Debate contribution: UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform

Debate contribution by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín on 9 December 2025.

MLA: Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 9 December 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5295796

Text

I thank Alliance and the SDLP for tabling the motion and amendment. While I do not like some of the language in them, I completely support the spirit of both. I declare an interest as I was a Minister from June 2020 to December 2020 and was responsible for making some of the COVID regulations. I went in front of the COVID inquiry. I have read each of the module reports. I have read the recent report. It is not good reading for anyone. I apologised privately to families and at the COVID inquiry for my attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral. That is the measure of political leadership. Matthew, my party has not come late to the table on reform. We have taken part in a series of citizens' assemblies right across the island. We have listened to people. I do not agree with a lot of what they said, but we can certainly appreciate what they said. That is why we are serious about reform. I do not want to do down AERC, because it is a space in which we go through the process of working with academics, listening to consultations and doing the citizens' assemblies before bringing our findings back to our parties. I want to put to bed any suggestion that we are not serious about reform. If people want to approach that from a different political perspective, that is up to them. This debate is really interesting for me, and a lot of observers who watch this place. Paul Frew is very vocal about the impacts of COVID, which is his prerogative, and Jonathan Buckley has talked about what Jonathan talks about. I, and, I think, the people watching and listening, would have much preferred to hear what you are doing about reform. Instead, you attacked parties because they are different from you.
I will give way in a wee minute, Jonathan. That demonstrates a lack of political confidence and political leadership.
Alliance, the SDLP and ourselves are trying to get to that point in AERC. The Member may not appreciate this, but we are trying to get to a point at which we all agree on institutional reform. With respect, Jonathan, coming from a party that has blocked equality and progress —.
The proof has been in the pudding. We are looking at the bill of rights and lots of other issues that would promote rights, equality, inclusion and respect, which are the fundamental cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement and anything that comes with it. Both Governments need to be involved at some stage. If we get to the stage of having to decide on proposals in AERC — hopefully we will — and yourselves and the UUP —. Robbie is not here, but I was on the Executive when Robin Swann voted against his own proposal because he was a DUP fanboy at the time. I am just putting that on the record. At some stage or other, we are going to have to look at reform. What is happening here at the minute is not working.
I will surely, Eóin. Very briefly.
Begrudgingly. I do not like the language, but I will support it. We will also support the amendment. I say "begrudgingly" because we did not write it, but, accepting the spirit of it, we absolutely will support it. You cannot talk about reform, equality, inclusion and the very essence of this place and then block the very motions and amendments that are trying to look at things differently. What some Members are going to say has become almost predictable. Members need to be genuinely serious about reform. If they are happy to hold on to vetoes and blocking mechanisms, at least we will all know where we stand. The progressive parties need to get on with the business, and, hopefully, some people will come to their senses along the way.

651 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: 0.40 (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).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.68).
Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.

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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.28	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.16	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.05	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.57	No
Controversy escalation	0.38	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.37	No
Overall judgement	0.40	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.68
Reports or questions it	0.01
Criticises or condemns it	0.07
Adopts it	0.24

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.74
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.14
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.08
No identity-related subject	0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:07 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