Written question AQW 46387/22-27
Written question by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 May 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 46387/22-27
- Department
- Department of Health
- Business
- To the Minister of Health
- Assembly identifier
- Document 484972
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Health to detail the cost of each commissioned report related to the cervical cancer screening issues in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, including the (i) RCPATH Consulting Report; (ii) Southern Health and Social Care Trust Cervical Cytology Review - Activity and Outcomes Report; (iii) Cervical Cancers in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust Area; (iv) Independent expert opinion on findings of the Cervical Screening Review relating to the cervical cytology laboratory in the Southern Health Social Care Trust; (v) Independent Review of the Quality Assurance Arrangements for Cervical Screening in Northern Ireland; (vi) Summary Learning Report; and (vii) Summary Report on Issues Related to Northern Ireland Cervical Screening Programme.
117 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.82 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 06:51 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.