Debate contribution: UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform

Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on .

MLA
Mrs Michelle Guy
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
9 December 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5295843

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The purpose of the motion is not to re-litigate the failures of leadership and decision-making during COVID that have been vividly expressed by Baroness Hallett in the latest findings of the COVID-19 inquiry. At its heart, the purpose of the motion is to understand how the two largest parties in the Executive are prepared to react to them. When I heard the finding that decision-making was "chaotic", "deeply divided" and "marred by political disputes", I know how I reacted — I was angry — but, when I listened to the reaction of those who lost loved ones, my heart broke for them. Brenda Doherty's mother, Ruth Burke, was the first local woman to die from COVID-19 here. Speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' after the latest inquiry findings, her reaction and her call were clear:

"I need you to be leaders. I don't care about orange and green. I care about the fact that I want to save lives. No matter what happens in the future, we cannot bring the past in to pollute the present or the future."

That is wisdom and clarity from a place of grief. Her grief — her story — is one of thousands. Families have empty seats at the table because our politics failed them when they needed leadership most. That is why the report must be a tipping point. It is absolutely intolerable that anyone in the Assembly could look at the evidence, especially the abuse of cross-community voting, and still argue that the current institutional arrangements are fine as they are. If, when an independent inquiry has shown that lives may have been lost because decision-making was paralysed by political disputes, the DUP and Sinn Féin are not willing to accept the need for reform, we must ask whether those parties are capable of change at all. Maybe I should stop being surprised by that, because those are the parties that were willing to collapse the Government here for years and watch as our public services deteriorated. Even to me, however, the inquiry report feels different. It cuts through every excuse, every deflection; it shows us, in black and white, that party politics were prioritised over public safety. I am a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and we continue to take evidence on reform of the institutions. Experts and academics tell us that the public want to see reform. They tell us what could be done and how it could be done, but it feels as though some parties on that Committee just simply dance around the issues. The DUP will not engage with the thought of changing anything while it has a veto. Sinn Féin talks about being open to reform; I welcome that, and I am keen to understand what kind of reform they will support. Those of us who want to see change know that nothing can be done without those parties.

No, I will not give way. The motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process, but we should do that ourselves. If we cannot do so, we must take the conversation to the public through a citizens' assembly. Let me be clear: a citizens' assembly is not a new institution. It does not mean outsourcing our responsibilities. It is a proven model for serious, structured, civic engagement. It brings together a representative group of citizens to examine reform proposals in depth and to provide evidence-based recommendations. It strengthens political decision-making; it does not replace it. We cannot undo the pain of the pandemic — we cannot give families back the people whom they lost — but we can learn from what went wrong. We can build institutions that serve the common good, not party interest. We can create an Executive that cannot be collapsed at the whim of one party. It is our responsibility to meet the moment and to show that the Assembly has the will and the maturity to act for all our people. It is our duty to honour those who were failed, by ensuring that those mistakes are never, ever repeated.

684 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: 0.11 (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 (0.87).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.50).
  • 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 framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.05No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.08No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.87Yes
Overall judgement0.11At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.50
Reports or questions it0.02
Criticises or condemns it0.48
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.97
No identity-related subject0.01
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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