I call Deputy Róisín Shortall.

On the Scally report, most parties agreed to the scoping inquiry model on the grounds that this was likely to be the fastest way of getting to the facts of the situation. People want the facts relating to the cytology labs, information related to matters such as the tendering process, the nature of the contracts, the accuracy rates and whether one laboratory might have a higher than average rate of false negatives. Those basic facts from which everything else flows need to be put into the public arena The Taoiseach himself drew a distinction between what he called negligent and innocent false negatives. That is a very important point in respect of how we proceed.

It is worrying that the report published yesterday talks about that area as being in the fourth module of the exercise which Dr. Scally is undertaking. Surely that information should be produced first because in its absence, the women affected are left in the dark. They do not know whether their case is as the result of negligence or not. Will the Taoiseach consider discussing that with Dr. Scally and seeking that factual information and the data to be made available as early as possible?

It is important that we have those data as soon as possible because they are at the crux of several issues. The two key issues are those of open disclosure and why that did not happen properly and whether the laboratories were up to standard. We need answers to both of those questions and I am keen that we have them as soon as possible. It is one of the modules under the Scally inquiry. Dr. Scally says he can complete that by the end of the summer and as soon as it is available it will be provided.

It is the fourth module and it should be the first.

However, it is important to bear in mind that there is a separate piece of work being done by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. They are looking at every individual smear test, each slide of the women affected, to try to determine where abnormalities were missed and whether they were abnormalities that should not have been missed and whether they were negligent or innocent errors. They are saying that this is a big job. We had hoped it could be done within a few weeks but they are telling us it will take a few months. They are the experts, the cytologists and pathologists who know how to do this, and they are saying that it will be a bigger job than anticipated.

Which labs are being investigated?

We cannot get into a debate on that. I call Deputy Broughan.