Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Tá fáilte romhat, a Chris.

The Chair is running a wee bit late, so I am standing in temporarily.

Mr Chris Hazzard (Sinn Féin): Go raibh maith agat,

Deputy Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): I also welcome Marie Austin.

Chris, when you are ready, you have 10 minutes to make a presentation, and we will then take questions from members.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agaibh

, Deputy Chair and Committee. Thanks very much for the opportunity to come along and speak to our recent document on proposals around reform of the Assembly, entitled 'Building Better Politics'.

Almost three decades after the Good Friday Agreement, our political institutions have transformed society for the better. They have helped to bring an end to conflict, embed power-sharing in government and ensure that politics, dialogue and democratic engagement shape our future. The election of Michelle O'Neill as First Minister is a powerful reflection of how far politics and our society have come. However, 28 years of experience have exposed weaknesses in the operation of the institutions that have repeatedly frustrated democratic government, delayed decision-making and undermined public confidence.

Let me be absolutely clear: power-sharing is a core principle of the Good Friday Agreement and must be defended, but power-sharing and veto are not the same. The agreement was designed to ensure that government was shared. It was never intended to allow government to be paralysed. Repeated collapses, boycotts and periods without functioning institutions have denied citizens effective government, weakened accountability and hindered delivery for communities. People rightly expect political institutions that are stable, resilient and capable of working every day, regardless of political disagreement. Our proposals are guided by the simple principle that no single party should possess the power to bring democratic government to a standstill. These reforms are practical, targeted and achievable. They seek to strengthen stability, improve accountability, enhance transparency and ensure that our institutions can continue to function and deliver even during periods of political or economic crisis while fully protecting minority rights and the safeguards in the Good Friday Agreement.

I will outline the proposals. The first is ending the veto on Executive formation. Under the current arrangements, the largest nationalist and unionist parties effectively possess a unilateral veto over the formation of the Executive. If either refuses to nominate a First Minister or deputy First Minister, a Government cannot be formed. Sinn Féin proposes that that veto be removed. The largest nationalist and unionist parties would continue to have the first right to make those nominations, but, where either party chooses not to exercise that right, the opportunity to nominate should pass to the next eligible party. Power-sharing would remain fully protected. What would end is the ability of any single party to prevent the formation of government indefinitely.

The second relates to the election of the Speaker. A newly elected Assembly cannot begin its work until a Speaker has been elected. Under current arrangements, the requirement for cross-community support creates a situation whereby the function of the Assembly can be blocked from day 1. We therefore propose removing the veto over the election of the Speaker at the first sitting of the newly elected Assembly.

The third is on accountability and transparency in the Office of the Speaker. The Speaker's independence is fundamental to the proper operation of any legislature. However, independence should not be confused with an absence of accountability. Current Standing Orders provide very limited mechanisms for transparency regarding significant rulings and decisions. Practical reform options should be explored, including the provision of formal explanations for key rulings and carefully defined review mechanisms informed by international parliamentary best practice.

The fourth relates to equality for MLAs who designate as "other". The designation system remains an important safeguard in the Good Friday Agreement and plays a vital role in protecting minority rights. However, MLAs who designate as "other" have raised legitimate concerns regarding the weight afforded to their votes in certain key decisions. Sinn Féin believe that those concerns should be addressed positively. Reform options should be explored that ensure fair and equal democratic participation while fully maintaining the essential protections and safeguards of the agreement.

The fifth is about normalising the appointment of the Justice Minister. The position of Justice Minister remains an anomaly within the Executive, sitting outside the normal d’Hondt allocation process. The British Government should legislate to regularise the appointment of the Justice Minister through the same d’Hondt process that applies to all other ministerial positions, thereby ensuring consistency and parity across Government.

The sixth is on the devolution of fiscal powers. Institutional stability alone is not enough if Ministers lack the financial tools required to deliver for citizens. The absence of meaningful fiscal powers significantly constrains the Executive's ability to invest in public services and respond to local economic challenges. Therefore, we call for urgent engagement between the British Government, the Executive and the Finance Minister on the devolution of additional fiscal powers, enabling greater local accountability, stronger public investment and greater economic self-determination.

