Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 9 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

9 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5452983

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The motion asks this simple but important question: if the offices of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are equal in authority and responsibility, why do we continue to suggest otherwise through their titles? Under the legislation, the offices are appointed together, they exercise their powers jointly and one cannot exist without the other. The titles that we continue to use imply a hierarchy that simply does not exist in practice. It may seem like a small issue, but it has real consequences. It feeds a political culture in which, too often, debate is focused on symbolism rather than substance. Too often, this place becomes caught up in arguments about who sits in the high chair rather than focusing on the issues that matter most to the people whom we represent. We saw that dynamic only last week. At a time when the world is watching a deeply concerning escalation of violence in the Middle East —.

Thank you for your intervention. As my colleague set out at the beginning of the debate, this is not the most important thing, but it is important in this regard: given that the offices are equal, why under goodness would they not have the same name? It would stop the nonsense of this childish, "Who is going to sit in the high chair?" time and again. Just back —

OK. Go ahead.

I agree. I like the "double buggy" bit. At a time when the world was watching the deeply concerning escalation of violence in the Middle East, the conversation in this Building still drifted towards arguments about who was in charge. That really should give us pause. It reflects the deeper problem of how this place operates. Stormont was designed at a time when the priority was to secure peace and stability after decades of conflict. Those institutions succeeded in bringing together communities that had been divided for generations, and that achievement should always be recognised, but the structures that were created were designed primarily to manage division not to maximise delivery. We see the limits of that every day. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister do not hold authority over their ministerial colleagues. They cannot direct Departments or enforce collective responsibility in the way that most Governments can. Therefore, the titles carry more symbolic weight than practical power. When symbolism becomes the focus of politics, it detracts from the work that people expect us to do. Recognising that something is not working does not mean rejecting the institutions that we have; it means that we are willing to improve them. For many years, the SDLP has argued that our institutions should evolve so that they function better for the people whom they serve. Equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister is one small step — but a meaningful one — in that direction. There is much more to be done, and we recognise that. The change would simply reflect the legal reality that already exists. I do not understand the pushback. The change would remove an unnecessary source of division and allow the Assembly to focus less on status and more on delivery. This is not a new idea —

Can I just progress with this? Sinn Féin previously used the term "joint First Ministers" and, in 2015, proposed formal changes to the titles. More recently, the former First Minister, Baroness Foster, spoke in favour of equalising the titles. That is a constructive position, and it shows that there is recognition across the political spectrum that change is possible. The equalisation of the titles is not something to fear. It does not change Northern Ireland's constitutional position. It simply aligns the language of our institutions with the reality of how we already operate.

628 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