Motion or amendment: Statutory Duty of Candour
Motion or amendment by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Statutory Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Document 414741
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Statutory Duty of Candour
That this Assembly agrees on the need for statutory and legally enforceable organisational and individual duties of candour in Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care system; believes that, while the overwhelming majority of staff are committed to the highest standards of care, a statutory duty of candour will play a vital role in identifying and addressing cases of abuse, negligence and failings in health and social care settings; expresses concern that limited progress has been made in introducing a statutory duty of candour, since the beginning of the Inquiry into Hyponatraemia-related Deaths, 20 years ago; calls on the Executive to engage with the UK Government around the implications of the proposed Hillsborough Law, and how it could strengthen candour in public services in Northern Ireland; and calls on the Minister of Health to bring forward legislation to implement statutory organisational and individual duties of candour before the end of the current Assembly mandate.
157 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
- Ms Paula Bradshaw – record
- Mr Stewart Dickson – record
- Mr Danny Donnelly – record
- Mrs Michelle Guy – record
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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | 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 08:58 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.