In the wake of the CervicalCheck scandal, officials from the HSE and CervicalCheck appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts and in evidence CervicalCheck's programme manager, Mr. John Gleeson, denied that anyone in CervicalCheck has misled the State Claims Agency by informing it that the women who are the subject of the audit had been informed. This happened in the context of preparation for Vicky Phelan's trial.

The State Claims Agency has now informed members of the Committee of Public Accounts that Mr. Gleeson's assertion, to use its phrase, does not tally with the facts. It says that it was in fact told by CervicalCheck that all of the women subject to the audit had been informed. We know that this was not true. It also emerges that, in fact, it was Mr. John Gleeson himself who had given this misinformation to the State Claims Agency. We can only conclude that Mr. Gleeson did not tell the truth to an Oireachtas committee. Indeed, Vicky Phelan's solicitor has described all of this, as the Taoiseach will know, as a "cover-up".

Excuse me, Deputy. This is not a law chamber. We cannot make the sort of assertions that the Deputy has just made against somebody outside the House. It is contrary to the well established precedence of the House.

Just so the Ceann Comhairle understands-----

I perfectly understand what the Deputy is saying and it is perfectly out of order.

Let me perfectly give the Ceann Comhairle another piece of information to accompany what I have said to the Taoiseach. It is that the response from the State Claims Agency, to which I have referred and in which it said that the assertion made at the committee does not tally with the facts, is on the record and in the possession of a committee of the Oireachtas, so these are not facts or assertions of my making. Can I put my question to the Taoiseach?

Please, put your question.

Thank you. A question then arises on the investigation being carried out by Dr. Gabriel Scally. How can Dr. Scally have confidence in carrying out a thorough investigation in the spirit of transparency that we were promised when it now emerges that CervicalCheck and senior officials, far from acting in a spirit of transparency, are, in fact, it seems continuing with what Vicky Phelan's solicitor described as a "cover-up"?

I understand there is a dispute about the facts here. CervicalCheck believed that the information had been passed on to the patients because it had been passed on to their treating clinicians. We know now that in most cases the information was not passed on, but it was in some, whereas the State Claims Agency asserts that it was informed that the information had been passed on to all patients. Where there is a dispute about the facts, we need an inquiry. That is precisely why we established the Scally inquiry, the terms of reference of which were agreed and welcomed by all the parties. I appeal to the Deputy to allow Dr. Scally to do his work and carry out that inquiry. The Deputy has form in making false allegations in this Chamber and I would encourage her not to do that.

No, I do not.

Yes, you do.

No, I do not.