Member's statement: Individual Statutory Duty of Candour
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Individual Statutory Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5045657
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Speaker for calling me to make a Member's statement about my public consultation on the Bill that I propose to introduce on an individual statutory duty of candour. It is very important to me, but I believe that it is also very important to the people of Northern Ireland. Over the past weeks and months, we have seen the number of stories that have broken about scandals in our health service. I think of the bullying and harassment of staff, the scandals around care and neglect, the mistakes and the attempted cover-ups. A time will have to come when that practice stops. I believe that an individual statutory duty of candour is incredibly important to give people the confidence that their health service works for and protects them when they need it most. It is critical that the Minister introduces legislation, but, in the absence of that, I will introduce my private Member's Bill. I believe that I have the support of the House to do so, but it does not have to be like that. The Minister of Health can bring forward his own legislation, which we would support, so that the people whom we serve will be best protected in healthcare settings. I believe that it is a right for our people and that the vast majority of people who work and practise in our healthcare settings deserve and want an individual statutory duty of candour. I will pursue that to the very end so that they get it.
254 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| 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 12:48 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.