Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

As the Taoiseach has just told us, the Cabinet discussed today the draft terms of reference of the scoping inquiry into the scandal of non-disclosure in CervicalCheck. Reports indicated that the scoping inquiry will look at the outsourcing of services and the background to non-disclosure. However, the grave concern and public alarm about CervicalCheck and the audit testing remains, and we are no closer to the truth.

This day last week, I raised with the Taoiseach a number of serious concerns about the responses then under way, and little has improved on that front since then. As of yesterday, as the Taoiseach has indicated, there were 11,000 calls, 8,000 people had requested a callback and only 2,686 have received it. That left 5,000 people still waiting for a callback. Many people have been referred to their general practitioners, GPs, but GPs are contacting us to tell us that they have not been properly informed as to what to tell them. What has the Minister told GPs, and what additional resources have they been given?

The key question from a patient safety perspective, however, is whether the cervical cancer screening programme was and is currently within acceptable parameters, both in administering the tests and, as importantly, interpreting the results. Vicky Phelan's case was that her 2011 screening test was wrongly interpreted. On proper reading interpretation, she should have been referred for further treatment. As we understand it, the HSE set out a CervicalCheck clinical audit to examine the screening history of all cases of cervical cancer, including Vicky Phelan's case. Of the 1,482 cases notified, 442 cases - 29% - were flagged for review of one or more elements. The most common review was of the smear test due to its known inherent limitations.

Tony O'Brien confirmed last week that in 208 cases the review team's interpretation of the smear result was different from the original reading of it. Further, he said that the difference in interpretation in those cases would have led to a different clinical escalation in 175 cases or a recommendation for an earlier repeat smear in 33 cases. The figure of 208 cases out of 1,482 is 14% of the total, or approximately one in seven. To be clear, that is 14% mistakenly read, not 14% mistakes, due to the inherent limitations of the screening system itself.

The key question for those women that the Taoiseach is telling to go back and have repeat smear tests if they are concerned and who are due to have normal clinical smears this week is whether this 14% reader error falls within acceptable or normal test standards. That is the question I am asking the Taoiseach to clarify now for the thousands of women and their families who are fearful about smear tests they have had and concerned about having it repeated. Is a 14% misreading level an acceptable international standard?

See this speech in context