Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 9 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

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 5453103

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been spiky, as I thought it would be. Notable by its absence was a defence, from a single person, of the status quo. Not one person could offer a substantive defence of the status quo. Lots of people question my and the SDLP's motives, as the Opposition, for tabling the motion. Lots of people said that the change would not be substantive. Those are fair enough comments. People even made personal digs at me. That is grand: I am a big boy and can take it. Not one person, however, including anyone from the Sinn Féin and DUP Benches, could offer a substantive defence of the differential. The reason that they did not is because they cannot. In opening the debate, the first thing that I said is that this is not the most important issue facing the Assembly but, rather, the least important. That is why we need to change the titles. They reinforce arbitrary division and an Old Firm style of politics from which we need to move away.

I will give way in a second. I want to make some progress first. I thought that this would happen and was almost amused to see it happen, yet I deeply resent the nationalist green-Lundying of the SDLP: the suggestion that we are doing this now because there is a Sinn Féin First Minister. We have taken the same position for years. Here is the thing: Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd also took that position. If they took that position then, why is it wrong now? Let us grow up. Slurring us for tabling a motion on reform is not the way in which to defend your party's record in the Executive. I will respond to a comment that was made repeatedly about the AERC. From the way in which people are talking about AERC, I did not realise that I had joined some form of papal conclave, or perhaps a fight club, that must not be talked about outside the room. AERC is a Committee like any other. We all sit on Statutory Committees on which we debate things and come to a collective view, or not. There is nothing illegitimate about Committee members taking a position and tabling a motion. Pat Sheehan mentioned non-binding motions. We are the Opposition, and what we do is table Opposition business. You guys are the Executive parties. Introduce some legislation, and we will debate it. You have more power than we do to bring forward legislation. Sinn Féin Members, starting with Pat, followed by Sinéad and Carál, stated that everyone who has given evidence to the Committee said that any change would be totally cosmetic and therefore should not happen. That is just not true. I will pick one example. At the beginning of her presentation, Professor Joanne McEvoy, an academic from the University of Aberdeen, said:

"we will focus on what could or should be reformed in terms of Executive design ... First, we suggest that parties may wish to revisit the titles of the top two posts. The 'deputy' tag can cause confusion and symbolic problems for some parties, despite the First Minister and deputy First Minister having equal power. It may be prudent now to change the titles to 'First Ministers'".

What Sinn Féin Members repeatedly said about no one having given evidence to that effect and any change being completely superficial is therefore completely untrue. I will tackle some of the points that were made. There were reasonable points made that require a response, and I am happy to respond to them. Pat said that I am very rarely on time. I have, I think, attended the vast majority of AERC evidence sessions, and we have pushed the agenda. I look forward to working collectively with all Committee members and am happy to do so.

I will give way briefly to the Chair of the AERC.

Here is the thing: we would support the motion, because we are not a tribal party that is consumed by Old Firm-style politics and sectarian point-scoring, as both your parties are. OK? We are a party that believes in a new North and a new Ireland, based on partnership. That, not the green-Lundying that we have heard from Sinn Féin and the carping that we have heard from the DUP, is in our DNA. I say that just to be clear about who we are, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will return to some of what we have heard today. Jonathan Buckley talked about one-upmanship. That is exactly what we want to move away from.

We want to move away from one-upmanship and towards "jointery". Mr Buckley is entitled to have a dig at me. That is fine: I do not mind.

Others spoke about their party's position. Paula talked about Alliance, which has a long track record of talking about reform of the institutions. That is fair enough. She made those points very well. I am glad that Alliance will support our motion. This is not the end of reform, and it is not, to be clear — let me repeat this — the most important reform. It is one of a suite of reforms that we need. I am glad that we now have progress on this.

I will take an intervention in one second. Every party in the Chamber has, at one point or another, said that they agree substantively with reform, so let us make progress.

I do not believe that I accused you of being sectarian, Linda.

