Debate contribution: Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 6 October 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

6 October 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5776678

Read the official Assembly record

Text

First of all, I should say that I am speaking in lieu of our member of the AERA Committee, Daniel McCrossan, who, as people will understand, is at the High Court to hear the A5 judgement, which will come in momentarily. As an Opposition, we believe, clearly, in the idea of accountability, and we believe that creating a culture of accountability in our politics is fundamental to how we should be doing things. There are very real questions about the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs' handling of the Fivemiletown cull. It is important that Ministers be held accountable for what happens in their Department. The farming community and others who care about animal welfare have grave concerns about the way that that incident was handled. There are questions to be answered by the Department about the review that is being conducted. We will not support the motion of no confidence today, but that is not to say that the Minister should not be answering questions. Nor is it to say — I am going to say this — that I think that that was an appropriate response to the motion.

Give me one second and I will give way. People can ask about the motivations of the DUP in moving the motion, as the DUP did when I brought motions of no confidence in Ministers of that party. At that time, I said that ministerial accountability was important, whether you stand up and robustly defend the Minister of your own party or not. That still goes today. Even if I have questions and doubts about the sincerity of some of what is being said, ministerial accountability is important. The leader of the Alliance Party also has a point when she says that the public view the pantomime here with contempt. You will not make that better by pulling a stunt such as the Alliance Party did today. Even if they have profound concerns about the nature of the motion and the motivation behind it, simply getting up, walking out and engaging in your own pantomime is only likely to encourage the sense of contempt among the public, so I am concerned about the actions that just took place. The Alliance leader also said earlier, in the Great Hall, in response to questions from the media, that the only person who had to have confidence in the Environment Minister was her. That is not true. For the record, this place has a mechanism whereby confidence can be expressed or no confidence can be expressed in a Minister. It requires thresholds that are a form of cross-community consent for motions of no confidence to succeed and sanctions to be imposed on Ministers, but that is not the same as saying that only one politician matters in relation to confidence in a Minister. Frankly, that is not an acceptable thing to say. To go back to the main substance of the motion, I will give way, briefly, to Mrs Erskine.

Do you know what? You are entitled to stand up and make that point. That is why I gave way to you. I do not agree with it, but I also have no difficulty with debate. That is why I am slightly stunned that the Alliance Members got up and walked out. While bemoaning childishness and pantomime in our politics, they engaged in something that can only be seen as a panto stunt. That is not to say that I agree with the motion. As a constructive Opposition, we do not agree with everything that comes before us, and we have challenged every single Executive party at different times. Let me be clear —

Let me be clear about why we will not support the motion of no confidence. First, while I acknowledge that there are questions about the Fivemiletown cull, there are also questions about the Minister's performance in relation to farming and the key ecological challenges that face this place. We think that a condition of entering the Executive should have been progress on the environmental protection agency. The Alliance Party is right when it says that the DUP has been instrumental in blocking the development of an independent environmental protection agency.

The Member smirks, but I do not mind calling anybody out on these things. The Member smirks, but we have one of the biggest ecological crises on the continent of Europe. Does anybody disagree with that? Lough Neagh? The scandal of Lough Neagh should shame our entire politics. It is utterly, utterly unacceptable. We had expected and wanted to see faster progress on the nutrients action plan and all the other urgent areas in the Lough Neagh action plan. Part of that, and of improving our environmental governance more broadly, was the creation of an independent environmental protection agency, which was first agreed in New Decade, New Approach. More than half a decade on, we still have no progress. The proposer's party is a part of blocking that, so the Alliance leader had a point when she said that some of these things were being blocked by the DUP.

However, it would have been much better if her party had remained in the Chamber, made those points and debated the merits or otherwise of the motion before us today.

Our environment and rural communities face huge change. We are facing climate breakdown and rising cost inputs, which are impacting on ordinary farmers and their families and on their ability to earn an income. We also face multiple, interlocking ecological crises. All of those are really important.

Today's motion is not an appropriate or constructive way in which to deal with it —

— but getting up and walking out of the Chamber is not an appropriate way to improve our politics either.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:42 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