Debate contribution: Holding Ministers to Account

Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on .

MLA
Mrs Michelle Guy
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
10 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Holding Ministers to Account
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5225091

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member who tabled the motion, which we support. As the motion of no confidence debate evidenced today, the accountability mechanisms in this place are ineffective and allow Ministers to avoid democratic accountability. The current political balance of the Assembly means that mechanisms intended to act as minority safeguards now create an inequality that disenfranchises those of us who do not designate as "Unionist" or "Nationalist". I sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, so I will speak to the Sinn Féin amendment. AERC has heard some brilliant evidence on the need for reform of Assembly and Executive structures and on how those reforms could be brought about, but there is not enough conversation about what happens if we continue to choose not to reform this place. Make no mistake: it has been a conscious choice so far not to reform the institutions. I am encouraged to hear the Sinn Féin statements today that it is up for reform. The DUP has also stated a commitment to engage seriously in the work of the AERC, but it is worth noting that it has voted against every proposal on reform so far on that Committee. It is obvious that refusal to act undermines further the trust in this place and in its ability to operate. Evidence on public opinion shows us that there is appetite for reform. That is not surprising, yet we are not meeting that desire for change. I do not pretend that reform will be easy. It will take courage. Continuing to do nothing cannot be the answer, however. Some have suggested that focusing on Assembly and Executive reform is a distraction from the day-to-day work of this place, but that, of course, is not true. My vision for reform is one of ensuring that the day-to-day work of this place is more effective than it is today. The key reason that we do not support the Sinn Féin amendment is that it removes a crucial line from the motion that states:

"agrees that a programme of institutional reform is required to overcome these challenges".

I am not sure, on the basis of what Sinn Féin Members have said, that that was intended, but it is pretty critical to the conversation that we are having. It raises a concern for us, and I cannot stand by an amendment that removes the crucial words that we will support: "institutional reform".

Yes, 100%.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is implicit and explicit, and that is an explicit line showing support for overcoming the challenges through institutional reform. I am sure that the Member will understand that, as a party that has really pushed the idea of reform, its omission is something that we cannot support. It is fair that our party has taken that stance in the context of our driving passion for reform. As I said, I sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, so I know the work that is being done there. We will continue to do what we can through that Committee, and I hope that we can get to a point at which there is a shared vision on the Committee of what can be achieved.

I hope that we commit to a citizens' assembly. I am really glad that Sinéad signalled an openness to engage on that so that we can drive forward work through the Committee. However, that work in no way stops the call for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for Executive and Assembly reform. We all know that reform will only take place if Sinn Féin and the DUP agree to it, so it makes perfect sense for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to put forward proposals that they support, and that could be considered as part of the work of the AERC review. In fact, it would add to the work of the Committee and give it real momentum. It also offers us a real opportunity to show people that we can come together to deliver in their interests. Continued institutional instability stifles this place. It holds us back and causes people to lose faith in our institutions and in us as elected representatives. From listening to everybody today, I look forward to seeing the momentum that will come forward from the AER Committee. We are going to deliver some serious stuff, by the sounds of it, and I tell you what, I am definitely up for it.

751 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

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: 0.14 (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 (0.66).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.76).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • 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 framing0.17No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.08No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.66Yes
Overall judgement0.14At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.76
Reports or questions it0.11
Criticises or condemns it0.08
Adopts it0.05
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.49
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.44
Another identity-related subject0.06
No identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:43 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