On the same issue, can the Taoiseach explain to us why it is that Ruth Morrissey discovered the fact of this appeal through the media? Can he explain to us how it was that nobody had the decency or the common sense to contact her directly or to contact her legal representative?

Whatever the legal twists and turns of this appeal and whatever way the Government might pursue the laboratory, can we have a guarantee from the Taoiseach that the award made to Ms Morrissey is secure and indemnified? We need that clarity. Certainly, Ms Morrissey and her family deserve no less than that assurance. Why was there no contact with her in advance? Why does Ms Morrissey read of this news in the newspaper? What about the award made to her? Is it safe? Is it secure?

I am advised that the laboratory has indicated that it would appeal this case in open court some weeks ago. That was reported in the newspapers at the time. State counsel contacted counsel for Ruth Morrissey last Thursday and Friday, which was before the story appeared in the newspapers and contact has been ongoing since then. That contact should happen in private, not here in the Chamber. It is absolutely the intention of the State to give Ms Morrissey and her husband an assurance that no matter what happens as a consequence of any appeal, her settlement will be fully protected and that she will have the assurance that that money will be there for her and her family.

Why is the State appealing it?

On the appeal itself, it is important to say that because the laboratories have decided to appeal, an appeal is inevitable. No matter what the State does, there will be an appeal.

The State is not obliged to appeal.

The State's only interest in this is to protect the financial award made to the Morrissey family-----

Why is the State appealing the decision then?

-----and to seek clarification on some important points of law-----

The State was not forced to appeal.

-----the most important of those being the whole issue and test of absolute confidence. Doctors, scientists and cancer specialists have come to us saying that they have real concerns about the test of absolute confidence. They are saying it could undermine our screening programmes and could lead to more false positives and unnecessary biopsies, perhaps even unnecessary hysterectomies and mastectomies. When cancer specialists, scientists and doctors come to us stating they are concerned about this and clarity is required on what "absolute confidence" means, we cannot ignore that.