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

I do not understand one aspect of what happened when the quality assurance people - this predates Dr. Doherty - were going over. If they had been sending off a truckload of smears to a woman in Honolulu or wherever, one might be able to see how they got away with it. I cannot understand how the accreditation body, in its official remit under the HSA, was able to go to Sandyford without noticing that smears were going to the guy in Salford. I cannot understand how it was able to look at documentation - as I explained earlier, I assume that files and standards, etc., were examined - before retrospectively deeming him competent solely on the basis of the evidence it had to hand. This happened in the middle of an absolute crisis in cervical screening. It all seems generous, which is one way of describing it. I do not know what the best word to use is. I find it unorthodox. I find it very strange. Would there be any reason a private company would think it was okay? Why would it not bother getting accreditation for a test? Is that common? I know that one does not need to be accredited in order to open a laboratory. All the guidelines I have read regarding what we were going to do under CervicalCheck or BowelScreen are great. We were going to do great things. When those guidelines are whittled down into a tender document, it is often the case that ISO accreditation is required. When the accreditation body goes into a laboratory, does it have a remit to point out that it was not accredited yesterday when it did a test on behalf of the State? Is that its business?