Member's statement: Healthcare Staff: Duty of Candour
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Healthcare Staff: Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498129
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Whilst it is true to say that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission remained silent through the worst excesses of human rights violations during the pandemic and on the coercive and discriminatory nature of some of the laws that the Department of Health produced at that time, I commend the intervention by the human rights commissioner, Alyson Kilpatrick, in which she stated that there should be a statutory duty of candour: an obligation on doctors to be fully and completely truthful in order to protect lives and stop the atrocious cover-ups that have happened in our recent past. The time for obstruction is nearly over. The time of dragging their feet, dark arts and unethical practices from the Department of Health, the BMA and others is coming to an end. I stand here in support of the Roberts family and other families who have been fighting campaigns to bring truth into the heart of our health service and the people who work there. A statutory duty of candour on individuals would not only inject that truth into our system but arm ordinary staff members who are told by their line managers to carry out unethical practices, such as shredding paperwork, amending notes or being untruthful about the evidence. It will arm them to say, "No, it is unacceptable for you to ask me to do that. It is even unlawful". It will arm ordinary staff members — doctors, junior doctors, nurses and other staff members in our health service — to shine a light on the truth so that families get redress and the truth about what happened to their loved ones sooner.
273 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: 0.07 (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 (0.99).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.95 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:49 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.