Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 May 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4177855
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I congratulate the Members who made their maiden speeches today. Well done to all those who contributed. I am utterly dismayed by the tone and nature of the debate. Of course we do not all agree; we all know that. I have been involved in the process since 2007, and I have worked with many Members across the House. The one thing that we all know is that, in order to make the process work, we need to understand one another, to show some respect and to work on solutions together. I am dismayed to hear the jeering and sneering from others about the concerns of unionists. I am deeply dismayed to hear the genuine issues of unionism being described as nonsense, a tactic or some sort of a stunt.
I am dismayed, frankly, to hear from the Benches across not just the demeaning, disregarding and dismissing of the deep and genuine concerns of unionism that we have heard for the past two years but now insults. I could easily say to any of the Members on the Benches across, "When was the last time that you spoke to people who were in the IRA?". I could easily call out the behaviour of the past number of years. In the five years of the previous mandate, Sinn Féin brought down and kept down the institutions for three years. You have said today that it is OK when you do it and that it is OK when it is an issue that is important to Sinn Féin but that, when it is an issue that is of concern to unionism, "Forget all about it. Get in there. You are talking nonsense". We are utterly dismissed.
Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker.
Yes.
I thank the Member for that contribution. The reality is that we all have issues that matter deeply to us and to the communities out there, and we must do our best to get those issues resolved.
I appeal to everyone around the Chamber by saying that the only way that has ever worked in Northern Ireland is through us speaking to one another and trying to get solutions together. That has not happened for over two years.
When the protocol was announced in late 2019, there was a full year before it came in on 1 January 2021. In that year, we highlighted the many problems and concerns that we had. We went to the British Government and to Brussels, but, rather than getting the compromises that we needed, parties across the Chamber ran to Dublin and Brussels and asked them not to give an inch, not to compromise and to implement rigorously the protocol as it stood.
I do not have time, unfortunately. When the protocol came into effect on 1 January 2021, the problems unfortunately emerged. We have seen some solutions and some tinkering with those issues, but what we need now is a genuine resolution. The Member opposite asked, "What is it that the DUP stands for?". The DUP believes in Northern Ireland and wants Northern Ireland to work. It cannot work if there is a deep fracture, and that fracture is caused by the Northern Ireland protocol. We are all here today and can continue our process only if the Assembly and the institutions are based on the concept of consent. Unionism is no longer consenting to be part of a process that demeans, disregards, dismisses and insults its genuine concerns. This is not just a unionist issue. Unless we get the protocol resolved, it will create huge amounts of paperwork and cause costs to be passed on to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland at a time of a cost-of-living crisis. This is bad, and we need to get it resolved. I appeal to all of you to stop the shouting across the Chamber, the jeering and the insults. Get around a table and find solutions. The sooner the issue is resolved, the sooner the Northern Ireland Executive can get back and this place can function properly. It is in all of our hands.
681 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Decided as not qualifying on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.59 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.67).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.57).
- 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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not qualifying
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The speech frames the protocol dispute largely in communal terms, as "the deep and genuine concerns of unionism" being "demeaned, disregarded and dismissed", and it includes a pointed aside, "When was the last time that you spoke to people who were in the IRA?", that links opponents to paramilitarism while claiming not to say it. Against that, its main thrust is a recognisable constitutional and institutional argument about the protocol, cross-community consent and restoring the Executive. It also makes practical points about paperwork and costs during a cost-of-living crisis, and repeatedly appeals for respect and talks. The rubric treats arguments about consent rules as legitimate unless they are loaded, and here the grievance framing and the IRA jibe sit alongside, rather than replace, the substantive case.
Public interest or divisiveness
The speech mixes a substantive defence of a political position on the protocol and the functioning of the institutions, including calls to "get around a table and find solutions", with tit-for-tat point-scoring. That point-scoring includes the IRA insinuation, blaming one party for past collapses, and the claim that other parties "ran to Dublin and Brussels". Both elements are substantial, so it neither purely opposes division nor mainly deepens it.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.67 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.52 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.34 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.28 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.59 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.06 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.37 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.57 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.64 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.29 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.