Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Scally and his team, including Dr. Denton, for the work they have done in such a short period. There was no need for them to apologise for any perceived delays at all because it was far better for them to do the job thoroughly, given its importance. They are to be complimented on the way they set about doing their work. One could involve oneself in a long tirade about the who, why, where, what and when and still end where one started.

I have a number of questions relating to open disclosure. Do the witnesses think that there was a resistance to full and open disclosure and a culture of resistance to same which may have had a bearing on the degree to which the various professionals responded to their patients? There must be confidence in any system for it to operate properly. I fully appreciate that confidence in the system has been dented and understand why this is so. Regarding the two ladies referred to by Dr. Scally who switched consultants, what was their experience afterwards? Did they have a similar experience or a different one, having changed consultant?

My next question concerns the accuracy of the tests and the screening programme. Do the witnesses think that 80% or 85% accuracy had a bearing on the seriousness with which those examining the slides treated the task? Did the expectation of only 85% accuracy mean that they felt that they did not have to be entirely accurate and could move on? In terms of how the slides are examined, is it better to have two different people examining a slide at different intervals or at the same time, rather than having the same person review his or her own slide? Which is better? I would have thought that examination by a different person would be better, provided that he or she had no prior information on the earlier reading of the slide. In that way, he or she would go about it in an unbiased manner.

How many other countries or jurisdictions have screening programmes similar to the one that operates here and how do those programmes compare? Do they work better than ours? Are they more accurate? What are the comparative statistics in that regard?

Reference was made to inoculation programmes in various countries and the fact that there can be reactions in some cases. Is it possible to identify patients, with any degree of accuracy, who may react to a particular inoculation programme? It would be hugely beneficial to all practitioners if that were possible. Finally, are the witnesses satisfied that the recommendations in the report will be implemented unconditionally? There is no sense in the witnesses having gone to all the trouble to which they went in order to examine the issues if their recommendations are not taken into account and put into operation immediately.