Mr. John Gleeson:

With regard to requests for clarification that have arisen concerning responses provided by me to members' questions at the PAC meeting of 17 May, I am happy to provide this clarification.

At the meeting of May 17, my HSE colleagues and I were asked by Deputy Jonathan O'Brien who told the SCA that all women had been informed and whether this person was in the room. There was no reference to a particular meeting or exchange. As the transcript illustrates, Mr. Connors replied to the Deputy first before, as he can explain, under the impression that the person was not in the room. I, therefore, replied, "No" - first, because I thought there must have been another meeting between the HSE and the SCA at which I was not present and, second, because I would not have made such an unqualified statement. In subsequent explanation and questioning by Deputy O’Brien when he said that the person was a CervicalCheck person, I felt that he must in fact be referring to me. The recent exchanges I had had with the SCA, including telephone calls and teleconferences, concerned a specific court case. I did not recall the specifics of every question and answer during those exchanges but I sought to clarify on two occasions during the PAC meeting what would have been the substance of what I could have said. As the transcript shows, what I tried to say later was that I did not think anyone from CervicalCheck could have said that because it would never have been our understanding. Communications would have issued to the treating clinicians in respect of all women with cytology reviews and we would have believed that the clinician would have communicated with the women as appropriate.

In the letter provided to the PAC subsequent to that on 22 May, which I had sight of after that, the statement "All women whose smear was part of the audit had now been informed or assumed they had been informed by their treating clinicians" and reference to a legal note is, I believe, consistent with what I have said, with what I intended and with the understanding shared with the SCA of what was meant in our exchanges. I certainly did not intend to cause any confusion or lack of clarity or directness. If that was the case, I apologise for it.