Yesterday's supplementary report from Dr. Gabriel Scally on the CervicalCheck scandal raises further concerns, while also providing reassurance in relation to quality and standards. It makes some interesting insights and recommendations. There is clearly concern about the number of laboratories which are being used to outsource testing, which is 16 rather than the original six, but Dr. Scally is assured that did not impact on quality. We must reassert that screening programmes are very important. They can help to prolong and save lives. The CervicalCheck programme has saved many lives and has had positive effects in terms of earlier interventions. It has been impactful and we should reassert the importance of the screening programmes.

Since the scandal broke a year ago, commitments were made on a number of issues, primarily the establishment of a compensation tribunal to take the issues out of the courts and the introduction of open mandatory disclosure. There have been significant delays in progressing both. Women have had to go through the courts and endure the trauma and distress of court appearances. We remain unsure of the timeline for the review being undertaken by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the Irish smear tests. It was August originally and it has now slipped back to October. Will the Taoiseach update us on that point?

Those within the 221 group still await reimbursement for the costs involved in having to do their own independent slide reviews, which they were obliged to organise for themselves and was not included in the original support package. In the critical part of his analysis, Dr. Scally makes the point that there is a crying need for a change in approach to the mechanisms used to respond on the rare occasions when harm results from error in screening programmes. He notes:

The legal processes currently in place are deeply unsatisfactory. They convert error into injustice, and then convert that injustice into financial remedy. The process is traumatic and filled with uncertainty for the person at the centre of the legal action and for their family.

He notes that the established legal processes clearly fail to meet the wishes of the patient. A no-fault scheme with dialogue could bring about compensation with "listening, hearing, grace and compassion – and the real hope that what happened in the past shall not happen again". Scally's recommendation on this is central to how the screening programmes go forward in terms of its interaction with patients and those who avail of the screening programmes. There is no question that women caught up in the CervicalCheck scandal have been forced into very traumatic and expensive legal cases in the pursuit of an explanation or apology. Women want to be told the truth. They want to be given an apology and they want reassurance that it will not happen to anyone else.

It is well over a year since the scandal broke. Is Dr. Scally correct that a no-fault compensation approach is the most effective way to deal with this? Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government is prepared to introduce such a no-fault compensation scheme in the context of the CervicalCheck programme? When does the Government believe the tribunal will be established? Can he give the House a timeline for the establishment of a tribunal?

The Taoiseach has three minutes to respond.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. I thank Dr. Scally and his team for their supplementary report, which was published yesterday. It was discussed at yesterday's Cabinet meeting. Reading through the report yesterday, I was struck by the words of one of the women affected by the controversy who is quoted as saying "The only way we can ever fix anything, is by highlighting the failures of the past and fixing them". In many ways that sums up everything we are trying to do, which is to identify the failures of the past, to highlight them and then fix them. That quote contained in Dr. Scally's report is central to this in so many different ways.

The revelations that some of the laboratories outsourced slides to other laboratories is serious and unacceptable. It was not approved and it may have been a breach of contract. It should not have happened and it should have been picked up by CervicalCheck's own quality assurance and management scheme, but clearly was not. It is reassuring, however, that the labs were accredited, albeit one retrospectively, and that Dr. Scally says that there is no reason to believe that those labs were in any way substandard.

On the actions undertaken in the last year, the Scally inquiry was established and has now reported twice. Most people accept that Dr. Scally and his team did a very good job. Had we gone down the commission of investigation route we would probably not have a report, and we would be talking about extensions. Dr. Scally has done a very good job in a relatively short period. A package of supports has been put in place for the 221+ women and their families, including medical cards, experimental medicines and various payments, which now total over €1 million. The Government has decided to introduce the HPV vaccine for boys, which will begin in September. We also decided to move towards primary HPV testing of smears, which is more accurate. We will be among the first countries in the world to do so. Funding has been provided for that in this year's Estimates and the policy decision to do it has been taken.

