Motion or amendment: Statutory Duty of Candour - Amendment 1

Motion or amendment by Ms Liz Kimmins on .

MLA
Ms Liz Kimmins
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
7 November 2024
Type
Motion or amendment
Business
Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Statutory Duty of Candour”
Heading
Statutory Duty of Candour - Amendment 1
Assembly identifier
Document 416976

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Statutory Duty of Candour - Amendment 1

At end insert:

‘; and further calls for any statutory duty of candour to be co-designed and co-produced in partnership with health and social care workers, alongside families who have endured the distressing experiences of Serious Adverse Incident investigations, as well as cases of abuse, negligence and failings, to ensure compassionate, meaningful, and practical implementation.’

62 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 (0.96).
  • 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.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.94
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.02
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.02
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification