Debate contribution: Statutory Duty of Candour

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .

MLA
Mr Paul Frew
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
11 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Statutory Duty of Candour
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4667935

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I think of Adam Strain, Lucy Crawford, Raychel Ferguson, Conor Mitchell and Claire Roberts: children at the centre of the O'Hara report. Alan and Jennifer Roberts, Claire's mum and dad, are with us today. I think of Conan McIlwrath, vice chair of the UK Haemophilia Society, and Nigel Hamilton, chairperson of Haemophilia Northern Ireland, who sits in the Public Gallery. I think of the Ladies With Letters and those 17,500 women. I think of Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, who also lost their lives. I think of the inquiries into Muckamore Abbey Hospital, neurology and urology. Northern Ireland has had the need for too many public inquiries, given the fact that we are such a small jurisdiction. Too many times, the promises to learn lessons have not been fulfilled. A health system that should have openness, truth and transparency at its heart has the opposite. I wish I were standing here with faith in the Department of Health, but that faith is shot. It is shot because mourning the loss of a loved one is so difficult, but to have to then fight for the truth for three decades is unbearable. If the Department of Health does not introduce legislation on this, I will. I have been working on a private Member's Bill to bring in an individual duty of candour. I give this commitment: I will work with Nuala and Danny and the Alliance Party, and with Pat and Sinn Féin, and we will try our best to get legislation that serves the population and our healthcare workers and brings openness, truth and transparency to the heart of our health service. It is not just about the past; it is about the future. The 2023-24 report by the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) says:

"Our public services are under significant pressure and despite a number of reviews and recommendations, our health system continues to operate in crisis, with an unprecedented reported level of dissatisfaction and stress among HSC staff and practitioners. This in-turn has led to a decrease in public trust in our health service. When something goes wrong, it is an opportunity to be open and honest, to involve patients and families, and to rebuild trust. However, it remains the case that too often we see a defensiveness within the system. Patients and families who approach NIPSO continue to experience a lack of candour or support, and report a lack of compassion or empathy, compounding their trauma."

That report was published for the year 2023-24.

I thank the Member for his contribution, and he makes a valid point about Lynsey. The ombudsman's report says:

"Health & Social Care complaints continue to account for the largest portion of our overall complaints received, increasing year-on-year. Many of the complaints we receive highlight the need to prioritise patient safety to rebuild trust and confidence in our health service."

For far too long, our health service workers and personnel have been let down by whistle-blowing legislation. It does not work, and we need an individual duty of candour to empower those workers. Applying a duty of candour and then applying a criminal liability for a breach of the duty to be open and truthful, we believe, empowers the individuals in the health service who could well come under intense pressure from senior staff or line management to hide or keep secret actions that have had a detrimental effect on people's health if such a liability and responsibility was not in place. We also believe that there is currently a stigma attached when people speak out or whistle-blow, with fear of suspensions or retribution, and that must be overcome. Folks, in this House, we have an opportunity to introduce positive legislation that will do a world of good for people who mourn and for people who work hard in our health service. I take this debate as a sounding for my private Member's Bill, and I give this commitment today: I will work with every single one of you to try to produce a Bill that is suitable for Northern Ireland.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.96).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.65
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.23
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.04
Another identity-related subject0.03
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.02

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 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