These proposals are rooted in a simple democratic principle, namely that no single party should have the power to bring government, the Assembly or our democratic institutions to a standstill. They are practical reforms designed to strengthen stability, improve accountability and enhance transparency. We believe that they are reasonable, proportionate and firmly rooted in the spirit and principles of the Good Friday Agreement. However, we are also clear-eyed about the limitations of institutional reform. No change to Standing Orders, procedural adjustment or reform of Stormont's institutions can fully overcome the fundamental challenges that continue to face politics and government in the North. Reform cannot compel parties to embrace partnership, equality and genuine power-sharing where the political will is absent. Reform cannot resolve the chronic underfunding of public services or the economic constraints that arise when key fiscal and economic decisions remain beyond the remit of locally elected representatives. Ultimately, reform cannot remedy the instability that flows from partition itself. That is why we believe that, while we have a responsibility to improve the institutions that we have, we must also prepare for the constitutional future that lies ahead.

The greatest opportunity for political, democratic and economic renewal on this island is the opportunity to end partition and build a new Ireland. That conversation about change is no longer a question of whether change will come: the real question is how we shape that change, how we prepare for it and how we build a future that benefits everyone who calls this island home. While that conversation continues, we have a duty to ensure that the institutions that were established under the Good Friday Agreement are as effective, resilient and democratic as they can be. That is the purpose of our proposals: to strengthen power-sharing, prevent political paralysis, improve democratic accountability and, above all, ensure that the institutions that people rely on are capable of delivering every single day for workers, families and our communities. It is in that spirit that Sinn Féin brings these proposals before the Committee. I commend them to members.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Sheehan): Go raibh maith agat

, Chris. I will open the discussion to questions from members. Michelle, you are first in.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. I appreciate that. It is fair to say that Sinn Féin has moved on this issue. Even in this Committee, there was some reluctance at the start to explore this topic, but you guys have now published some proposals. That progress is welcome.

I am going to ask you a few specifics on your proposals. You are clear that the largest nationalist and unionist parties should retain the right to nominate a First Minister and deputy First Minister, but your proposal is, if either chooses not to exercise that right, that it should pass to other parties. The language that you used in your submission was "the next eligible party". How is a party eligible? Will it pass to the next party within the same designation or to the next largest party overall?

Mr Hazzard: We have to remember that the Good Friday Agreement was the result of painstaking solutions that were found during discussions and negotiations over many months. There was a balancing of rights as a result of negotiations that were painstaking in the first instance, as I said, and hugely successful in the second. The balance between the protection of minority rights and the community designations is fundamental to power-sharing, so our proposal is that it goes to the next eligible party within that block. We cannot have a situation where one party refuse to sign up and nominate, and then there is paralysis. That is our proposal.

Mrs Guy: I understand the problem with one party being able to collapse the Assembly, but you see the problem, democratically, with second-largest party, as voted for by the electorate, being excluded from the office of deputy First Minister and taking one of those positions. Is that not fundamentally undemocratic?

Mr Hazzard: I do not think so with regard to community designation. As I have outlined, we are wholly sympathetic to the feeling that those who designate as "other" do not have the equality when it comes to certain votes. We believe that there is a discussion to be had around designation. We are absolutely open to the consideration of that. We look forward to hearing from others who bring forward ideas on that. However, it must be done in the balance and in the round, and in the spirit of, and in line with, the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, which, as I said, took absolute months of painstaking negotiation. When you have taken evidence from others —. From listening to Irish Government officials speak about this at the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in Dublin over many months, I know that they are clear and concise about the need to be very careful and cautious when it comes to unravelling key tenets of the Good Friday Agreement. Whilst we are open to looking at any proposals that you may have with regard to the designation of "other", the fundamental tenets of the Good Friday Agreement have to be paramount in all of that.

Mrs Guy: It is fair that there are cross-community safeguards in the Good Friday Agreement, but surely the designation system is not the only way to achieve that. For example, we have proposed removing parallel consent and we have talked about having a weighted majority, which would still ensure that there is cross-community balance. Would you be open to a proposal such as that? You have expressed an aspiration to protect "others" and give us the same equality, but you have no proposal as to how to do that.

