Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 9 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

9 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5453031

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We live in a situation where people are being dragged into deeper, longer and more dangerous wars and there is global uncertainty of a kind we have not seen for 15, 20 or more years. In that context, it seems bizarre that we are having a debate about title changes on the doors of Ministers who have delivered nothing of substance for working-class communities. The SDLP may be running out of ideas for its motions, because it has considerable time every month or six weeks to propose them. If that is the case, I am happy to lend some ideas for motions for the Members opposite to propose to the House.

It is naive to think that, just by equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister — changing them to make them joint First Ministers or First Minister 1 and First Minister 2 or whatever — elections here would no longer be a battle about which was the biggest party or who has the biggest communal bloc. To say that that is naive is to put it mildly. I would hazard a guess that, if it were to happen, the debate would become about who the "first" or "real" First Minister was. We would not move away from that context, because communalism is hardwired in this place through its structures and the agreements that brought it into being. I was not here at the start of the debate, but there is merit in querying the timing of the proposal from the SDLP when unionism is on the back foot and in a historic crisis. I do not know whether I have time to go into all that or whether the Deputy Speaker would let me expand on that

, but I could send the Members to my right a few articles. As I said, there is no problem with the proposal in principle; however, it is a bit absurd for us to have this debate, and I query why it has come to the House now. In a general sense, my party and I — I have said this from day 1 —.

I do not know what you shouted, but I am going to move on.

I do have a party — an all-island party, with TDs. I will teach you about that some day. We have always called for maximum reform of these institutions, but it is clear that most of the bigger parties are opposed to real, deep, meaningful change. Sinn Féin fought the previous election on the mantra of "First Minister for all", and it was rewarded in part for that when it was returned as the biggest party. That slogan, and that reality, were symbolically important for many, but we need to move beyond symbols and see delivery for working-class people. The First Minister and the Executive as a whole have not delivered for working-class people across the board. Most people have checked out of Stormont and have completely lost faith in this institution. It is ridiculous that, if the Alliance Party were to become the biggest or second-biggest party in this place, it would not be able to take up those positions. I have been more critical of the Alliance Party on many things than other parties have been, but that is absurd and shows how sectarianism and communalism are hardwired into this place.

My point was that it is naive to think that that change would bring about a new form of politics or type of election. Before the Member intervened, I was making the point that it is absurd and ridiculous that parties here are "othered". I find that offensive. I am a socialist — Alliance Party members are liberals; they can define themselves — and the fact that we are put to the side, literally in my case, and othered, with my vote not counting and my being seen as a second-class MLA, is distasteful.

Yes: go ahead.

I advise the Member to look at how many times cross-community votes were needed.

I do not have the number to hand.

It is not a memory test; it is a political debate. It is important to emphasise that point, and the Alliance Party has done so and can do that for itself. There are good points in the amendment about the need for reform of the whole structure of this place, not just to change the First Minister titles; however, I am sceptical of the idea that Sinn Féin and other parties would push ahead with it.

758 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