Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 30 May 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4177701
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. As I said before, I hope that you do not have to spend too long in that Chair, but thank you for standing in today to oversee proceedings, such as they are. A couple of weeks ago, when we met, I proudly nominated Patsy McGlone MLA to be Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Today, I nominate Patsy again. I hope, but I do not expect, that our party and the Assembly will be successful today in nominating Patsy for the role. In our view, he is the outstanding candidate to be Speaker of the Assembly. For more than three decades in politics, he has shown his commitment to cross-community politics, to delivery for people and to serving the people of Mid Ulster and across this region. He has been in the Assembly since 2003. He is a former general secretary of the SDLP, and he has been Deputy Speaker of the Assembly since 2016. He is a committed parliamentarian, a sure hand and a fair mind and someone who would be ideal to lead this institution. We nominate him today, and we will keep nominating him until certain parties in the Chamber come to their senses and allow us to get back and to do our jobs. We know in all probability that, today, the DUP will not let us elect a Speaker. Today is another opportunity to elect, first of all, a Speaker and then First and deputy First Ministers to enable the people who were returned here by the electorate, just a few weeks ago, to come in and do their jobs. I want to pause for a minute and reflect on the democratic act that everyone in this room participated in a few weeks ago. We went out and knocked on hundreds and thousands of doors in our constituency and asked people for their vote: a precious, precious thing. Politics is not about politicians. It is not about those of us who stand up and make speeches in the Chamber and seek office; it is about the people whom we serve. That is what a democracy is supposed to be about. To be honest, I do not know how the party opposite can face the people whom it asked for a vote. I do not know how it can face them. Blocking us from even electing a Speaker in order to have debates and to hold shadow Ministers to account is genuinely abhorrent. To breach the trust of people from whom you have sought a vote is unconscionable.
The thing that we should be doing here today is electing, first of all, a Speaker, and then First Ministers, to deal with an appalling cost-of-living crisis and deal with a health service crisis that sees nearly a third of our population — a third of our population — on a waiting list. In relation to the cost-of-living crisis, the SDLP has a Bill ready. We tried to move emergency legislation before the Assembly dissolved for the election, and we will try to move it again should a Speaker be elected, but, in all probability, the party opposite will not let us do that. Why, why, why is the DUP holding the people of Northern Ireland hostage? Why? It says that it is all about the protocol. The protocol is an international treaty signed by the UK and the European Union. It was not negotiated by the people of Northern Ireland and it was not negotiated by MLAs. Mr Givan mentioned the role of MLAs, but the number of MLAs who support the protocol went up at the last election. The DUP has decided that the people who will be made to pay for its arrogance and intransigence are the people of Northern Ireland. Those are people who cannot heat their homes and whose family members are stuck on waiting lists. It is, as we have discussed, truly appalling. I do not know what else to say about the behaviour of the DUP, but I will say this: you talk about consent. You talk about the failure of the unionist community and the people who elected you to offer consent for the protocol. I acknowledge that your party does not like the protocol. Do you acknowledge that my party and other parties in the Chamber have an equal objection to Brexit itself?
No. Consent, apparently, means simply the consent of the DUP. Shameful. Utterly shameful. I hope that, when you leave the Chamber today, having again blocked us from appointing a Speaker, you will hold your heads in shame. People are struggling to heat their homes, struggling to feed their families and worried about their parents or other family members who are on a waiting list. I hope that you can hold your heads high when you face them, because I could not.
810 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.28 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.77).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.26 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.31 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.10 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.