Mr Hazzard: I go back to the key point in all of this. We are absolutely open to looking at different ideas and proposals. The key principles and tenets of the Good Friday Agreement, however, have to be protected in all of that. The short answer is that I am not so sure that some of the proposals that you refer to do that. For us, that is the key principle here. We need to protect what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. The language is clear and the outcomes are clear, and we have to do our best to protect them.

Mrs Guy: There is a conflict in what you are saying in that community designation is undermining cross-community balance. A lot of people here do not designate, and what you are saying is that we, then, do not have equality. You say that you are open to proposals, but you have not brought us any proposals. What you are saying about retaining designations is going to ensure that votes for parties such as ours will not be equal to those of other parties. That is a problem.

I want to ask you about removing the veto over the election of the Speaker. When we had the leader of the SDLP here last week, we had concerns about proposals being fleshed out. One of your own colleagues was critical that they had not had specific proposals around the St Andrews Agreement. How would you remove the veto over the election of the Speaker? You have identified the problems in terms of the need for reform, but your document is very light on solid proposals as to how you would deliver those reforms. That is a really simple one: how would you remove the veto over the election of the Speaker?

Mr Hazzard: It is important that we did not just stipulate how we would change that. Again, in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, we have two co-guarantors in the British and Irish Governments, and the local parties are involved. We need to form a consensus on the best way forward. That is not to take away from the fact that we believe that action has to be taken. We have said that that veto should be removed. However, that has to be done through careful negotiation and discussion of the issues. We absolutely accept that there is an issue, and we should look at that in the round. We are open to that discussion.

Mrs Guy: A lot of parties have put down proposals for a two-thirds majority or a weighted majority. A lot of people are comfortable with such a mechanism and think that it is an easy one to bring in. Do you have a view on a simple mechanism like that?

Mr Hazzard: No. I do not think that simple mechanisms are what we are looking for here. We have to listen to academics and experts in parliamentary procedure on this. There are some options on the table that people have taken straight off the shelf, but we need to be very careful that we do not upset the apple cart in years to come and leave ourselves with a far bigger problem than we started with. We have acknowledged that we are open to that change. We want to hear what the experts are saying about that, and we will happily engage in that process.

Mrs Guy: OK. I will conclude by saying that I have listened to the evidence in this inquiry, and I think that there is a large degree of consensus around the designations issue and the equality anomaly. If you have been listening to that evidence, it is very hard to sustain the argument that that is not something that needs to be tackled urgently.

Mr Hazzard: As I said, we have sympathy for that position.

Mrs Guy: You have no proposals.

Mr Hazzard: There is no doubt that we are open to listening to proposals, especially from those who advocate such drastic change in that regard. There is an onus to bring forward helpful suggestions, and we will absolutely engage with that.

Mrs Guy: OK.

Ms Ennis: It is fair to say — Michelle alluded to it — that the Committee has heard evidence from various academics and former architects of the Good Friday Agreement, but we are yet to hear a concrete proposal from any of them on how to replace the designation system that we have. That is a problem. We have heard loads of evidence, but we have not heard anybody say, "Here is how it could work and here is what you should do". That is a problem with a lot of these proposals. We all agree in theory, but the implementation is what causes the problem.

In your opening remarks, you said that no amount of reform will fix the attitude of parties that do not want to work these institutions. Last week, we had Claire Hanna, leader of the SDLP, here. I agree with Claire's take that the DUP's attitude to power-sharing is leading to, ""enormous, fundamental and existential challenges". When we take that fact and look at some of the proposals around removing the Executive vetoes, for example —. I do not mean vetoes over Executive formation; I mean the Executive veto on the protection for minority rights and not allowing one Minister to push on through with a major policy change that could affect minority rights. Again, parties are proposing that we remove that. I am not advocating for that as a perfect instrument, but it is the only instrument that we have to protect minority rights, so I am interested to hear your thoughts on that. We don't have a bill of rights, so we do not have that underpinning ministerial decision-making. In all the evidence that we have heard, we have heard nothing concrete about what we would replace that with.

