committee. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I am acutely aware that if wrong has been done - clearly it has - the committee, I am sure, does not wish to interfere in the establishment of facts, which is not for this committee, respectfully. To Deputies Cullinane and MacSharry I say I am all for the HSE coming before the committee and answering questions on this subject matter, but at the same time we have to give, as I think the Taoiseach said, space and time in order that we can actually make the decision. That decision will be made by Members of the Dáil in consultation with the leaders and spokespersons and that is the most appropriate thing. With that small caveat, I entirely support the call by Deputy Cullinane.

Finally, I think there are some questions that are perhaps not appropriate for this committee but I will put them out there anyway. The overall cost to the taxpayer versus the provision of the service in this State was the point I read from the 2008 debate that I found most interesting. It was a very common theme across most Members of the House, other than the Government, of course, but that is unsurprising. The point was whether we had the capacity to provide this service within the State in an efficient manner. As someone who looked at the options that are available to the women of this country in terms of the results of the smear tests, it is quicker to send them away. There is a question there as to whether it might take longer but cost less and whether it is something that is extraordinarily time-sensitive in the context of this screening process taking place. These are questions that we have to ask about the remit of this committee and whether it might not be more appropriate for us to at least have a State agency, a State-owned agency or a firm operating in this State to be able to come before us in the future, for instance, if we were to vary the policy as a result of the controversy surrounding this particular matter.