Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 October 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4178121
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The recall of the Assembly is another flawed and failed attempt to form a new Executive, and, each time, unionist Members and our mandate are disrespected. Power-sharing, if it is to mean anything, has to be about consensus and consent, not contempt, which is what we on these Benches have been subjected to on every occasion on which the Assembly has been recalled over the past six months. It has no credibility coming from the parties that demanded a border within the United Kingdom, down the Irish Sea. It has no credibility coming from Sinn Féin, which refuses to take its seats at Westminster and boycotted the Assembly for three years. The self-proclaimed "First Minister for all" walked out of the health service and kept the institutions down for three years. The Alliance Party demands majority rule to exclude the DUP. Not once did it join unionists and seek a recall of the Assembly in the three years in which Sinn Féin blocked it. Not once did the Alliance Party seek to exclude Sinn Féin in order to reform the institutions, but now it wants to exclude unionism. The SDLP, along with Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, now calls for joint authority and seeks to threaten unionism.
The cross-community party no longer wants this place to operate in a cross-community fashion. That is rich, coming from the Alliance Party. Progress will not be made by trying to isolate, denigrate and intimidate the Democratic Unionist Party. The DUP supports devolution. We are ready to appoint Ministers today, and we respect the mandates of all parties and the positions that they are entitled to on the basis of the last election. However, the barrier to devolution is not the DUP; it is the Northern Ireland protocol. When that is addressed, we will be ready to form a new Executive. That is our position now, and it will be after the election, irrespective of the outcome. The Secretary of State needs to get on with his job so that we can do ours. Two years ago, the United Kingdom Government made a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' that Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market would be fully restored and respected. They have failed to do that, compounding the failure of that Government and this Secretary of State, who voted for the legislation that created the mess of the protocol. I remind Members that, at a time of cost-of-living crisis, the protocol costs hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money through the trader support scheme: £6 million per month. That is £32 million for checks at the ports already. It has increased costs for businesses and consumers. It threatens our medicine supply chain for humans and animals. It is driving up the cost of infrastructure with a tariff on steel. It excludes Northern Ireland from benefiting from any VAT reduction that may come into place in Great Britain. The protocol is the biggest driver of the cost-of-living crisis in a Northern Ireland context. As people face a cost-of-living crisis, the Secretary of State is set to call an election so that he can save face. If the Secretary of State does so, it will be an admission of failure on his part and on the part of the UK Government. Although they have promised the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and are negotiating with the European Union, there has to this day been abject failure on the part of the UK Government. The Secretary of State will own the decision to call the election. However, unlike the Conservative Party, we are not afraid of an election, if one is called. We are ready to seek a renewed mandate to get a fair deal for the restoration of devolution on the basis of unionist and nationalist support. That is the solid foundation on which the Assembly needs to be created.
I am glad that the Member for Strangford recognises that there are unionists in the Chamber. Mr Buckley is absolutely right. What you have now is a very limited form of the protocol being implemented, although the parties opposite all want its rigorous implementation to completely hamstring the people of Northern Ireland. The unionist population will have an opportunity in this election to send a clear message to the European Union: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and we will have our place in that Union fully respected. To unionist voters I say this: divided unionism cannot win elections. Now is the time to come together. The Democratic Unionist Party is being tested. We will remain strong and resolute: so too will the unionist people of Northern Ireland.
779 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain
Uncertain: this record is excluded from all totals until a person reviews it.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.62 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.73).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.60).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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 | 0.73 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.26 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.44 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.45 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.62 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.34 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.91 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.