Debate contribution: Duty of Candour: Individual or Organisational
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Duty of Candour: Individual or Organisational
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495333
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question, but I do not agree with his description of copping out. What I am interested in is how best we encourage individuals who work in Health and Social Care to be absolutely honest about what happens when things go wrong. Is that by placing a statutory duty of candour on an individual? I am not sure that it is. It is the outcome that I am focused on; I am not yet clear about the mechanism by which to get there. I remind the Member that DHSC in England is reviewing the duty of candour because it is clearly not delivering exactly as it was. Not too long ago, I studied a comparative report on candour in aviation and in health. The conclusion seemed to be that aviation was way ahead of the health service because of the black box and the fact that, when a catastrophic event occurs and passengers die, every effort is made to analyse what went wrong through the black box etc, with no particular concern for the effect on the individual. Of course, the point is that if there is a catastrophic impact in aviation, the pilot and crew tend to die, whereas, in the health service, it is the patients who suffer rather than those who work in it. Your concern has to be this: which system do you put in place to most motivate an individual to come forward and be honest about the mistakes that they have made? You could put a punitive system in place that actually discourages openness and candour.
267 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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.