Motion or amendment: Equalising the First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mrs Sinéad Ennis on .
- MLA
- Mrs Sinéad Ennis
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 5 March 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Equalising the First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles”
- Heading
- Equalising the First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 474707
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Equalising the First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘responsibility;’ and insert:
‘believes that altering the titles alone does not address the deeper structural issues within our institutions requiring reform; notes that public confidence in devolved government depends on stability and delivery aided by the implementation of a meaningful package of reforms rather than dealing with issues in isolation; and expresses its support for the work of Assembly and Executive Review Committee in considering options for substantive structural reforms which would strengthen accountability and ensure that the Assembly and Executive can better deliver for all communities.’
103 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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: 0.06 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.79 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.17 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:21 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.