I will rattle through a couple of questions first, and you can come to them whenever you see fit. We have heard a lot from various people that these are strand one issues and that the British Government can just forge ahead and push on with whatever reforms they think fit. While that may be the case, all three strands interlock in the Good Friday Agreement. They are all interdependent and interlocking. We are yet to hear the thoughts of the Irish Government on reforms. We are yet to hear anybody, apart from ourselves, advocate for the Irish Government, as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, being part of those discussions. You are part of the Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, so I would like to hear your thoughts on how reform is being discussed in those forums as well.

The other point is that I cannot let yesterday's historic event go unmentioned. Some are advocating for the fact that we should do away with the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. In light of yesterday's historic summit between the three First Ministers of the devolved regions, I do not think that that would have had the same significance, certainly for the nationalist/republican community here, had Michelle O'Neill not been representing this place as First Minister. Some parties advocate that we remove that hard-won achievement from nationalism. I would like to hear your thoughts on those three areas that I have raised in terms of the reform discussion that we are having.

Mr Hazzard: No problem. Thank you for your consideration. I put on record my appreciation for the work that this Committee has done. Others have sought to diminish and belittle the work of this Committee in recent months. That is wrong. This is the appropriate venue for these sorts of considerations, negotiations, talks and everything that has happened. It has ultimately laid the ground for the public discourse around reform that has happened in recent times. Likewise, the Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which you referred to, has also done a piece of work on that.

As for your first issue, fundamental in all of this and in the spirit behind our proposals is strengthening stability in the operation of institutions. A number of wider, contextual reforms are, perhaps, for a different day or for further down the line. We have chatted about some of that now, and it may be difficult to come to some sort of agreed position in the weeks or months ahead, but it certainly warrants further consideration, and this Committee will continue to play that sort of role.

As I referenced in my opening remarks, it does not matter what sort of reform you make; if you do not have partners in power-sharing, it becomes very difficult. I refer to a comment that the current Education Minister, Paul Givan, made on a radio show not so long ago, to the dismay of many listeners. He said that he does not have partners in Government; he has people whom he simply has to get on and work with. As a former Executive Minister alongside Mr Givan, I was disappointed to hear that. Most people who sit around that table want to work in partnership, because they understand that that is what the public expect from an Executive. However, it revealed a fairly disappointing and depressing approach to power-sharing. It certainly revealed a lot when it comes to parity of esteem. Some still have an inability to stomach parity of esteem. They have, I think, an assumption — I think that this assumption exists at the heart of political unionism at times — that power-sharing is simply meant to be an accommodation within a unionist state. In fact, this power-sharing is a genuine transition to establish equality and a much better society for everybody we represent. Too many times, we have not had collective partners around the table who want to work with that in mind. I know that the Committee looked at the failure to get Executive papers to the Floor on a wide range of issues. It is about partnership and your approach to partnership and everything that goes along with that. That spirit is your approach to power-sharing, and I think that some need to have a look at themselves and what they represent. I think that the reforms that we are talking about will improve stability in the operation of the institutions and provide increased transparency and accountability, but others need to have a good, hard look at themselves when it comes to their approach to power-sharing.

I agree with you about the summit and commented on it on BBC Radio Ulster yesterday. It was an historic occasion, for all the reasons that you have set out. Again, I will go back. You referenced specifically the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Good Friday Agreement is clear that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint and equal offices. I repeat that the focus of this proposal is about stability and the operation of the institutions, but there are two fairly key points to be made, one of which is practical and the other political. On the practical point, I have been listening to some of the evidence that has been given. From what I can see and from what we have discussed at the Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I do not believe that any witness or academic has ever suggested that there are any substantive or consequential benefits in changing the name of those offices. That is an important distinction to make. The more fundamental point is political. After 50 years of unionist misrule — misrule of some of the most serious abuses when it comes to the political process, security, inequality, housing, jobs and all the rest of it —. After 25 years of unionist First Ministers, I do not think that it is lost on the public that, after having the first nationalist woman take up the office of First Minister, there is now a clamour to change the title. The political significance of that is not lost on people out there. It symbolises the great distance that we have travelled as a society and the power in working together. That is all that I will say on that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Apologies that I have come in late; the country roads and the motorways were not kind to me this morning. It is good to see you here at the Committee.

