I am reminded of the old advertisements for Daz and Surf, but I will leave that where it is.

I am sure the Taoiseach will join me in expressing shock and frustration at the reports in the media today which suggest that a large number of previously missed abnormalities have been uncovered in the course of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' review the results of smear tests carried out under the CervicalCheck programme over a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the limitations of a review which is not blind, these reports are very worrying. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was supposed to report on this over a year ago, as the Taoiseach will be aware. However, this review has been dogged by difficulties and delays and it is only today that any light has been shed on what was uncovered but even today, we do not have the full picture. The initial reports in The Irish Times this morning are quite worrying in that sources have indicated that "a large number" of previously missed abnormalities have been uncovered during the review. A large number, possibly hundreds, have been uncovered but we do not know the details as yet. If these sources are to be believed, it is possible that a significant number of women screened under the CervicalCheck programme were told that they did not need follow-up smear tests but later developed cancer. One such woman is Fiona Prendergast, whose case has been covered in the media previously. I am sure it is very difficult for her widower, children, family and friends to read this news today.

They have been advised of the result and they are coming to terms with it, but leaks like this do not help to give them any comfort. On the day the Taoiseach issued an apology in this Chamber, they received a letter about Fiona, who sadly died in 2015, telling them that had a referral to colposcopy been made in 2009, it is likely the cancer diagnosed in 2014 would have been prevented.

I want the Taoiseach to know they are watching today, just as they watched his apology last month. As public representatives, we have a duty to uncover the truth about what went wrong with the CervicalCheck programme, but we also have a duty to ensure confidence is maintained in public health services such as the current cervical screening programme. To do that, we need to be briefed on this report as a matter of urgency. It is important for the women and their families that this report is published in full without delay.

Will the Taoiseach request that the Minister for Health publishes this report today and briefs the Opposition on its contents? Will the Taoiseach take immediate steps to ensure that he, the Government and the screening service address the need to restore confidence in the screening programme? Women using this service know, and I know, that no screening programme is perfect but they deserve to have confidence in that service. Will the Taoiseach join me in calling for the leaking of sections of this report and the drip-feeding of this important information into the public domain to stop immediately? It is not fair to these families to have this information drip-fed into the media. We have had numerous apologies and assurances this would not happen again and here we are and it has happened again.

I am sorry to hear about the experience of the family the Deputy mentioned. I am not familiar with the case and I do not want to comment on it for those reasons, but I extend my condolences and sympathies to the family she mentioned. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, RCOG, audit report has not been shared with Government as of yet. I have not seen it and it is not with Government. I agree with the Deputy that we should condemn any leaking of documents such as this to the media. We agreed with the patient advocates and with the 221+ support group that this report would be handled differently from the CervicalCheck audit. Therefore, what is happening at the moment is individual women are being told about their individual results and they are being offered meetings. Some have accepted meetings and others have been happy to receive the information by writing. We agreed that this report would not be published and would not be made available until each of those women had the opportunity to have that meeting first because they are the ones who should hear it first. It should not go to politicians or the media first. We do not have the report and it will not be published until every woman has had the chance to hear about her own results and to have a meeting if she wants one. Once that has been done, it will go to the Minister for Health and then it will be published. At that point a briefing will be provided for the Opposition parties.

It is important to point out a few things about the screening process once again because this will require a lot of explanation and interpretation. We have all heard in this House on many occasions and we all understand that cervical screening is not diagnostic. We all know that but I am not sure we all fully appreciate what that means in practice. In practice that means that if 1,000 healthy women are screened, roughly 12 cases where there are abnormalities will be picked up. In roughly eight cases those abnormalities will be missed and that is to be expected. What happens with the 12 cases is they get early diagnosis and treatment and that is a good thing. What happens with the eight cases of missed abnormalities is they do not get early diagnosis and treatment. They get picked up on a subsequent screen or they get picked up when they have symptoms. That is how screening works. It is a lost opportunity that in those cases it was not picked up earlier but it is not in itself a failing in the screening programme or negligence. That has not fully come across even two years later. In any screening programme, even the best in the world, there will be a very high number of false negatives and abnormalities missed. It does not mean the screening programme is inferior to any other screening programme in the world or lesser. That needs to be explained again and again because I am not sure it is always fully understood.

It does not need to be explained to me. It was me who explained to the then director general of the HSE that the leaflet it issued was somewhat misleading in that it said no screening programme is ever 100%. What does that sound like to the Taoiseach? The leaflet said there may be a small occasion for error.

I say the following as a woman who uses the service. When a woman goes to have a smear test done, she talks to her doctor, who explains it. We understand that no screening test is perfect, that no screening test is 100% accurate and that women are waiting on the letters to come, as are families who are grieving. They will have read in the newspaper today that possibly hundreds of people are affected by this. That is an insult to them and their grief. I fully appreciate that the Taoiseach is a doctor and that he understands this. I use the service and I understand it, and if the other women who use the service did not understand it, they understand it now because they have had it explained to them on many occasions. I am talking about the potentially hundreds of women, as mentioned in the newspaper, who are waiting on the letters.

Can the Taoiseach do anything to accelerate the process? Will he talk directly to those affected? Fiona's widower, friends and family are watching the debate and want to know what will be done to get the information into the public domain in the proper way, and not drip-fed or leaked. We were told that would not happen again but it has happened today.

This will be put into the public domain but not until every woman who agreed to participate in the audit has had the chance to get her results, the offer of a meeting has been made, and the meeting has happened. I think the Deputy will agree that is the way it should happen. That is why the Government has not received the report-----

It is on the front page of the newspaper today.

We have not received it and it has not gone to the Government. We will not receive it until each of the women has had an opportunity to hear the results for herself. After that, it will be published, but only at that point. Of course, a briefing will be made available for Deputies.

I sincerely hope that, given that this is the second audit and is different from the previous audit, we will all handle the matter better this time, and I count myself among those who need to handle it better this time. When we say it is not 100% or perfect, that does not fully explain a screening programme. For every 100 healthy women who are screened - not just for cervical screening but for other programmes, too - in approximately 12 cases, anomalies will be picked up and can be followed up, while approximately eight will be missed. If looked at it again, those eight cases might be picked up. We expect to see a high level of discordance and of false negatives. It should not be a surprise or shock at this stage for anyone following the issue that there are hundreds of cases of discordance, because there will be. That is not at all the same as negligence or a flawed programme.