Debate contribution: Statutory Duty of Candour
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Chambers on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Chambers
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Statutory Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667839
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Today, my sympathy and that of my party is with the many families in Northern Ireland who have suffered greatly as a result of medical negligence but have not always been able to get to the truth. They are very much in my thoughts today. I understand the motivation behind the motion, but my concerns and those of my party relate to the unintended consequences and, in particular, the chill factor that it could create among our health professionals. We will support any future movement to introduce an organisational duty of candour. Such a duty would bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. We saw the difficulties when efforts were made to attract surgeons to take up employment at the South West Acute Hospital, when the jobs did not perhaps tick all the boxes for potential applicants. With an individual duty of candour in place and potential criminal sanctions lurking in the background, how much more difficult will it be to attract health professionals here to work? There is also the issue of clinicians becoming more risk-averse in their treatment plans for patients. I know that it is the Minister's ambition to deliver on the organisational duty of candour, but there is no doubt that an individual duty would be difficult to deliver and to deliver at pace. We will not divide on the motion, but we will always be honest about what is deliverable.
240 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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 11:35 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.