Mr Stewart: Chris, thanks for your evidence. Before I come to my questions, I will follow up on a point that you made there about the renaming of the roles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. I find that point interesting, and I take your point about what is set out in the Good Friday Agreement. During the last mandate, your party colleague Michelle O'Neill and Sinn Féin representatives regularly referred to Michelle as the "joint First Minister". Was that an optics thing, or was that an attempt at the time to maybe move towards equalisation of those positions? I am just curious why there is a discrepancy between the position now and the position when Michelle was deputy First Minister or, in the words of Sinn Féin representatives, "joint First Minister".

Mr Hazzard: There is no discrepancy. As I said, the Good Friday Agreement is very clear: those are joint and equal offices. That is what we were speaking to.

Mr Stewart: But you still do not want them reformed to reflect the name in that respect, even though they are joint roles? I am just interested to know why there is a difference.

Mr Hazzard: I will repeat, without going into it word for word: I think that we need to move beyond semantics here. As I said, there are no substantive or consequential benefits to changing the name of that office. I will go back again. It is not lost on the public. You represent the Ulster Unionist Party, which led this state for 50 years. It led the Orange state for 50 years — misrule and all sorts of abuses. To suggest that somehow now, when there is a nationalist First Minister — something that was seen as completely off the table for 50 years —. It is not lost on people, the significance of what you say.

Mr Stewart: I do not say anything; my point is to you. My point is that it was Sinn Féin that previously talked about equalisation of the positions.

I will move on to the Good Friday Agreement, because you have rightly talked about the delicate balance that was achieved through many months, potentially years, of negotiation, particularly referring to the nomination of First Minister and deputy First Minister. I think you said that you sit on the Good Friday Agreement working group, but the 2006 agreement drove a horse and cart through the delicate balance that was achieved by many parties and many players by agreeing that behind closed doors between two parties. Would you accept returning to the factory settings of the Good Friday Agreement, given the delicate balance that was achieved, and how the nomination of First Minister and deputy First Minister was set out in the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, rather how that process was amended behind closed doors between two parties at St Andrews?

Mr Hazzard: I do not agree with your synopsis and your interpretation.

Mr Stewart: I do.

Mr Hazzard: I would like to think that you agree with your own analysis. However, I certainly do not, and I do not see it like that. I will repeat that the Good Friday Agreement is a careful balance of all considerations that took months of painstaking negotiations. Our proposals are about strengthening stability in the operation of the institutions as we find them in 2026 and going forward. They add something to the debate. As I said to your colleague, Michelle, at the start, they will not do everything; they do not contain all the answers. That reflects our proposals because we want to come to the table in a spirit and kind with others to find resolutions that actually improve the stability and operation of this place. That is what the public wants and demands from all of us, and that is the important thing as we move forward.

Mr Stewart: Going back to the point, you said that the changes made post the Good Friday Agreement achieved something, so the Good Friday Agreement is sacrosanct until it needs to be changed behind closed doors during a crisis. I am trying to get my head around what was achieved by the changes to the delicate balance, particularly the nomination of the First Minister being offered to the biggest power? There is a narrative that there is a bunfight at every election, with parties saying, "Vote for us to keep the bogeyman out". That is what it changed.

Mr Hazzard: Again, I do not agree with your analysis. I think that any changes that have been made —. Let us be frank: everybody has been involved in a number of the changes that have happened since the Good Friday Agreement was signed. The changes have been within the spirit and principles of the Good Friday Agreement. We would not have signed up to any changes if we had not believed that that was the case. Again, that is why I challenge your analysis that it was an agreement behind closed doors. The agreement was acceptable to everyone, and we moved forward in that position.

Mr Stewart: No other party, apart from Sinn Féin and the DUP, agreed to the St Andrews Agreement.

