Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Debate contribution by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín on 9 March 2026.

MLA

Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

9 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5453070

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will start where Pat started. I have listened to the whole debate, and it is definitely my opinion that the motion is just about tinkering. It is about denial. It is the first time that there has been a nationalist First Minister, and it is about making sure that that does not happen again, because of what they describe as an "election mantra". I am also a member of the AERC. To repeat the point that Pat, Sinead and others have made, we have received evidence from well-respected and renowned academics, who have all stated that changing the titles would not make a difference because, in law, the two positions have the same authority. The issue of reform should be debated here, but we still have loads of work to do in the AERC, so I was a bit surprised when I saw the motion's coming forward. However, when I then heard the debate, I realised what it was about: it is all bluff. Pat mentioned the fact that the massive amount of work that we have to do in the AERC requires not just focus but substance. The SDLP may have a suite of reforms, but that suite of reforms needs to be brought to and discussed in that Committee. Parts of the SDLP's narrative during the debate have been quite contradictory. It recognises that the positions are equal in law and practice, but, yet and all, it feels that there needs to be a change. I was a bit disappointed to hear the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister being referred to as high chairs and double buggies. That was quite patronising, to be frank. If that is the level of contribution, maybe you would be better just sticking here.

I will, as long as you are brief, Matthew.

Of course we do, but you are talking about positions that, as we all know, are equal in law. Michelle referred to herself as "joint First Minister". Matthew, when you get around to knocking doors and talking to people, this issue will come up. When a nationalist/republican held the position of First Minister for the first time ever, what did the SDLP do? It jumped to change that. That is what will stick in people's heads. Jonathan, I have to laugh. What age were you when the Good Friday Agreement was signed? Seven? However, you said that, under your watch, the RUC would not have been changed and that something else would not have been changed. You sound ridiculous at times.

OK. There were lots of issues in the Good Friday Agreement that impacted on people.

I am not patronising you, but —

— you absolutely do not have dominance when it comes to impact. That needs to stop. At the end of the day, I would have much preferred the motion to be about a bill of rights. Was it? Absolutely not. Mike Nesbitt was a representative on the Ad Hoc Committee. He told people as part of those presentations, "We're getting there" and, "We're nearly there" and then walked into the Chamber and vetoed it. It is not about sectarian vetoes; it is about ending vetoes that look, feel, walk and talk as though they are sectarian. You can jump up and down all you want, but, if that is what it looks like, that is what it is. I also agree on the issue of the designation as "Other". I am glad that someone has come in to support you, Paula. You were left on your own for almost the whole debate, which does not really say a lot. I want to make sure — I guess that we all do — that, when you strip it all down, this place reflects the people who elect us. It is democratic that, when d'Hondt is used, it is a reflection of first preference votes. Name changes are not going to do that. It is about first preference votes, and about people getting positions based on what the electorate returns. However, if that is the case, we need to look at everything across the board.

Will doing that result in a better, more respectful Chamber? No, it will not, because people will have bad manners regardless of how many first preference votes they get. I want to see substance over style. I want to see reforms for which we can all have the same energy and determination. I would like to see such discussions be had at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee rather than in superficial debates that are really about creating clickbait. Sin é.

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

Assessment

Flagged Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech engages with substance, citing evidence given to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee that the two offices are "equal in law" and arguing that reform belongs in that committee. But its central argument is about communal motive: the motion is described as "about denial" and about making sure a nationalist First Minister "does not happen again", and voters are told the party "jumped to change that" when "a nationalist/republican held the position". It also insinuates sectarianism by another party over a veto, calling it a veto that would "look, feel, walk and talk as though" it were sectarian, which the rubric treats as an identity-based attack on a party.

Public interest or divisiveness

Parts of the speech deal with real institutional questions: the legal equality of the offices, d'Hondt, the "Other" designation and a bill of rights. These sit alongside a sustained framing of an opponent's reform proposal as a move against nationalist representation, aimed at what "will stick in people's heads" on the doorstep, and an imputation of sectarian motive to another party. Both elements are substantial, but the identity-based reading of the motion is the speech's main thrust.

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