Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I have three further questions, which I will put to Professor Kitchener in one go. He might take notes and then respond. I want his opinions on these three questions; I am not trying to catch him out. First, I do not understand how we did not have three categories of slides and, on reflection and having read the report, the panel really would have been better off if that had been the case. The idea that where slides were not available - reports were issued to women to say that they were concordant - is an error. The panel should reflect on that, and I say so genuinely. I can see why the reviewers did what they did, but there should have been three categories, namely, concordant, discordant and unknown or whatever other name the panel might wish to give it. When a slide is not available, one cannot give an assurance to women that it is concordant. Based on the date and information, that is the conclusion to which the reviewers came, but, in reality, the slide was not available. For future reference, and in this scenario, I am arguing that this was an error. I say that genuinely because several people have come to me and made that argument and a lot us who have reflected on the matter would agree with it. I am interested in Professor Kitchener's opinion in this regard.

I do not have the answers to my other questions. Again, I am seeking Professor Kitchener's opinions on these points. My second question relates to the cervical screening programme in Britain. The quality statement in respect of the 2018-2019 programme, which was published on 21 November 2019, states: "There is generally no accepted or expected level of false negative in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme." On page 11 of the RCOG report it is stated that a 30% false negative rate is an international standard. For the public watching and for confidence levels generally, how do we extrapolate and correlate those two statements? I am asking this question because it seems to be a real issue for people.

My final question is a follow-up to my second question. Ms Marie Culliton, a past president of the Academy of Clinical Science and Laboratory Medicine has stated her view that if some slides which are unavailable for review are classified as concordant, then the 30% rate for negative readings subsequently reclassified as showing high-grade changes has to be incorrect. In other words, the percentage is possibly higher. Does Professor Kitchener agree or disagree with Ms Culliton?