Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 3 August 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4178048
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Once more, the Assembly has been recalled so that the majority of us can attempt to do what we promised voters we would do, which is to get back to work and help people who are struggling. SDLP Members are here today to roll up our sleeves, nominate a Speaker and get on with the jobs that we were sent here to do. In putting forward my colleague Patsy McGlone, we nominate someone with a lifetime of political service to his community. The time has now come for the Assembly to elect him as Speaker and start delivering for people, because the truth is that no one can afford for us to wait any longer to do so.
Since we last met here, the crisis faced by the people who put us in the Chamber has only got worse. More families are struggling than before. Almost half the people whom we represent now struggle with fuel poverty. Inflation is now over 9%, and it is rising. The crisis does not affect everyone equally. Low wages and high deprivation mean that people in my constituency are some of the worst affected. Something else has changed in the time since we met here last. Since then, the protocol Bill has, regrettably, made its way through the House of Commons. The DUP has run out of excuses. When it comes to making this place work and electing a Speaker today, it has run out of road. There are those who have had the nerve to accuse us of stunt politics by recalling the Assembly today to elect a Speaker. To those people I say this: what could be a bigger stunt than going through six weeks of an election campaign, coming into the Chamber, signing up for your wages and walking out that door? That is a stunt, and the people of Northern Ireland know that it is a stunt. On the basis of everything that you have heard from Members across the House, I implore you to support our nomination for Speaker. If you do not, I simply do not know how you can look your constituents in the eye: people who are choosing whether to heat their homes or put food on the table; parents who struggle to afford their children's school uniforms; pensioners who will sit in freezing cold homes this winter; and people who have been languishing for years on hospital waiting lists. People in my constituency have suffered the impact of devastating floods and have seen their livelihoods destroyed. They need a Government to be on their side and legislate to support them into their futures. I say this to the DUP: if you really think that the protocol Bill's full passage through Parliament should be your priority, I invite the MP for Lagan Valley to come to Derry, look my constituents in the eye and tell that to the people who have lost their home, their business and their savings. Every one of us should put our shoulder to the wheel and work the common ground to find solutions to the issues that face the people whom we represent. That is our job. If the DUP continues to block democracy, the people of the North will conclude that our commitment to this place is entirely hollow. Simply put, people will not buy it any more; instead, they will understand that you have abandoned people in their hour of need, leaving their fate to the whims of a Tory Minister. Shame on you. Absolute shame on you. In closing, I say this to the DUP on behalf of the people of Derry: every day that you refuse to support the nomination of a Speaker is another insult to the people whom you are supposed to serve. Get back into your offices, and let us all get back to work.
641 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: 0.18 (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 (0.95).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.22 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.42 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:32 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.