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 5548716

Text

As I said, when I saw the list of attendees at Oxford Island on Thursday, it was pointed out to me that they were bringing a lawyer. I was asked whether I would like to effectively block that and refuse access to that lawyer. I said no, because I want to be open and transparent. I was presented with six reports that pulled in different directions. To use the word that Sir Frank used on Thursday, those six reports were "dissident". They clash with each other. I do not have the clinical expertise to knit those reports together into a coherent whole: that is why I asked Sir Frank to do it. When the Ladies with Letters said that those six reports did not necessarily include all the information that is pertinent to the case, I asked Sir Frank whether he would meet them. He met them, and he met others who were involved. I have been open and transparent. However, the bottom line from Sir Frank is that a statutory public inquiry is highly unlikely to advance matters.
I share that concern and have said many times that I will bring forward a women's health action plan, but I would like to see a strategy come forward in the next session. When I bring forward the action plan, I hope to be in a position to mention something else that is a significant first for any Department in terms of gender.
When I met the Ladies with Letters and the other families at Oxford Island, I said that I think that the most appropriate and best legacy, not least for the two women who so sadly lost their lives, would be to ensure that the HPV screening currently being undertaken by the Belfast Trust is world class.
That is clearly a party political point. Some time ago, the Ulster Unionist Party made a determination to take politics out of the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland. One of the outworkings of that is that Members are more than clear to go and do their constituency work, and, if that involves representing the wishes of their constituents, that is perfectly fine by me. That leaves me clear to pursue the evidence and take evidence-based decisions. In this case, the evidence was so complex clinically that I decided that I needed an expert to advise me; hence I brought in Sir Frank Atherton to do that for me. I did not have to put into the terms of reference advice on whether we should call a public inquiry, but I did.
We made it clear to the Belfast Trust that the PHA will make extremely clear what it expects in respect of quality control in the system. We will monitor that closely. I assure the public that we will move as quickly as possible to secure that external quality assurance.
I am not sure what the Member is referring to as "cold and insensitive". I absolutely regret what happened, particularly the two losses of life. They should not have happened. Anybody accessing healthcare has a reasonable expectation that they will be seen professionally and compassionately, that their screening or diagnosis will be accurate and that their outcomes will be positive, wherever possible. That clearly was not the case. I regret that very much. I have tried to engage with the Ladies with Letters and some of the other families who were included in serious adverse incident reports, and some of those meetings were shockingly insensitive. I turn to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), which has a policy of being human. I expect everyone delivering health and social care to be human and to look at their patients and service users and say, "What if it were my relative? If that were me, what sort of treatment would I expect?".

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

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification