Debate contribution: Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .

MLA
Ms Diane Forsythe
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
3 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5213626

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Members who tabled the important motion. Cervical screening is a proven way in which to detect the early stages of that type of cancer, treat it and prevent it from progressing and adversely affecting, or, in some heartbreaking cases, ending, women's lives. Screening saves lives. As an MLA for South Down, I speak for all the women and families in my constituency who have been affected. I also speak as a woman who understands, at first hand, the impact that the scandal has had on us all. Smear tests are not the most pleasant appointment that we attend as women. Many have to build up a lot of courage in order to go to their appointment, but most of us go, placing our trust in the doctors and the NHS. We trust that, by doing that, issues will be detected early, improving our outcomes. There is relief when a test is clear, and stress when there are concerning results. As others in the Chamber have done, I encourage everyone, no matter what is said in the debate, to continue to attend their smear tests. When the news of the scandal broke, I think that every woman who lives in the Southern Trust area thought, "My goodness, do my years of clear results mean nothing?" There was a crisis in public confidence. It is deeply regrettable that the Southern Trust has not always been forthright in providing key information to relevant scrutiny bodies in the Assembly. People have had to go to unfortunate lengths to access individual screener data; information that is key to the entire issue. It is vital that we see openness and transparency across our health service at all times. Alarm bells should ring when professionals who have oversight of such a critical programme raise serious concerns. Full disclosure, openness and transparency in all those matters is needed now from the Department and the trust. Confidence in the effectiveness of cervical screening is paramount to women across Northern Ireland. I want to build on that. I did not fully appreciate how much confidence I had lost in the system until I faced it myself. Two years ago, I was at an event, and, at the end of that event, I saw that I had a number of missed calls from my GP, which was unusual. When I called her back, she said that she wanted to speak to me before I got home and got my post, because my smear test, taken five months earlier, had highlighted issues. She said, however, that I should not be overly concerned, and went on to explain further, although I heard very little after that. I was in Cookstown, two hours from my home, and I felt like I had taken a gut blow. I should have thought immediately, "It's OK. I get that test every couple of years; this will be new and treatable," but that is not what I thought. I thought, "This is it: I'm dying. This has been growing within me for 20 years and they've missed it because they are useless. Look at how many people have been let down. It is all over the press, and I'm another one of those people". Perhaps that was an overreaction, but that is how I felt. It hit me hard, and I had a long journey home that day. When I got home, there was my letter. I went to Daisy Hill the following week. I got my test. Nobody committed either way when giving me information. I spent the entire Christmas, with my children, incredibly stressed. With the support of my sister, I got on to a clinical trial for the next six to nine months to help to improve possible outcomes. It was mid-February before I got a letter from the Southern Trust to say that my investigative tests from November were clear and that nothing more needed to be done. To be honest, I had zero confidence in that letter. I continued on my clinical trial until late 2024. After that, I went for screening again, because I still believe in smear tests. Thankfully, earlier this year, I got clear results, but I still have a crisis of confidence. The failure of the Southern Trust to be open and honest throughout has really affected me. I am one person with lived experience, but I like to think of myself as a reasonably well-informed person when speaking on the issue. Given that I feel that way as an individual, it is difficult for me to be open and honest with constituents who come to me with the same concerns without having more information and assurances from the Department. I commend the Ladies with Letters. Their strong voice on the issue has been incredible. We remember those who have, devastatingly, been lost along the way. I thank my colleague Diane Dodds for her strong advocacy on the issue. There is a clear need for greater candour and transparency in our health service. We support the call for a public inquiry, but it should not have had to come to that. Accountability, openness and honesty should be the pillars of our health system at every level. Women across Northern Ireland deserve clarity. They deserve better. Their confidence in the system needs to be restored.

888 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.03 (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 (0.90).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.90Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.68
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.30
No identity-related subject0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification