Debate contribution: Cervical Smear Tests: Northern Trust
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Cervical Smear Tests: Northern Trust
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5316186
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have not committed to a public inquiry, but I have not ruled one out. I have consistently said that I want to establish what happened, why it happened, including who was responsible for its happening, and what we do either to prevent it from happening again or to make sure that we have done everything in our power to minimise the chances of its happening again. I am therefore determined to get a full understanding of what happened. As I say, I have not ruled out holding a statutory public inquiry. It is, however, a complex issue. As the Member knows, it stretches back to 2008. We have had many reports, and I have now asked Professor Sir Frank Atherton, previously the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in Wales, who is completely independent of the Southern Trust, the Public Health Agency and my Department, to look at all the work that has been done to date and to be my eyes and ears, because I am not on expert in the field. Having spoken with Ladies with Letters and others, rather than ask him to confine himself to the reports published to date, which Ladies with Letters fear do not cover every aspect, I have asked Professor Atherton to have a meeting exclusively with Ladies with Letters and that they discuss between themselves what else the professor may need to look at, beyond what is written in those reports, so that he takes a comprehensive view when he reports back to me.
252 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | 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 | 0.50 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.35 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:17 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.