Member's statement: Muckamore Abbey Hospital: Inquiry
Member's statement by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 March 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Muckamore Abbey Hospital: Inquiry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4854966
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Members will be aware of Muckamore Abbey Hospital but always for the wrong reasons. Everyone is aware of the debacle that went on there for many years and of the abuse and scandals. The long-called-for inquiry began in June 2022. After sitting for 120 days, the inquiry finally comes to an end this week. However, it will not come to an end for the families until it reaches its conclusions. Oral evidence was given by 181 witnesses, and 45 statements from staff and patients were also read into the inquiry. In giving evidence to the inquiry, the relatives of patients at Muckamore had an opportunity to have their voices heard for the first time.
Many of them made representations individually to each of us about what their loved ones were going through. Of course, they made many and various complaints to the trust, but those fell on deaf ears. It has taken all of this time to get to the stage where they can get their voices on the record independently at an inquiry. Running alongside that, there was a separate investigation that started in 2017, which was by no means a small feat. As a member of the Policing Board — I declare an interest — I challenged the length of time that that was taking a number of times. Police were trawling through thousands and thousands of hours of footage to identify some of the abuses or alleged abuses that were going on in that facility. It is shameful that all of this has taken so long whilst families continue to have their loved ones placed in the care of Muckamore Abbey Hospital. The chairman's remark that he "hopes" to present a report by the end of this year is disappointing. Given that the families have waited so long and fought so hard for the inquiry and have been diligent in their attention to it since June 2022, it is shameful that it will take so many months for a summary of that report to be concluded. However, I hope that they will not have to wait that long. Of course, the inquiry will present its findings, and there will be concern from those who have loved ones in the hospital that they get justice for the harm that has been done. When all of that has been done, there will still be families with family members in Muckamore Abbey Hospital, as there are today. I urge the trust to move forward with its plans to get suitable accommodation and to get those loved ones out of Muckamore and placed in a proper facility that can care for their needs and afford them a quality of life that they have not enjoyed for many years while in Muckamore Abbey Hospital.
462 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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.90 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:12 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.