Member's statement: Individual Duty of Candour
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Individual Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5180507
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I place on record my appreciation for and gratitude to every individual and organisation who has spoken to and engaged with me on my private Member's Bill on individual duty of candour. I have met so many victims, so many healthcare staff members and so many organisational bodies that represent either healthcare staff or other people who have been victims of a lack of candour. The e-consultation that I carried out, using Google Forms software, ran for 14 weeks. It was launched on 4 July and closed on at 5.00 pm on Friday 10 October. The e-consultation consisted of 25 questions: there was a mixture of multiple choice questions and various other questions that enabled people to respond freely with text. A total of 111 responses was recorded on the online consultation. Those were accompanied by a number of written responses that were received via post and email. The consultation process involved significant engagement with stakeholders, be it through in-person meetings, email or phone calls or in writing. Stakeholders have made a significant contribution to the development of the Bill. The consultation responses were overwhelmingly supportive of the Bill proposal. Of the 111 online respondents, 104 — 94% — were in favour of an individual duty of candour. We also received positive responses from the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and the New Script for Mental Health charity. The online consultation showed a vast amount of support for the Bill from victims and families of victims of malpractice or wrongdoing in the health service.
The consultation also focused on the current practices for whistle-blowing and current reporting mechanisms that exist across the health service. The online consultation sought to gain opinion on whether current whistle-blowing legislation protects the complainant adequately. Some 86 — 80% — of the 108 respondents believed that it did not and that further strengthening of the legislation was required. Furthermore, a follow-up question was asked to assess what people felt needed to change about the current legislation. Common themes to emerge in answers were accountability and protection for the complainant. That is what the Bill seeks to do.
353 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: 0.02 (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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:35 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.