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
- 7 December 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4178606
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As we meet here for the fifth time to try to elect a Speaker, this is not the meeting of the Assembly that I or any of my party colleagues want. I want to be standing here today to hold the Education Minister accountable for helping childcare providers that are struggling to stay open and the parents who are struggling to pay. I want to be questioning the Health Minister about how we can address the spread of strep A throughout our communities and about the tragic circumstances around the emergency department in relation to little Stella-Lily. I want to be asking the Communities Minister how they might be able to intervene to prevent the potential closure of Radio Foyle. I want to be questioning the Economy Minister to explain why over 1,600 jobs were created in Belfast last year and only 67 in Derry. However, none of that is possible. Therefore I am unable to fully represent and serve the people of Foyle. Each time that we have to meet to nominate a Speaker, the DUP refuse to act. There is very little Christmas cheer around Stormont today and certainly no Christmas miracle. Today, the DUP will leave this Building having refused once again to do their job and expecting once again their constituencies to foot the bill. I have no doubt that, in the days ahead, we will hear DUP politicians on the airwaves to defend their decision — defending how they stopped government here because they were not getting their own way. I do not know how they have the nerve, but, then again, I do not know they have the nerve to do a lot of things. The nerve to call for a £600 payment scheme to be delivered from outside this Chamber while they refuse to take their seats inside this Chamber. The nerve to hold up government because they do not like the consequences of the political decision in 2016 that they campaigned for. The nerve to stand for election, sign up for their wages but not take their seats. Let us really cut to the chase, however, and get to the truth for once. I accept that the DUP has not been well-accustomed to the truth in recent times, but some of us still believe that it is important. To anyone with eyes, the plain truth is that the DUP has whipped up its people into a frenzy because it cannot stomach finishing in second place. The truth is that the DUP holding to ransom those of us who actually want to get on with our jobs. This is not about us; this is about the leverage of ordinary people who the DUP is now exploiting.
It is about how you are willing to stand idly by while people lose their jobs, or struggle to pay their mortgage or meet their childcare bills. People are rightly furious about that, but what angers them more than anything is that they can see that one party is able to hold up the rest of us. The most basic test of our politicians is just to show up, yet one party is preventing us from doing that.
Yes.
I absolutely agree with the Member. It should be the impetus for all of us, if we even needed any, that we need to reform this place to take away the veto over progress that the DUP is so cruelly wielding against our people. In the twenty-fifth year of the Good Friday Agreement, our party stands ready to do that hard work. With each day that passes, we preside over failed politics. Our young people lose hope for their future and for this place. I still believe that investing in the mechanisms of inclusive democracy, where we share power rather than carve it up, is the only way to deliver for the people and the only way to give hope and honesty to the Good Friday Agreement. More and more people are looking at the dysfunction that you are creating, and they are turning towards something different. The DUP might be content, for now, with whipping up fear over a new Ireland that would, supposedly, be hastened by a nationalist First Minister or by a protocol. The truth is, however, that the real impetus for constitutional change is the arrogant boycott that you will no doubt continue today. Happy Christmas.
732 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: 0.45 (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 (0.60).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.27 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.21 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.41 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.21 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.45 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.30 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.80 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:33 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.