Debate contribution: Cervical Screening Programme: Atherton Report

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on 18 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Mike Nesbitt

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

18 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Cervical Screening Programme: Atherton Report

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5548651

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that our thoughts should be with the women and families involved. All had a reasonable expectation of better. To me, a public inquiry is a means to an end to discover what happened, why it happened, who was engaged in what happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. I thank Professor Sir Frank Atherton for his summary and analysis of the six reports that went before him. As part of his terms of reference, I asked Sir Frank to consider whether a statutory public inquiry might provide additional significant information. Sir Frank stated that it is:

"highly unlikely that a statutory inquiry would be able to make further progress on unravelling the technical aspects of the programme failure".

His report explains that the inconsistencies in programme delivery and data management act against:

"any further clarity being shed on the questions of the degree to which the cervical screening programme may have failed women or on the quantification of any impact."

I have considered fully the calls made for a statutory inquiry, particularly from the women affected and their families, whom I have met on a number of occasions. On balance, the findings and the advice from Sir Frank are convincing. I therefore decided not to commission a statutory inquiry, but it has been the hardest of all the decisions that I have taken in my two years in this role. I recognise that the decision is disappointing for the women and families who have campaigned for a statutory public inquiry. I pay tribute to their determination and acknowledge the profound effect that the events have had on their lives. Moving forward, it is essential that we take the learning from what happened in the organisations that were charged with delivery and oversight of that important screening programme. We must ensure that all the necessary improvements to the current cervical screening programme are fully implemented and robustly and transparently assured.

Sir Frank was very balanced in his assessment on holding a public inquiry. He gave the positive assessment to which the Member refers, but, on balance, he also said that it was highly unlikely that an inquiry would unravel any further information that would add to the body of knowledge. As the Member said, 17,425 women were involved in the recall. Sir Frank came to the conclusion that there was no absolute evidence that harm was caused. He also said that, equally, there was no evidence that harm was not caused. However, he did conclude — there were 17,425 involved — that there was evidence that there was no widespread harm involved. The Member seemed to imply that Sir Frank did not engage with anybody. For the record, he did. To begin with, I asked him to do a desktop review of the six reports that had gone before him. The Ladies with Letters then, in a meeting with me, suggested that there was information that was pertinent to this cause that was not included in any of the six reports. Therefore, I then asked Sir Frank whether he was willing to meet the Ladies with Letters, which he did. He met other people involved with the screening programme as well because it —

Mrs Courtney raised a question about not meeting her. I understand that, after the Ladies with Letters had met Sir Frank, information relating to Sandra Courtney and her daughter Lynsey was then submitted by the Ladies with Letters group. While that information was passed to Sir Frank, unfortunately — this is very, very unfortunate — it appears that the request for a meeting was missed.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:36 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