Northern Ireland Direct

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk · 43/92 checks passed · government

Compliance report (framework 0.8)

Gate passed (every Core check must pass) · not counted towards the gate: paused 35, draft 48, ready for review 54.

Site level: 0 (no scored checks yet).

By level

LevelResult
Level 1 — Basic 26/37 (7 failed)
Level 2 — Enhanced 5/27 (14 failed)
Level 3 — Advanced 0/10 (4 failed)

By category

CategoryResult
Accessibility 12/13
Accountability 0/5
AI & Automation 3/8
Interoperability 0/3
Privacy 10/16
Provenance 0/2
Security 6/11
Transparency 0/13
Responsibility to the Future 0/3

Level 1 — Basic

Accessibility

AI & Automation

Privacy

Security

Transparency

Level 2 — Enhanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published response timeframes
  • response_timeframe: The terms and conditions page does not publish any response timeframes for inquiries, permission requests, or feedback.
    Fix: Add a published response timeframe (e.g., within 10 working days) for contact, logo permission, and feedback requests.
  • specific: No specific timeframes in days or weeks are provided anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Specify concrete durations such as 'we respond within 15 working days' rather than omitting timing altogether.
FAIL Documented complaints process
  • steps_clear: On this terms page the complaint steps themselves are not described; only a link is provided without outlining the procedure here.
    Fix: Include or summarise the complaint steps (how to submit, what info is needed, what happens next) directly on or linked prominently from the terms page.
FAIL Clear appeals process
  • appeals_exists: The terms and conditions page does not document any appeals process for users to challenge decisions or content.
    Fix: Add a clearly documented appeals process describing how users can formally challenge decisions, with steps and timelines.
  • independent: No independent or escalated review mechanism is mentioned; the page only references exclusive jurisdiction of Northern Ireland courts for disputes.
    Fix: Describe an independent appeals or escalation route (e.g., to an ombudsman or separate review body) so appeals aren't confined to the original decision-maker.

AI & Automation

FAIL AI-assisted content clearly marked
  • marking_policy: The terms and conditions page contains no policy on marking or labelling AI-assisted content.
    Fix: Add a clear policy statement describing how AI-assisted or AI-generated content will be identified and labelled on the site.
  • consistent: Without a marking policy present, there is no evidence that AI content marking is applied consistently across the site.
    Fix: Once a marking policy is introduced, document and apply consistent AI-content labels (e.g., a standard tag or notice) across all relevant pages.
FAIL Human oversight of AI documented
  • oversight_exists: The page does not mention any human oversight arrangements for AI outputs.
    Fix: Publish a statement confirming that AI outputs are subject to human oversight, including where this oversight sits within the organisation.
  • review_process: No review or approval process for AI-generated content is described on this terms page.
    Fix: Describe the specific editorial review or approval workflow that AI-assisted content must pass through before publication.
  • accountability: While the Executive Information Service is named as site manager, no party is identified as accountable for AI-generated content specifically.
    Fix: Name a specific role or team (e.g., the Central Editorial Team) as accountable for AI-generated content and provide contact details for queries.

Interoperability

Privacy

FAIL Human-readable privacy policy
  • comprehensive: This hub page itself does not describe what data is collected or why; it only links out to other privacy notices without summarising the data practices.
    Fix: Add a short summary on this page outlining the categories of personal data collected across nidirect services and the purposes for processing, with links to the detailed notices.
FAIL Plain language data practices
  • plain_language: The page does not describe any data practices directly; it only provides a list of links to external privacy notices.
    Fix: Include a plain-language overview of core data practices (collection, use, sharing) on this landing page before directing users to individual notices.
  • understandable: A non-expert visiting this page cannot understand what data is collected or why because no practices are explained on the page itself.
    Fix: Add a brief, user-friendly explanation of what information nidirect collects and why, so users can understand without clicking through to every linked notice.
FAIL Data collection limited to necessity
  • necessity: The page does not state that data collection is limited to what is necessary.
    Fix: Add a statement on this page confirming that nidirect only collects personal data necessary to deliver the relevant government service.
  • proportionate: There is no mention of proportionality of data collection relative to the service provided on this page.
    Fix: Include a clear statement that data collected is proportionate to the purpose of each service, with examples or a link to detail.
FAIL Published data retention periods
  • retention_stated: The page contains no information about how long personal data is retained.
    Fix: Add a retention section (or clear summary) on this page stating how long data is kept, or link prominently to retention details in each service's privacy notice.
  • specific: No specific retention periods are provided anywhere in the visible content.
    Fix: State specific retention durations (e.g. 'records kept for 6 years after case closure') rather than leaving retention unaddressed.
FAIL Cookie banner partner disclosure
  • partner_count_specific: The banner references third parties with examples (YouTube, Google Maps) but provides no specific numeric count of partners.
    Fix: Update the banner to state the exact number of third-party partners that may set cookies (e.g., 'shared with X partners') and link to a full list.

Provenance

Security

Transparency

FAIL Algorithm explanation if applicable
  • algorithm_explained: The terms and conditions page makes no mention of any algorithms or their purpose.
    Fix: Add a section (or link to a dedicated page) describing any algorithms used on nidirect and explaining their purpose.
  • impact_clear: There is no description of how algorithmic decisions might affect users on this page.
    Fix: Include clear statements about how any automated or algorithmic decisions impact users and what outcomes they may produce.
FAIL Annual data practices statement
  • annual_statement: The page provides links to privacy notices but shows no evidence of regular or periodic review of data practices.
    Fix: Add a statement indicating when privacy practices were last reviewed and the cadence for future reviews (e.g., annually).
  • dated: There is no visible date or version number on the privacy notices listing page.
    Fix: Include a 'last updated' date or version indicator on the privacy notices page and on the linked privacy notices themselves.

Level 3 — Advanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published moderation policies
  • policy_exists: The terms page contains no published moderation policy for user-generated content or submissions.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated moderation policy outlining how user contributions or comments are reviewed and managed.
  • criteria_clear: No moderation criteria (e.g., prohibited content, acceptable use standards) are stated anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Add explicit criteria describing what content is permitted or prohibited and the standards used to evaluate it.
  • enforcement: The page does not explain any enforcement process, appeals, or consequences for moderation decisions.
    Fix: Document the enforcement workflow including who reviews content, what actions are taken, and how users can appeal decisions.

Interoperability

Security

Transparency

FAIL Algorithmic decision criteria published
  • criteria_published: No criteria used in any algorithmic decision-making are published on this page.
    Fix: Publish the specific criteria used in any algorithmic decisions, either on this page or on a linked transparency page.
  • weighting: The page does not describe any weighting or prioritisation of decision criteria.
    Fix: Explain how each criterion is weighted or prioritised when algorithmic decisions are made.
  • auditable: The page provides no technical or procedural detail that would support external audit of algorithms.
    Fix: Provide documentation (such as model cards, data sources, and decision logic) sufficient to allow external audit or independent review.

Responsibility to the Future

FAIL Worker wellbeing policy
  • policy_exists: The page is a public careers guidance resource for citizens and contains no published policy on worker wellbeing or working conditions.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated worker wellbeing or working conditions policy and link to it from the organisation's site.
  • specific_commitments: The content covers career guidance and EMA payments but includes no specific commitments on pay, hours, mental health, or benefits for workers.
    Fix: Add explicit commitments covering pay, working hours, mental health support, and employee benefits within a wellbeing policy.
  • accountability: The page does not name any person, role, or body responsible for overseeing worker conditions.
    Fix: Identify a named role or oversight body accountable for monitoring and enforcing worker wellbeing standards.