Mr Hazzard: Elections in this state before 2006 were as much a bunfight between the traditions as elections after that. It is to do with the very foundation of the state and the fact that sectarianism was written large into the fabric of the state. The operation of the state for 50 years under your party created the conditions of that very bunfight. That is why we are trying to move away from that and improve the stability and operations of the institutions, but I will go back to my fundamental point at the end. That is why, to a large extent, we will not see an eradication of that until we remove partition itself. A large number of the reforms will provide better government and better institutions here, but I agree about some of the bigger political problems that you have pointed to, and it is my fundamental belief that they will exist until partition ends.

Mr Stewart: Obviously, I do not accept your narrative about the Ulster Unionist Party, but I do accept the critical role that our party has played —

Mr Hazzard: I would say that you are embarrassed about it

Mr Stewart: I am not embarrassed about it, but I will accept the critical role that our party played in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement. Difficult decisions were made at that time, and there were very difficult negotiations, but we were not involved at St Andrews, and nor were the SDLP or the Alliance Party. That is the fundamental difference between the negotiations that took place for the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent negotiations.

I will move on to my final point.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Can we go quickly?

Mr Stewart: Yes, no problem. Can you talk me through the devolution of fiscal powers? What powers would you like to have? How that will be rolled out?

Mr Hazzard: It is important to see real economic levers in the hands of our Assembly, such as the power to set corporation tax to drive all-Ireland investment, the power to vary income tax to protect workers and fund our public services, devolved stamp duty, air passenger duty and also the devolution of the Crown Estate. That has been very successful in Scotland in recent years, and this institution should also have those powers devolved to it. Fundamentally, that is a fairly cursory examination of the powers. Today is probably not the time to discuss the full extent of that, but the negotiations should commence between the British Government and local parties on the devolution of those powers.

Mr Stewart: Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: First, apologies. I was a few minutes late and did not catch the beginning of your evidence, but I appreciate your coming to give evidence today.

My first question is about what is achievable and the timing. Fundamentally, when should we be able to achieve some level of substantive reform to the way this place works?

I will say, up front, that my party has said that there should be two stages to reform: immediate, which is not fundamental reform but rather short, sharp changes that do not require endless negotiation; and a longer process of discussion on reform following the next election. That is what we have suggested. When do you think that we would be able to achieve meaningful change of any sort?

Mr Hazzard: I share that interpretation. As I outlined, some changes could be made fairly quickly and others would be made in the longer term. Fundamentally, however, it cannot be railroaded through Westminster without consensus between local parties, and certainly not without the involvement of the Irish Government. The British and Irish Governments are co-guarantors, and we need to ensure that there is that partnership, working alongside local parties.

Mr O'Toole: On consensus, it is fairly clear that the DUP has set its face against even fairly basic, minor things such as changes to the way in which the Speaker is elected. Do you think that that should require the consent of the DUP? We have suggested that the way in which the Assembly Speaker is elected would be changed to move away from parallel consent — requiring a majority of unionists and nationalists — to a two-thirds majority being required. Even that is quite a high bar for a role that is about making sure that there is an Assembly sitting. Do you think that unanimity amongst absolutely everybody in the Assembly should be required to achieve that?

Mr Hazzard: I agree that you could absolutely push ahead on some of the short-term reforms. I think that there is broad agreement on those amongst most; you identified one particular party that may not agree, but I believe that it should not be able to hold back progressive change. It is important that both the British and Irish Governments are on side, however. It is not simply for political parties here in Belfast, in tandem with London, to look at this. We need to make sure that Dublin is at the table for all of this. That is the best way to move forward.

Mr O'Toole: I agree. I cannot and do not speak for the Irish Government, but I am not sure that they would have any objection to, for example, a two-thirds threshold or some other simplified threshold, and implementing it before the next election, if Sinn Féin was in favour of it .

Mr Hazzard: We are absolutely up for looking at the best way to do it. As I said to Michelle, more consideration needs to be given to the need for parliamentary evidence on best practice from other places. We also need to hear more input on the best way forward from experts and academics in the field. Please do not let me give the impression that we are not willing to do that; we absolutely are.

Mr O'Toole: Before the election?

Mr Hazzard: Yeah.

Mr O'Toole: We are taking evidence here. It was me, with Michelle, who got the Committee on to the inquiry, and we have heard a lot of evidence about various things. The change to the way in which the Speaker is elected would be a modest one to say the least. That is one of our proposals, and I admit that it is extremely modest, but it is one thing that might ensure that we have an Assembly following the next election, should it be difficult to form an Executive, which, given the way that our politics look at the moment, it might be. Assuming that both the British and Irish Governments were on board and that there was what used to be called "sufficiency of consensus" amongst parties — although certain parties might say no to the change — would your party be up for that legal change happening to the Northern Ireland Act before the election next year, given that it is an extremely modest change? Would there be agreement from your party for that?

Mr Hazzard: I am looking through the proposal headings in our document again. They include "Ending the Veto on Executive Formation", "Reform of the Election of the Assembly Speaker", and, crucially, "Normalising the Appointment of the Justice Minister". I would have to add that last one in and be really clear about it, because long gone are the days when "No nationalist need apply"; that, fundamentally, would have to be a part of it.

That gives an idea of some of the proposals that could be moved on fairly quickly. I have no doubt that those could be used, and, as you said, there are other, longer-term ones.

Mr O'Toole: What does "quickly" mean? It is September now, there will be an election in May and this place will break up in March. The Irish Government have finite bandwidth, and the UK Government have finite parliamentary time. Those things will be required for some of the changes to happen. Some changes to Standing Orders here will also be required. There is also the Budget crisis here. Do you think that some of those changes could happen before the end of the year or before the next election in May?

Mr Hazzard: Yeah, absolutely —

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mr Hazzard: — some of them could be moved.

Mr O'Toole: Which ones?

Mr Hazzard: I just gave you an idea of some of them.

Mr O'Toole: The Justice Minister, d'Hondt and the election of the Speaker.

Mr Hazzard: And the likes of the veto. Those are fundamental reforms that the vast majority of people, I think, want to see happen. However, I go back to two fundamental points. First, we need to see more evidence, suggestions and concepts when it comes to the reform of the election of the Speaker. Secondly, the d'Hondt system for the appointment of the Justice Minister is fundamental to all of that as well.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Matthew, very quickly, if you do not mind.

Mr O'Toole: There is a slight discrepancy between the need to take more time and gather all the evidence and the need to move quickly. It is not the biggest reform, I do not think that anybody thinks that it is. On the joint election of First Minister and deputy First Minister, however, because it feels slightly overwhelming at times, was Martin McGuinness wrong when he said that there should be joint titles?

Mr Hazzard: Martin was entitled to hold his view, and he expressed a view.

Mr O'Toole: Was it the right view or the wrong view?

Mr Hazzard: He was open to his view. I have made clear our position on the titles. Without going into all of that, the Good Friday Agreement is clear that they are joint and equal offices. We have always worked to that position. I will make the point again that there are two sides to this. There is the practical side, and I do not think that any witness who has sat in this chair has suggested that changing that would have any substantive or consequential benefit to the stability or operation of the institutions. Fundamentally, that is what we are involved in.

I have to make the point, however, that it is not lost on people that after 50 years of unionist misrule and 25 years of unionist First Ministers, there is a clamour to change that the titles the first time a nationalist woman takes the seat. People are cynical about attempts by some to be able to do that.

Mr O'Toole: We suggested that, and we are nationalists. I have no difficulty in addressing that argument. It is a bit Orwellian whenever people —

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Matthew, you will have to stop.

Mr O'Toole: Hang on, sorry, Chair. Just to be clear, I was accused of siding with loyalists because I suggested that. Like you, I want an end to partition and a new Ireland. I want us to be away from all the sectarian division that defined the North: the top dog, the Orange state and the politics of us-uns and them-uns. Do you not think that setting an example of us modelling the kind of republican Catholic/Protestant dissenter Ireland that we want to live in would be saying that we are going to move beyond all this nonsense of First and deputy First and just have joint First Ministers for as long as those offices exist?

Mr Hazzard: You are right, it is a nonsense. Scrubbing the nameplate off the door is not going to make a single bit of difference.

Mr O'Toole: Why do you want to keep it, then?

Mr Hazzard: It is not going to make a single bit of difference.

Mr O'Toole: Do you want to keep it?

Mr Hazzard: There was positivity and symbolism in Michelle O'Neill, First Minister of the North, standing alongside the Scottish First Minister and the Welsh First Minister yesterday, talking about delivering —

Mr O'Toole: I agree, but she would still have been First Minister if there were joint First Ministers.

Mr Hazzard: — upon the sovereign rights of people to self-determination and to build a better future. I am sure that your social media, like all of our social media, was alive in recent days with the hope and positivity that that brought. That is hugely powerful. This is about much more than semantics. It is about parity of esteem, and that is not lost, especially on the nationalist population of the North, which suffered so heavily under 50 years of misrule —

Mr O'Toole: Many did, yes.

Mr Hazzard: — and put up with a litany of unionist First Ministers. Now that they have a female republican First Minister who they can look up to, who is a First Minister for all, there is a clamour to change the name because some are not happy that she is First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: It is clearly not going to happen. I do not think that it is a clamour; I just think that there is a question. It is not the biggest reform —

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK, thank you, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — but I am keen to establish that we can do that before the next election. Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thanks very much for your time today. I will point out, though, that Michelle O'Neill was not attending yesterday in her capacity as First Minister. She was attending as Sinn Féin deputy leader.

Mr Hazzard: Chair, if Michelle O'Neill goes to the shops tonight, she is First Minister. When Michelle O'Neill takes her seat down the corridor here today, she is First Minister.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It is a joint office, so she would have needed sign-off. It is clear from yesterday that she would have needed sign-off to attend as First Minister.

Mr Hazzard: Absolutely, you are right. It is a joint office —

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): In fact, she dropped out of one of the meetings yesterday because she was not attending as First Minister.

Mr Hazzard: — and equal office.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much for your time today. We really appreciate that. We are going to have to move on because we have some decisions to make. Thank you for attending the Committee today.

Mr Sheehan: Excuse me, Chair. I was down to ask a question.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I do not have your name down on my list.

Mr Sheehan: It should have been down.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If you want to, very quickly ask one question because we do have to move on. You were in the Chair beforehand.

Mr Sheehan: I was going to ask questions after other members had their turn, but you arrived and took over the Chair.

Did Michelle O'Neill leave her title as First Minister in the airport when she flew to Cardiff yesterday?

Mr Hazzard: I am not aware that she did.

Mr Sheehan: I do not think that she did.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes, well, she still needs sign-off.

Mr Sheehan: I have a question about the role of the Speaker in the Assembly. We were the only party to suggest reform of that role, though I note that correspondence in the pack from Kellie Armstrong of the Alliance Party suggests that we carry out a review of the Speaker's position. I have raised the issue previously because it is clear that the integrity of the office of the Speaker has been damaged by some of the decisions that the Speaker has taken. I think particularly of the Speaker's rejection of amendments that were tabled by the Education Committee to the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act 2026. That was the first time in the history of these institutions that a Speaker rejected Committee amendments. As the Speaker does not have to explain or give a rationale for their decisions, they are in a position where they can influence and shape legislation that passes through the Assembly. To cut to the chase, no one is seeking to remove the independence of the Speaker, but do you believe that there is good reason to ensure that this Speaker is held to account to a greater extent and that they have to give explanations and a rationale for their decisions?

Mr Hazzard: In short, yes. Like many others, I have been shocked at some of the current Speaker's recent decisions. My view is that he has abused his position as Speaker to block amendments that are not in keeping with his party's position on a number of issues. You referenced the School Uniforms Act, but I add to that the amendments to the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill and the Justice Bill amendments about the protection of children. In all those instances, the Speaker left himself open to accusations that he acted in his party's interests and not in the interests of the legislature as he should. It is vital that the independence of the Speaker is not a byword for unaccountability. There absolutely must be reforms to make the position more transparent and accountable. This place should certainly look at parliamentary best practice in other places.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thanks very much for your time. We appreciate it.