Debate contribution: Election of the Speaker
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of the Speaker
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4254922
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am pleased that we have reached the stage where we have a stable and sustainable basis on which to elect a Speaker and have the institutions back up and running. Two years ago, to the very date, I resigned. Something had to bring matters to a head, which is why my leader acted decisively at that time. Having secured the necessary progress across a wide range of issues, we are here at this point today. I am glad that we have got to this stage. It has been a long road to get here. I hope, as the Assembly starts out in a renewed effort to deliver for the people, that we never again end up in a position where unionists are discarded, others in the House do not listen to the concerns expressed by the unionist people and every unionist elected Member of this place feels that changes have taken place without our consent.
That has been the journey that we have had to go on, often, regrettably, without the support of many people in the House who often made issues more difficult for us to reach the point that we have got to today. However, through determination, Jeffrey Donaldson has led us to this stage, and I am proud of the work that he has put in to get us to that point, not for the DUP but for Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland. As we step forward, let us do it in a manner that we can work together in genuine cooperation. We have the right person now to be the Speaker of the Assembly in Edwin Poots, someone whom I have known for a very long time. At 16 years of age, when I joined the party, it was Edwin who was there. I worked for him for one day a week when I was 17 years of age, so I have known him for a long time. I have always known him to act with absolute integrity in everything that he does, and Members can rest assured that there will never be anything that will cause them concern in how Edwin Poots discharges his duties as the Speaker of the Assembly. Elected here in 1998, he is one of only two left and still standing. He was elected previously in the 1996 Forum and was a councillor in 1997, but he is not the first Poots to have been elected to this Assembly. His father, the late Charlie Poots, was elected to Stormont in 1973 for what was the old North Down constituency. I know that his family are immensely proud of how Edwin Poots has continued to carry on the legacy that his father left him and of the character that was instilled in him in that family. Today is an important day for Edwin, but I have to say that I will miss him on these Benches. I will miss him in the room upstairs where we meet and discuss how we will deal with business, but it is a new challenge for him and a new opportunity, and I know that he will embrace that. I am delighted to speak in favour of my good friend and colleague Edwin Poots, and I know that he will do incredibly well in the position of Speaker in the Assembly.
559 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: 0.23 (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 (0.56).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.53 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.03 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.41 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.45 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.32 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.