Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

It is important - we probably all have done it - to start by acknowledging the brave campaigners, such as Vicky Phelan and those who went public, but also the quite sizeable number, with whom some of us engaged, who did not go public but where information was fed back and forth. All of them should be considered as having done the State some service. Even though we are in a difficult position in terms of the screening programme, it has been essential that we know we have a screening programme with a failure in it if we are to make sure that it is robust into the future. It must be remembered that had it not been for the bravery of Vicky Phelan and her refusal to sign that confidentiality clause, we might not have known anything about this entire scandal.

The priority in all of this has to be the women concerned, and we have to ensure that everything possible is done for them, and with them. The idea that the State would pursue any of these women in any kind of an aggressive manner, as we saw displayed with Vicky Phelan and in other cases, is unacceptable, and I am not sure it is entirely concluded. Despite what has been said, for example, about the slides being released, and some women looked for those slides in April and May last, some of the women who make up the 221+ group had to go to the High Court in December. I kept raising that particular issue. I was told at the Committee of Public Accounts that the matter would be turned around in 22 days, and it was not. The women went to the High Court on 20 December and the HSE committed to provide the slides in the format that was sought. That was a useable format from the point of view of some of the cases that would have to be taken. They went back to the court for mention on 18 January and still the slides had not been provided. I was talking to one of the people today. The slides were provided on Monday last, 4 February, and they had to go to the court to get that. We were told that there would be only 22 days of a turnaround. That was a less than honest approach. We were misled by the HSE in respect of some of this.

In the midst of all this, we are looking at the ongoing case and reading the newspaper coverage of Ruth Morrissey's appearance in court. It is the kind of thing that undermines the rebuilding of confidence when there is a question mark, for example, about whether it was the correct slide she had.

The Taoiseach made commitments here in the Dáil that no woman would have to repeat what Vicky Phelan had gone through in the courts. I wonder where the Taoiseach got the advice to make that statement because while one component of this relates to the non-disclosure, other components relate to the work of the laboratories. Whether the State would have the legal standing to have made that commitment is something that needs to be clarified here. A commitment was made and people took that at face value. It was never going to be possible. The Taoiseach must come back and put on the record exactly what advice was given allowing that to be said, which gave an assurance that may well not have been an assurance that could have been given in a fair and honest way.

I welcomed the Scally report. It was an excellent and comprehensive report. It established many of the facts and the truths about CervicalCheck. It has gone a long way to answering many of the questions we all have had over the months. Most important, Dr. Scally met the women and their families and he listened to them.

With regard to forms of communication, if one asks people to name seven different means of communication listening tends to be left off that list. People hear but they do not always listen. Dr. Scally definitely listened in a very meaningful way. He was quite definitive in his report and he lifted the lid on a highly paternalistic culture which he said bordered on the misogynistic with regard to many of the 30 consultants who were involved in these cases. Stephen Teap said that in some respects, there was a God complex.

Since the report I have spoken with women who told me they have lost confidence in their doctor or consultant, and it was mainly due to how they had been communicated with, how they were dismissed and how they had continuously raised their concerns without getting a fair hearing; they were not listened to. When these women tried to source other doctors or consultants, some were unwilling to take the women on as patients. Despite the fine words we have heard in this House, the women were left to their own devices in sourcing alternative medical cover - that is a doctor - for themselves. When we talk about a package of care and help and all the rest, I believe that those of us on the outside who are not personally experiencing this would have expected that kind of issue to have been addressed and overcome. I have met women who had all sorts of difficulties and they tell me that they sourced some of their treatments in other jurisdictions.

I put it to the Minister that apologies are very hollow when the apology is not underpinned or matched against practical assistance. Such assistance would make those who have been affected feel that they actually matter. When we consider the awful scandal in retrospect, lessons have to be learned about what was put in place and if it really met with what was expected or with what was articulated to be available.

I will now turn to the issues of the compensation promised, the HSE and non-disclosure. The compensation has to happen in reality. I really want the Minister to hear this particular point: I am aware of women who cannot meet the cost of having their slides independently assessed. Some women are being asked for upfront payments by solicitors and other women are trying to pay by instalment, for example perhaps €100 per week. Some who are in that situation are struggling to make ends meet, and they are stressed and worried about their own health. They need to be given assurances about when that compensation will be paid in order that they can have their slides independently tested. That has to happen or there is no point in making apologies. That is a very practical thing that is currently an impediment.

We are all aware of the number of laboratories that were used, but some labs were subcontracted. I understand that Dr. Scally discovered that this was much more extensive than was first thought. Will the Minister put on record just how many labs were there, and what were those labs? If we are to build up trust we need to know that. Let us not be finding things out by drip feed. We need to know what the situation was in that regard. What was the quality control around that subcontracting? When did that information come to light? When did the Minister find out about this information?

CervicalCheck, with all its faults and failures, is an incredibly important screening programme that saves lives. It is important that we say to people they should engage with the programme, but when we say it we must make sure the trust is rebuilt on the other side in order that people can have confidence there are checks and balances. People must be assured that the level of quality control is such that their results are as robust as humanly possible. We talk a lot about open disclosure. We have been dealing with it at the Committee of Public Accounts in the context of changing the culture. There is a €2.6 billion contingent liability for the health service. If, for example, we were to strip out the legal component of that - and I do not say cases should not be defended where they should be defended - we have to put in place a system where people can put their hands up if there is a failure, and the failure is remedied rather than having to rely on people like Vicky Phelan taking a court case and not allowing herself to be gagged on the results of the court case. There has to be an honesty about it and the system must be put in place that allows for open disclosure.

See this speech in context