Debate contribution: Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry

Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on 3 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Alan Robinson

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 5213683

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking Michelle Guy, who is just leaving the Chamber. I know that, in here, it is sometimes difficult for politicians to show a personal side and to show their emotional hand, but she did, and she is very brave for doing that. On behalf of us all, it is important to wish her good health. I also thank Diane Forsythe, who also spoke in a very personal way about the issues that she has faced. She told her own personal story. It is very brave of both women to tell those very personal stories. I also thank my colleague Diane Dodds for working up the amendment and for the incredible work that she has been doing with the families who have been so badly affected by this dreadful issue. I also thank the proposers of the motion. It is really important, and it has been a good and solemn debate here today. The cervical screening scandal cost two lives that we know of. It is causing ongoing distress, and it has shaken public confidence in a programme that should be a bulwark of women's health. We believe that our amendment strengthens the motion and, in so doing, calls for accountability, transparency and, ultimately, justice for those women of this Province, who tell us that they have been failed.

We thank all Members who have said openly that they will support our amendment.

It is important to thank the senior health staff who spoke out about their concerns, resulting in the review of over 17,000 women's smear tests, spanning the period from January 2008 to October 2021. It is also important to thank the Royal College of Pathologists, whose independent report raised concerns about underperformance in the screening labs. It was important that, during the debate, we did not lose sight of the personal toll. That has been central to many if not all Members today. It is very important that we applaud the campaign group Ladies with Letters, which was formed by the women who have been affected. It helped to report that eight women under the review went on to have cancer, and two whom we know of, Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson, have died. The names of those two women should weigh heavily on our minds in the Chamber. Lynsey, a mother of one from Portadown, died in 2018, aged just 30, after a smear test was misread. Erin, a mother of four from Tandragee, died in 2024 at just 44 years of age, her smear tests having been misread in 2012, 2015 and again in 2018. That is unforgivable. Other women who are still alive carry fear and uncertainty, not knowing whether their health is in danger as a result of errors. For some time, those women, the media and others have pushed for clear answers about who knew what and when and why so little was done and not done sooner, yet they feel that they are no further forward. It is deeply concerning that, when some have called for further answers, trusts and some supporting bodies have not always been able or willing to provide full data. As I mentioned earlier, UTV's appeals for data on screening performance in a number of trusts were met with obstacles, with some citing the time required to collate and process the information. When the Information Commissioner was pressed, that office upheld that public interest and transparency outweighed internal delays. With episodes of underperformance being detected in all health and social care trusts, not just the Southern Trust, it is incredibly worrying that, in one year, 2016-17, half the screeners in the Belfast Trust failed to meet the 90% detection threshold for all abnormalities. That suggests that the issues may have been much more widespread. Furthermore, a whistle-blower has warned that oversight and quality assurance in the programme have not significantly changed and that internal and external checks have not been sufficient to prevent reoccurrence of errors. That raises questions. How were underperforming screeners allowed to run for 13 years? Why were remedial actions not triggered sooner? What was the role of oversight bodies, management, governance and quality assurance in enabling or failing to stop that slide? Time and time again, women who have been affected say that they have also been met with a slow response to their questions.

A recent story from UTV showed that, due to equipment breakdown, nearly 10,000 HPV or smear tests have been sent to GB for testing. That is yet another indictment of our cervical screening facilities in Northern Ireland.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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