The provision of cancer services is a matter of very serious concern to a great number of people at the moment. In 2000, the House debated a report on the employment of locum consultants around the country. The then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, committed himself to setting up a working group to examine the structures, criteria and standards that should be in place for the employment of locums. We have heard of concerns in very high profile cases recently about the involvement of locum practitioners. I refer to the case of Rebecca O'Malley and her misdiagnosis. A locum who worked in Galway for six months and who left Galway under a cloud was subsequently employed in Cork. The individual working in Portlaoise was a locum before taking up permanent employment.

What has been the impact of that working report in respect of the implementation of the structures for the employment of locums? What changes were brought into effect? Was there contact between officials in the health services in Galway, who were so concerned about the locum who worked there that they contacted HIQA, and officials in the health services in Cork in respect of the employment of the locum in question?

What happened to the working group set up by the then Minister, Deputy Martin? What are the conditions and why was there a breakdown in communications between health services whereby a locum in one area left under a cloud and was subsequently employed in another?

Locums have always made up a fundamental part of the health service. That has been the case for decades and I am sure the system will continue to operate on that basis. It is a crucial part of providing the services for holidays and for stand-in for the period it takes to employ a consultant. In the general scheme of things, when a consultant appointment comes up many of the consultants who seek posts here are Irish doctors who have been senior registrars here and have gone to hospitals in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia or the United States. There is quite a gap between a vacancy and an appointment. That has always been the case and I do not see how this can be done in a better way.

From where I am looking at the figures, and not being a medical expert, the difficulty with a number of these posts is that it is not attractive for locums to take up these posts, especially in the small centres. In most of these instances very few people applied for the posts. I believe there was difficulty getting somebody to take up the post in Portlaoise, but that is not unusual either. In the main centres these posts are seen as being enormously attractive.

As I understand it, there was contact with the Health Information and Quality Authority. It followed up and found out where the individuals had gone. In a number of these cases that we have looked at recently there was medical contact and contact between the HSE and Galway and Cork. In some cases the consultants might have gone further afield also. If memory serves me, one of the briefings I received stated that when the consultant went out of the country the authority endeavoured to contact the authorities in that country — I do not know if this was successful in that. The procedures are in place——

Were they carried out?

——for the control and monitoring of locums. I do not want to give an impression that the removal of locums from the system can happen. Locum appointments are part of the structure. The aim of the group set up by Deputy Martin when he was Minister for Health and Children was to make sure there were standards in place for locum services. They are in place, but that does not always mean one will get a suitable person to fill locum appointments.

I do not suggest the system can work without locums. The question related to whether the terms set out in the working group report were implemented and whether there was communication between the health service in Galway and the hospital in Cork where the individual in question worked.

Every Member has referred to the professionalism of Dr. Ann O'Doherty. I listened to the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, speak last night on the report and review carried out by Dr. O'Doherty, who did an enormous amount of work in a very short time. The Minister stated on the record last night that she is not entitled to see the report. She is the Minister for Health and Children and she requested and directed that this review be carried out. She stated that the problem had arisen due to a breakdown in communications, which appears to be the latest excuse. Can somebody explain why the Minister for Health and Children is not entitled to see Dr. O'Doherty's report? I am sure she does not require legal editing of a report. She is the Minister for Health and Children and the report is prepared for her perusal, yet she cannot see it.

The Taoiseach and the Minister committed themselves to publishing this report. Why is that not happening for the benefit of everybody? The same situation occurred in the Leas Cross incident in which Deputy O'Dowd was involved for many years. It was more than 12 months before that report was published. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children have given a commitment on this, yet the Minister stated in the House last night that she is not entitled to see the report. Is that in the interests of patients who have suffered great trauma?

In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Harney, I understand that is not what she said. She said that legal clearance of the report is required. In all these reports——

She said: "I am not entitled to see the report."

She said she was not entitled to see it.

In all these cases, when a report is prepared professionally in this way——

It is a whitewash.

——and names of people and their careers are mentioned, legal clearance is needed on those issues first.

What about the patients?

Time and again reports in which names have been redacted for legal reasons have gone to committees of the House. All the Minister said was that it required legal clearance.

It could go on for years.

I understand Dr. Ann O'Doherty's report is nearly complete. She has done an extraordinary job going through over 3,700 mammograms in a very short period of time. At the same time, she carried out this review.

You will delay it as long as you can.

Everybody has an interest in getting to the bottom of what happened so it is important that we see the report. In that context, I was advised this morning that the final special clinic was provided by Professor Arnie Hill yesterday evening for all the women who were contactable and available. Only a very small number of women did not attend and alternative arrangements have been made for their surgical review on a priority basis at the earliest date. Every effort is being made to contact a small number of women yet to be contacted, including visiting known addresses for these women. A small number are believed to have physically left the jurisdiction and a significant effort is being made to contact them.

Of the group seen last night, some need further diagnostic investigations, similar to those who were seen last Saturday. This is being organised as a matter of urgency. For the small number of women who still need to be surgically reviewed because they were unable to attend either clinic on 24 and 27 November, the HSE will ensure they are accommodated for such review at the earliest opportunity.

It took a long time to light that fire.

It will be a different story tomorrow.