Debate contribution: Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 3 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5213622
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In beginning my contribution to the debate, I want, on behalf of the SDLP, to recognise Ladies with Letters. Those women have shown extraordinary courage and determination. They have carried this issue from local communities through to councils and up to the Assembly, and they have rightly refused to be silenced or brushed aside at times when this place was collapsed or while it stands. Their persistence has exposed not only the truth of what happened in the Southern Trust but the deeper truth that, too often, our health service fails to listen until it is forced to do so. This scandal has laid bare something far beyond the failure of individual screeners. It has revealed a system that is crumbling while we have watched on. No amount of whitewashing, spin or polished press releases from the Department can disguise that reality, and the public can see right through that. The women affected certainly see through it. The trust between patients and the health service, which takes years to build, has been shaken to its core. The families of Erin Harbinson from Tandragee and Lynsey Courtney from Portadown, whose lives were so tragically lost as a result of this scandal, also see through that. Those who developed cancer or had precancerous cells identified can see through it. We are told that the report will be published on Thursday, and all of us here welcome that. I pose this question to the Minister: if the report confirms that there were serious failings and shows that systems were broken, that warnings were ignored and that oversight was missing, what threshold will he set for supporting a full public inquiry into this most horrendous scandal? How bad does it have to be before we draw a line and say that the public deserve the full truth and not another internal review? The DUP amendment is important. It highlights that, even now, we face further problems: technical failures at the Belfast HPV lab, thousands of tests being sent to England, more delays and more stress for women who are already anxious about their results. That is not just a technical issue. It speaks to a system that has lost resilience, that lurches from one crisis to another and that leaves women bearing the emotional cost of that bureaucratic dysfunction. As a man, I will not fully understand the fear, the anxiety or the deep sense of betrayal that so many women have felt because of the scandal. However, that does not absolve me or any of us from a responsibility to make sure that we learn from it. It is precisely because I will never experience this directly that I have sought to listen more carefully, to speak more honestly and to act more decisively in standing with the women whom I have met as part of their campaign. The safety and dignity of women in our health service is not just a women's issue; it is a matter for all of us. If the Assembly is to mean anything, it must mean that we do not look away when systems fail those whom they are meant to protect. The women who were caught up in this scandal did not ask for heroism, but they have absolutely shown it. They have done what the system could not: they have stood up for the truth. Their courage and steadfast resilience demand that we now do the same. I support the motion and the amendment. I certainly hope that, after we get the report on Thursday, we will see a public inquiry, if it is required.
600 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: 0.05 (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).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.51 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.48 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:47 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.