Debate contribution: Infected Blood Inquiry
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Question for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Infected Blood Inquiry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491743
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Deputy Principal Speaker. Sorry, I probably got that all wrong again. Minister, most people will acknowledge that you have said that people were failed by the system and that you are sorry and hope that it will never happen again. However, we have to take concrete steps to make sure that it does not happen again. One of those concrete steps is a statutory duty of candour. I have asked you about that in Committee, and it came up during the hyponatraemia inquiry in relation to the case of Claire Roberts. Will the Minister outline to the House where we are with the statutory duty of candour? Can we expect to see legislation on that in the near future?
122 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:33 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.