Debate contribution: Election of the Speaker

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .

MLA
Mr Mike Nesbitt
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
3 February 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Assembly Business
Heading
Election of the Speaker
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4254949

Text

Sorry, Mr Acting Speaker, I did not hear you there. I just want to say a few words in praise of the outgoing Speaker. When I came here in 2011 as a rookie Ulster Unionist, I encountered a well-seasoned republican in Mr Maskey, and I quickly came to realise, to my surprise, that we could work together harmoniously, much more so than in our previous encounters as interviewee and interviewer at Ulster Television. Mr Maskey used to come in, particularly on a Thursday night, for the politics, and I remember that, one night, the editor whispered in my earpiece, "If you push him any harder, he might deck you"

But he never did. Here, we served together on the Committee for the Office of First Minister and deputy First Minister, scrutinising the work of the Executive Office. It is a matter of record that, over the past nearly 26 years, that was the only Committee that ever single-handedly put legislation through the House. That was the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman Bill, which became an Act. It took a long time. As Chair, I had the pleasure as of steering the last few passages. It was not without its challenges to republican ideology, but Mr Maskey took a practical and pragmatic view that the prize was worth paying a little price for and that the price did not compromise his principles. I very much appreciate what you did, Mr Maskey, in steering the Sinn Féin group through that Committee. I think that we all can agree on what Mr Maskey did in that Chair: the neutrality, the friendliness and the professionalism. Of course, we do not see a lot of the work of the Speaker, which includes meeting and greeting and promoting this institution. A little while ago, I was asked by the Northern Ireland Centre of Competitiveness whether I would entertain a worldwide global president whom they were flying into Belfast in the hope of attracting an annual conference. They were to come up here one Friday morning, and I sent a message to Mr Maskey, "Could you join us at 11 o'clock for a cup of coffee in the Members' Bar?" The answer came back straight away: "No, I will not. You come here, and I will entertain you in the Speaker's Office". That is what he did, and it was a much more impressive greeting than I could have offered upstairs. Not only did we spend a lot of time chatting in the Speaker's Office but, when I said that I was now taking this worldwide president on a tour of the Building, Mr Maskey came with us. At one point, we left Mr Maskey and the president in the Senate Chamber where they spent over 15 minutes, as he charmed her into agreeing to bring that conference to Northern Ireland. That is the sort of thing that Mr Maskey has been doing for the past three years, which we have not seen, but it has been incredibly important for this institution, particularly at a time when, in the court of public opinion, we do not always necessarily score a straight 10. Mr Maskey, I thank you, and I wish you every success and happiness as you open the next chapter. I finish, Mr Acting Speaker, by expressing regret that Mr Allister would not take an intervention. For those wondering what I was going to say, it was simply this: if his analysis is correct, why has he ended his boycott of this Building?

587 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

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: 0.12 (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 (0.95).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.13No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.22No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.03No
Overall judgement0.12At or below not-qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.95
Reports or questions it0.04
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.83
Another identity-related subject0.07
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.05
No identity-related subject0.03
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.

Challenge this classification