Debate contribution: Statutory Duty of Candour
Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on .
- MLA
- Mr Pat Sheehan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Statutory Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667986
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Just on the chill factor and some individuals in the health system being afraid to speak out because they are under pressure maybe from more senior people in the health service. If they have a choice to make between acquiescing in what a more senior person wants or complying with the law, where, if they do not, they could end up in front of a judge, I think it is pretty straightforward what choice they will make.
That is why it is important that, with an individual duty of candour, there is a criminal sanction, so that people cannot be pressurised by people above them, as one of the doctors involved in Claire Roberts's care was by the director of litigation. That doctor accepted in a statement that he had made a mistake, and the director of litigation in the Belfast Trust pressurised him or asked him to change that statement, and he did.
154 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.