Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 9 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

9 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5452942

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to support the motion. We see some merit in the amendment, but we will oppose it because we feel that, while the AERC is doing some good work and taking some great evidence, there is potential for incremental change, led by the UK Government, on institutional reform here. We recognise that, to use Mr Sheehan's phrase, there are "deeper structural issues" in the institutions that need urgent attention by the Government. The Assembly knows, because it is written into law and demonstrated in practice, that the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal in authority and responsibility. One cannot act without the other. One cannot remain in post without the other. Their powers are exercised together, their decisions are taken together, and their mandates rest on the same statutory foundation. The distinction between "First" and "deputy First" suggests seniority and subordination. It suggests that one office leads and the other follows. That simply is not how our institutions are designed to operate, and it is not how the law defines them.

The titles were the product of political negotiation at a particular time, many years ago now.

I have not been following the Committee's work that closely, and nor have I heard that suggestion. It is certainly not party policy as such, but I can understand why some people would see merit in it. The Alliance Party has consistently stated that our institutions must be reformed and allowed to evolve to reflect society as it changes around us. The fact that something was agreed in a fragile context nearly three decades ago does not mean that it must remain so for ever, particularly where it reflects neither political reality nor the community that we are all elected to serve. The spirit of the Good Friday Agreement was not to entrench hierarchy but to create a partnership in the leadership of government here. It was not to create a system of symbolic winners or losers but to ensure that government here would be exercised on the basis of mutual respect, parity of esteem and shared responsibility. Yet, the current titles continue, however unintended, to reinforce a narrative of hierarchy. We can all see that influencing the narrative at every Assembly election. As Mr McCrossan pointed out, as we come up to an election, it offers a chance to garner support within the respective electoral bases. The titles feed the perception that one tradition holds the top job while the other merely occupies the second job. That perception may be politically convenient for some, but it does not serve an increasingly mixed and diverse society. As has been mentioned, several former holders of the post from different political backgrounds have recognised that anomaly and called for change; those who have occupied the posts have acknowledged that the titles misrepresent their joint nature. Importantly, such a change would send a signal beyond the Chamber. Most of all, perhaps, it would make this place more relevant to a younger generation that does not see politics solely through the prism of orange and green; to those who identify as neither or indeed the significant minority who identify as having several national and cultural identities at once; to those who belong to a group that has emerged post agreement whose prime identity is Northern Irish; and to those who want to see our institutions reflect cooperation rather than competition. I emphasise again that the Alliance Party sees the move as part of much broader reform, including the removal of sectarian vetoes, that would have a much more direct and profound impact on the ability of this place to push for meaningful reform, to make meaningful decisions and to deliver meaningful legislation on behalf of the public. Ahead of the next Assembly election, we have an opportunity to correct the situation and deliver an Executive Committee that is much more aligned to what the voters elected. That will ensure that, when voters go to the polls, they do so knowing that the leadership of the Executive Committee of government here is, at least in principle, based on equality and genuine power-sharing. This is a modest reform, but it is a meaningful one. For those reasons, we support the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:03 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.

Challenge this classification