Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

No, I will answer the question a different way. I have spoken about the error I think I made before. I am not sure it would have worked if I had tried this but, however long I am in politics and however long after politics, I will always regret that I did not request a bit of time. We were operating. I have to take the findings of the Scally report on board too. I respectfully suggest they are more broadly applicable in this House than simply to me, but I am willing to accept my part. What needed to happen was that I needed to urge people to take a few days to think on it.

This is not a go at anyone as it is the way this place works. On the idea that I was handed new information as I walked into the Dáil Chamber and then presented with this dilemma, if I told the Dáil, I would have caused worry and if I did not, then it would be claimed I misled it. This is a frenzied environment. I am the Minister and should have tried to call a halt to all of it. I remain to be convinced it would have worked but I should have tried to.

I do not wish to talk about people who are not here. However, Dr. Gráinne Flannelly has done much good work for screening and tackling cervical cancer. That should never be taken from her or the people who worked in the management of the programme. On this I agree with Deputy Micheál Martin. These people helped build our screening programme with my predecessors and saved lives.

I could not, however, have confidence – it did not matter whether I did because women did not –because an audit was overseen that was botched. Will the Chairman understand my position on those days when I was asking basic questions but not getting the answers? How many other people are in Vicky Phelan’s situation? The inability of that organisation to give me that information fed into the general worry, which is one of the issues which Deputy Lisa Chambers and I have discussed at some length.

I continue to reflect regularly about CervicalCheck and what could have been done better by me, by my Department, by the HSE and by this institution, as well as by media and public commentary. There are lessons for all of us. I accept my part in it for definite. I also clearly hear the words of the patient advocates pointing out that this is all grand but can we ensure something good comes out of this to try to eradicate this awful disease.

One of Dr. Scally’s key recommendations was that the audit should be paused. I believe that was entirely appropriate. Audit is a good process but this one was not executed in any way that was appropriate. Dr. Scally did call for it to be paused. I recently read a report on the front page of a newspaper in which a medical negligence lawyer suggested the programme had been paused to stop future litigation. The audit has been paused for no reason other than to implement Dr. Scally’s report and address the concerns expressed by women. We now have established an expert group, which is meeting to work out how one properly designs an audit which works for women and the programme. That work is under way and the audit will be recommenced then in a way in which women, as well as patients in general, can have confidence.