Debate contribution: Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry

Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on 3 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Danny Donnelly

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

3 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5213695

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all Members across the House for their contributions. It has been a sensitive debate, and the contributions from across the House have been very positive. I thank the DUP for its amendment, which we will support. The amendment adds to the motion. Two years have passed since the scandal came to light, yet progress on getting answers has been painfully slow. We have seen a lack of transparency, unacceptable delays and a slow pace of investigation by the Department of Health and the trust. That is simply not good enough. Every woman impacted by the scandal deserves truth and accountability as a bare minimum. While I welcome the recall and review of 17,500 smear tests, it should never have got to that stage. We absolutely must rebuild public trust in our screening services; a point that has come up time and time again. Cervical screening saves lives, but it can do so only if patients have faith that the system is robust and that any errors will be swiftly identified and corrected. Right now, that trust has been deeply eroded. It was not that long ago that we were discussing endometriosis and the almost decade-long wait for diagnosis for women in Northern Ireland and the fact that there is no mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland. What about the delays to the maternity hospital? Time and time again, it is being proven that women's health is not a priority. That is a massive concern. Women must be able to place their trust in our health service without reservation. They cannot do so currently, and they are dying because of that. Women across Northern Ireland are understandably anxious. They will be asking, "Will my smear test be accurate? Can I trust the results?". The human cost of the failures has been devastating. Misread smear tests resulted in at least eight women developing cervical cancer, and two women lost their lives. That is not just an unfortunate statistic: those people did the right thing, took the right steps and were given a death sentence due to serious failings in our health service. Many of us will have heard the names Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson throughout the debate. Over the course of a decade, Erin had three cervical cancer screenings, all of which gave her the all-clear. All of them were incorrect. Erin died in August last year, aged 44. She was told by doctors that, if her results had been caught earlier, she would have been treated sooner, which could have helped save her life. She was told to think of her disease as "one of those things", not her fault or anyone else's. When Erin realised that she could have been diagnosed earlier, she said:

"this is somebody's fault ... They've killed me ... they've taken my life away."

Lynsey Courtney died in 2018, aged 30, following a misread smear. Her family met the trust and asked whether the screeners' work could be rechecked. In the minutes of that meeting, senior doctors admitted that no re-examinations had taken place and questioned why such action would be taken. Like other Members, I have had the privilege of meeting Lynsey's parents, Ron and Sandra, and I was moved by their quiet dignity in campaigning for the truth about their daughter's death. No words will ever express the utter tragedy of Lynsey's death and the possibility that it was preventable. The relief of an all-clear result no longer carries the same meaning. We cannot let that fear, coupled with a lack of action to investigate, undermine participation in screening. If we do, more lives will be at risk. As my colleague Michelle Guy, who has worked closely with Ladies With Letters, said recently, a public inquiry is the only way to begin rebuilding trust in that essential service. The Ladies With Letters group believes the:

"scandal represents one of the most significant healthcare failures in Northern Ireland."

Its members are calling for a statutory public inquiry with full powers to establish the full, unvarnished facts of what happened. It is undeniable that the cost of inaction has gone too far, and the Minister must establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again. That is the very least that women in Northern Ireland deserve. I will highlight a few of the comments made by Members during the debate. My colleague Nuala McAllister proposed the motion and highlighted the effect of the recall on the confidence that women have in the screening process. She said that concerns were raised as early as 2019, yet no action was taken until 2021. Diane Dodds noted the call from the Ladies With Letters campaign for a full statutory inquiry and the actions of the whistle-blower in the Southern Trust, which, undoubtedly, saved lives. She also talked about the failings in the management of the screeners and the anomalies in the awarding of the contracts. Linda Dillon described the deep-rooted failure to value women's health equally. She asked whether delays and backlogs had been created by the recent sending of thousands of HPV tests to Gateshead. The Minister covered that. She also encouraged women to continue to attend cervical smears and to attend their GPs if they have any symptoms of ovarian cancer. Alan Chambers encouraged MLAs to approach the reports responsibly and highlighted that screening saves lives. Colin McGrath highlighted that the trust between women and the health service has been shaken to the core, and he encouraged the Minister to state his threshold for holding a full public inquiry if the reports show that there were failings. Aoife Finnegan spoke of the importance of reassurance and rebuilding public confidence in the screening programme. Diane Forsythe talked of the crisis in public confidence and said that it is vital that we see openness and transparency across the health service. She also bravely shared her personal account of worrying about test results. Michelle Guy also powerfully shared her personal journey with this, highlighting that the mistakes were not abstract; they were avoidable and life-altering. If the Minister was really committed to women's health, he would commission a public inquiry. Michelle also quoted Lynsey Courtney's mum. Sinéad McLaughlin thanked Members for sharing their personal stories. She recalled supporting a constituent at her disclosure meeting and SAI meeting and highlighted the additional damage done to women by a system that should have protected them. Timothy Gaston highlighted the necessity of a public inquiry. Minister Nesbitt listed the meetings that he had had with the women, their spouses and the Ladies with Letters group. He highlighted the importance of the cervical screening programme and said that there have been significant improvements, including implementation of all the recommendations in the report and the move to HPV and cytology testing as the second line. He encouraged women to take up any opportunities for screening and highlighted that 96% of the women in the review needed no follow-up. The Minister also talked about the three reports that will be jointly published by the PHA and the Southern Trust on Wednesday, highlighting that he had asked for one to be held back so that all three could be published together. In his winding-up speech on the amendment, Alan Robinson commended the Ladies with Letters campaign but said that the women feel no further forward. He said that the issue raises serious questions about the management of the screeners and the system as a whole. It has been a sensitive and powerful debate, and I thank all the Members who took part in it.

1,277 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