Motion or amendment: Statutory Duty of Candour

Motion or amendment by Mr Stewart Dickson on 16 October 2024.

MLA: Mr Stewart Dickson
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:

Assessment

Not flagged

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
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

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
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. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification