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

One of the major concerns is the audit of the two-to-one cases; the language used included misreading and obvious cancer cells on the slides. This process has been ogoing ten years and there is a 25% to 30% limitation rate. Has it not improved over ten years? Has anything been done to reduce it to 19% or 20%? It seems strange that anything with a limitation rate has not improved over the years? Is it the case that nothing has changed? When the screening programme was being designed, were there slides with obvious cancer cells that were used as examples?

There is a major concern that the slides which have been reviewed - I have not seen them and I would not be qualified to examine them - were riddled with very obvious cancer cells. Perhaps that is just media reporting. When CervicalCheck was in its genesis, was it normal that within the 30% there were people like those with whom we are dealing now?