Member's statement: Non-disclosure Agreements
Member's statement by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Non-disclosure Agreements
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5271685
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The issue of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) has been thrown into sharp focus since a criminal investigation was launched into the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I do not intend to talk about that case but about NDAs in general. Of course, NDAs are needed for commercially sensitive material or privileged medical information, for example, but, having been approached by multiple individuals, I have grave concerns about the general use of NDAs. NDAs are mostly put in place following employment disputes. However, there seems to be a prevalence of NDAs in the charity sector and in religious organisations, to the extent that I am concerned that the Charity Commission is blind to many of them or is turning a blind eye. Women seem to be more susceptible than men to being asked to sign NDAs. There are cases of coercion being used to force individuals to sign NDAs, including, in one case that I heard about, a family member in employment being targeted to get their spouse to sign an NDA.
NDAs are used to cover up bullying, harassment and sexual impropriety, and, incredibly, they are used to hide criminal offences. Those who sign NDAs do not know the long-term effect on their future employment, because they have no way of explaining to a future employer that the issue that they had with their previous employer was settled between them. Why is that? It is because industrial employment tribunals no longer give a full judgement on the NDA's being agreed, apart from saying, "The claim was dismissed following withdrawal". That is all that it says on the judgement. The judgement is not publicly registered, so nobody can go on to the industrial tribunal web page to see that a case has been settled. We now have the ludicrous situation whereby, because it is no longer recorded, charities, churches, employees and government organisations can neither confirm nor deny whether an NDA is in place and the public and an individual's future employers have no way of checking whether there is a systemic issue. If you are a claimant, you are not even allowed to say that you have an NDA. That needs to change. The wording of any tribunal needs to reflect exactly what has happened, and that needs to go on to a public register. Sadly, the Assembly changed those rules only last year. We need to sort out the system for the Justice Department and the Department for the Economy, because, right now, it is being abused.
416 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: 0.09 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.21 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.16 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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.