Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers

Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .

MLA
Mr Daniel McCrossan
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 4178052

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the nomination of my friend and colleague Patsy McGlone. There is no greater MLA in the Assembly who would fit that role well and in impartial fashion. He is also very approachable. He has my full support. It is frustrating that, even prior to the debate, the DUP leader had already briefed that there was no likelihood of the election of a Speaker or of a time frame for the return of the institutions. That is a depressing reflection of where this place is, particularly, almost 25 years after the Good Friday Agreement, on the day that we mark John Hume's second anniversary and in the week that we buried Lord Trimble. Has the DUP learned nothing from the past? It is clear to say, "Be careful what you wish for". The DUP championed Brexit and sold it to its electorate as a great silver bullet that would transform this society, change life, offer opportunities, fund the NHS and every other possible imaginative dream that the DUP could pipe up at that time. The protocol is a direct consequence of your Brexit, so stop trying to mislead the public. You put yourself on this hook, you are trying to get off it, and you are getting deeper and deeper into a hole. The problem here, folks, is not any of us in the Chamber. I have said on every occasion that we have found ourselves in this position that the challenges in our society are much greater than the differences that we face in the Chamber. Each of us has constituents, and each of us serves them every day in our offices. We try to resolve the problems that they bring to us, but those problems are worsening every day, because many people cannot pay their rent, are getting deeper into arrears and are making decisions about heating or eating. There are people out there struggling with mental health who cannot get access to the support and services that they need. Addiction services are largely non-existent and are not there to support those who need them most — those with drug addiction, alcohol addiction and severe problems. They need support. We can find solutions to those things. What about workers across the entirety of the North, who are rising up and calling for greater pay and conditions in the face of a cost-of-living crisis that is spiralling out of control? We hear this from people in the House: "There is little we can do about it". Why did you stand for election if you do not want to find solutions to the problems that our electorate faces? Ask yourselves that question. In this place that we call "Northern Ireland" or the "North of Ireland" — whatever people want to define it as — our constituents have all these problems in common to one degree or another, and we are tasked with solving those problems. Standing or not standing or coming to the House or not coming to the House was not something that you were given a mandate for. We have overcome much more insurmountable problems than the one that we now face. The reality is, as you well know, that we have no control over the negotiation around the protocol. You have got your legislation. What more do you want? How much more suffering will the DUP inflict on ordinary, decent working people and vulnerable people in our society? That is what is happening, and well you know it. If we can go outside that door and have friendly handshakes and chats about the various challenges that our constituents face, why are you preventing the rest of the people in the House from carrying out their democratic right to echo the concerns of their constituents in the democratically elected Chamber that we stand in? Why? If you really do not want to play a part in this, why are you still in the Executive and not being held to account? The reality is that you could elect a Speaker and could go on with business, and, if the British Government do not give you what you want, you could walk away. You are punishing people, and the situation will get very bad coming into the winter. I heard the real leader of the DUP in the corner pontificate about how outrageous and preposterous it is to be under foreign rule. My God, it has only taken you 100 years. Relationships in this place have been damaged and have worsened as a consequence of the bad behaviour of the DUP, which is putting its own selfish political interests before the interests of ordinary, decent people in our society. We represent every one of them collectively. You have no mandate and no right to veto our right to represent our constituents, and it is high time —

— that you realised that you should get back into government, let us do our jobs in the Assembly and put the interests of our people first, because the situation will get very difficult for a lot of families.

847 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: 0.28 (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 (0.79).
  • 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

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 antagonism0.12No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.49No
Controversy escalation0.20No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.32No
Overall judgement0.28At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.79
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.09
Adopts it0.11
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.95
No identity-related subject0.04
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification