Kate O'Connell (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish Mr. Connaghan the best of luck in performing his role. Many members of the committee were members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Future of Healthcare. When we hear Mr. Connaghan talk about geo-alignment and clinicians in directorship roles, many of us get very excited about that prospect. In particular, Deputy Bernard J. Durkan is very excited about geo-alignment. I genuinely wish Mr. Connaghan the best of luck in that regard.

I refer to Professor Scally's letter that was put into the public domain yesterday. As a member of the committee, the people concerned have been before us since after 10 a.m. Obviously, there is value in the conversation. In no way am I trying to shut down any conversation about the CervicalCheck scandal, or whatever we want to call it, but, as indicated by Mr. Breslin in his exchange with Deputy Alan Kelly, there are only 24 hours in the day. He was answering calls late last Thursday night. When we are questioning whether people are on holidays and so on, the committee might take on a responsibility to perhaps pause for a moment and let people in the Department and the HSE work with Professor Scally who is very well qualified. I have heard nobody criticise him in his role or his level of competence. It is not as if we have been told that this issue will be referred to in 2020. We have been told it will be referred back by the end of June. I understand the preliminary report is due to be presented in a couple of weeks. While I understand the value for the public and committee members in extracting information, I wonder about the material impact of such sessions in the overall investigation. I also think that discussing the issue in this forum at this time may be contributing to a lack of confidence in the smear programme which, as we all know from the evidence, has actually saved lives since its introduction. This is my own view. Perhaps we might discuss it when all of the contributions to the committee have concluded. I support what Professor Scally said in his letter. Perhaps we might pause and reflect on the issue until the interim report comes out.

I want to focus on auditing. My understanding is a fundamental principle of auditing involves what one does with the information when one receives it. Mr. Connaghan will be very familiar with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence from his time in the United Kingdom. It is also used as the standard for many of us in our practice. At the heart of clinical audit is clinical governance. It involves reviewing notes and, fundamentally, seeking ways to serve the patient better. That is what appears to have been lost.

I am asking about the person who was responsible for designing the audit process. Dr. O'Keeffe referred to the process that was set up. It seems very strange that when the audit process started, what would be done with the information when it was received was not considered. How did that happen in the clinical audit process? Who is responsible for not designing the process correctly? Perhaps whoever answers the question will state whether a similar non-ideal audit process is happening in, perhaps, BreastCheck and BowelScreen.