Mr. Stephen Teap:

I know Ms Walsh is dying to jump in. When I talk about these matters, I try to base my explanations on fact. When Irene was diagnosed with cervical cancer in September 2015, she had already participated in CervicalCheck on invitation on two occasions. She knew exactly what cervical screening was about. She knew what going for a smear test meant. She understood the information that would be gathered. The day she was told she had cervical cancer, she immediately asked how it was not picked up by her smear test. That was the first question she asked. I did not have a clue what she was talking about, but she knew. I now know what she meant. The explanation that was given by her consultant at the time was that screening has limitations because it does not pick up everything. It was suggested to us that when Irene went for her smear, it might have been taken next to the tumour rather than on the tumour, or that the number of cells on the slide might not have been adequate to determine the reading. That was the explanation we were given, essentially. I know for a fact from the independent review of Irene's slide which was carried out that the opposite actually happened. The suggestion that was made to us was not reflective of what was actually the case. I know that Irene's case does not fall within the limitations of screening - it falls outside those limitations. People need to understand this can happen. We must remember that six or seven people have gone through the High Court to prove their own independent reviews. The laboratories have admitted liability. Human error is a factor. Error is a factor in the breach of duty of care to women with regard to screening.