The Deputy asked about the compensation tribunal. I spoke to the Minister of Health about it this morning. He is very keen to publish that Bill in the next couple of weeks and have it through the Houses before the recess. However, he will require the co-operation of the Joint Committee on Health on this, as in order to get this done in the next five weeks and have it made law by mid-July so that it might be established in the autumn, it will be necessary for the joint committee to waive pre-legislative scrutiny. Both he and I appeal to the members of that committee not to delay this and to please agree to the Minister's request in this case.

The HSE's new policy on open disclosure will be published very soon. The legislation around mandatory disclosure will be introduced in the autumn session.

Why did the Taoiseach not answer the central question which I put to him on the no-fault compensation scheme recommended by Dr. Scally?

I will. I ran out of time.

The Taoiseach did not run out time.

I did.

He just avoided it. It is a tactic, a pattern that the Taoiseach engages in continually. I asked a very basic question on the central point that Dr. Scally made that the screening programmes are crying out for a no-fault compensation scheme because the trauma visited upon the women involved is too severe. They convert error into injustice, and then convert that injustice into financial remedy. The process is traumatic and filled with uncertainty for the person.

It does not take 15 months to discover that. I asked the Taoiseach whether he agreed with Dr. Scally that we should set up such a no-fault compensation mechanism and whether the Government is committed to doing that. It is central to the continuation and the future of screening programmes and how issues like this will be treated in future.

The Taoiseach, again, has a habit of endeavouring to deflect to the Opposition. The Opposition has been nothing but co-operative on this. It is not the Opposition's fault that the legislation on the tribunal was not produced until relatively recently.

The Deputy's time has expired.

The Taoiseach will find the Opposition constructive and co-operative, as we have always been, on this issue. Originally, we had agreed with the Scally inquiry. It was the Minister who caved in and said he was going to have a political investigation; no one else did. He came under pressure from some quarters in the House and he caved in on the floor of the House that night. That is fine, but the Taoiseach should not always try to blame the Opposition for everything.

The Taoiseach to respond.

The Taoiseach made commitments at the time. It is our job to hold him to account in terms of the fulfilment of those commitments and the bringing in of those commitments within a reasonable time.

The Taoiseach to respond.

It is fair to say that mandatory disclosure has now been pushed back well into the autumn in terms of legislation and the tribunal.

The Taoiseach has two minutes. I know it is important. I have to abide by Standing Orders.

It is the best approach but I do not see it coming through by the end of the year, although I hope I am wrong on that.

Deputy Martin is being a little over-sensitive. I did not blame the Opposition for anything and I am not blaming the Opposition for anything on this matter. I did run over time, as did Deputy Martin on two occasions. If the Deputy asks so many questions that he runs over time by several minutes, I do not have the time to answer them.

Answer the question.

Deputy Martin needs to be reasonable in that regard.

Deputy Martin is first.

With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there is a question of reasonableness. If someone runs over time and asks 26 questions, it is not possible to answer them in the time allowed. It is even harder when I am constantly interrupted while trying to answer them.

I will answer if I am allowed to.

Then answer it.

I think moving towards a no-fault compensation scheme is a good idea. It is something that requires consideration. We did not discover that as a Government in recent months or during the past year. We have set up a group to examine this matter and tort reform under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Charlie Meenan. We are waiting for him to come back to us with his suggestions in that regard. This is a good idea. It is something that was in my party's manifesto. It was also in the programme for Government. However, I wish to say two things about it that are important. First, it could apply not only to screening errors but beyond them to vaccine-related injuries and cerebral palsy cases, which are difficult ones as well.

There have been many reports on it.

One thing needs to be considered about a no-fault scheme. Generally, when no-fault schemes are established - they exist in other parts of the world and in Ireland - the awards are quite modest and they are no fault. No fault means that nobody is to blame, nobody is held to account, nobody is deemed negligent and nobody is deemed liable. If we are going to go down that route, we need to understand that because many people are looking for accountability and want to know who made an error. They want that person held to account. That cannot happen with a no-fault scheme, so this needs to be thought through and teased through.

We do understand it. There have been numerous reports on it.