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

I asked earlier for any paperwork relating to how this decision was made. It does not make sense that the accreditation body would do this. It would make sense to me if it were done all the time, because then I could say it was part of a standard approach. The accreditation body has been in operation since 1985. It seems that in the middle of a serious health crisis involving cervical cancer screening, it decided to tick this box for a private company, thereby deeming that in the accreditation body's expert opinion - looking back - the laboratory was competent and everything was suitable. I do not buy it on the basis of what would happen if I operated a laboratory like this. As a pharmacist, my understanding is that if the contract says "ISO accreditation", that is what we pay for and that is what we get. My understanding was that the accreditation board, under the care of the HSA, was independent. I am not saying it is not independent. It is supposed to accredit. I understood it would accredit what was in front of it, and that there would be no scope for any flexibility or generosity with regard to accreditation. When the State signs a contract with a specific standard in it, I assume that is what we get and what the people get. We have found out that the stuff in the US was going to Honolulu and the stuff in Sandyford was going to Manchester. The guys who were auditing did not notice. We do not know what these lads were doing when the quality assurance people were going over. I am bewildered regarding what they did during the quality assurance visits. It seems that a massive amount was going to Honolulu and other places. I assume the service providers who are in charge of the contracts are supposed to make sure the people are getting what they are paying for. Is that Mr. McCallion's job? Whose job is it?