However, what I will say is that some of the debate has moved towards a situation where, when we challenge and call for genuine partnership in this place, we are accused of, as it were, letting the side down: "You are only doing it because you are whatever". The implication is clear. That is not what we are doing. We have been clear in relation to —.

I do not have much time, so I will not give way. I have given way multiple times to Members. If I have time later on, I will; I promise. Members repeatedly said that it is a cosmetic change. If it is a cosmetic change, let us go ahead and do it. I have not heard anybody substantively disagree with it. I have simply heard Members cast aspersions on me, the Opposition and our motives. That is all fine. However, if you do not substantively disagree with it, let us get on and do it. Gerry does not disagree with the merits of the reform but seems to think that it, in itself, is cosmetic. He also strongly disagrees with the communalism and tribalism that, he thinks, characterise these institutions. This is one area where an arbitrary difference reinforces something that is not healthy in our politics: a horse race towards a job title. It is important to say that that was created by the largest unionist party in 1998. I do not think that we — certainly, those in parties that believe in a new Ireland and in a republic where there is equality of citizenship — should endorse that type of arbitrary differential. I do not want to be top dog in the wee North; I want a new Ireland, based on equality of citizenship and mutual respect, including for unionists. I want to equalise the titles, because I want to move our politics away from the kind of point-scoring and tribalism that we have seen. Yes, unionism created that shibboleth in the first place, and, yes, that is why the First Minister's election in 2024 was genuinely historic. I said that then, and I will say it now. That having happened, I do not understand why equalising the titles, as was the position of Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd, and as is, I think, the position of Sinn Féin, based on what its Members have said today, would be such an unacceptable thing to do. It is about having a broader culture of accountability in our politics, because the public out there are genuinely frustrated with the lack of delivery in our politics. They are frustrated with tribal point-scoring. If we fight another election on the basis of a race to a job title, they will become unbelievably frustrated with our politics. They will think that we do not care at all about their public services, which are crumbling; the environment, which is stagnating; and the economy, which is not creating enough opportunities for young people. They will think that all that matters is point-scoring and bickering, particularly between the two big parties, which they see repeatedly and have seen today in the Chamber. I want to have a genuine spirit of partnership. That is what we as a political party genuinely believe in. That is why we think that this, yes, small, yes, cosmetic change is necessary. I genuinely, sincerely urge all parties in the Chamber to get behind and support it. I have not heard one Member explain to me why retaining the status quo is a good idea. Lots of Members are frustrated with me and angry with us for raising the issue, and they questioned our motives. That is fine. That is what political parities do.

However, I have not heard one Member question the merits. You have 10 seconds, Mr Buckley, and then I will give way briefly to Mr Sheehan, who also wants in.

I think you will find that I did not do that in my opening remarks, but then Members opened up on me during the debate. I am happy to take it and give it back.

There, in the last 30 seconds of the debate, I will agree with Pat Sheehan. The DUP has never bought into the spirit of compromise. You and I want to live in a new Ireland — a republic that is based on equality of citizenship. Why are we playing the DUP's game? Let us equalise these titles and move towards a new Ireland that is based on equality and respect, not top-dog nonsense and Old Firm-style politics. I commend the motion to the House.

1,697 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech closes a debate on a motion to equalise the First Minister and deputy First Minister titles. It argues the merits, quotes committee evidence and frames the change as a way to move away from "arbitrary division" and "a horse race towards a job title". It does contain identity-tinged jibes at other parties, including calling them "consumed by Old Firm-style politics and sectarian point-scoring" and complaining of "green-Lundying". These are directed at parties' conduct in the debate rather than at a community, and the main thrust is institutional reform, not which community is winning or losing.

Public interest or divisiveness

The evident function is to win support for a reform the speaker presents as reducing communal one-upmanship. The speech ties this to public frustration over "crumbling" services and "tribal point-scoring", which serves the public interest. However, it also trades partisan barbs, accuses two parties of sectarian point-scoring, and ends with an appeal framed around a shared "new Ireland" and not "playing the DUP's game". This continues a communal argument while complaining about it, so both elements are substantial.

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