Debate contribution: Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 10 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Assembly Business

Heading

Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5224182

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Recent months have not been good for the institutions or for politics more generally. There has been a race to the bottom marked by toxic culture wars, nasty personal insults and a politics that is rooted in fear, division and distraction, with the Chamber at times descending into farce.

The propaganda mission by the Education Minister is but the latest distraction. The images of the Minister smiling for photographs in illegally occupied east Jerusalem that were posted on the Department's website were no accident. They were designed to provoke and stir controversy in order to deflect from a mismanaged budget, hikes in the cost of school meals and cuts to education support for some of our most vulnerable children. The hurt felt by pupils, parents and teachers as a result of that cynical stunt is real. They are appalled that a Minister who is responsible for the welfare of our children would not only accept hospitality from a Government who have killed a classroom of children every day but use public resources to whitewash that situation. In a power-sharing Executive, of course we will have different views. We will not always see eye to eye, and there will be times when we do not have confidence in Ministers' political positions or policy priorities. However, the motion is not about a simple policy disagreement or difference in political opinion; it goes to the heart of a flagrant disregard for international law and the ministerial code. Despite the bluff and bluster in many of the statements that we have heard from the DUP over the past two weeks and, indeed, often because of those statements, key questions remain. On 24 October, the Minister told the BBC that he was, in fact, there not in a ministerial capacity but in a party political one. That story has since changed, and it goes to the nub of the issue: if the Minister was there in a DUP capacity, he has misused departmental resources by promoting a political visit; if he was there as a Minister, he was potentially in breach of the Functioning of Government Act by not having officials present. Much more seriously, by entering illegally occupied territory in that official capacity, he has brought the Executive into disrepute by egregiously breaching UK foreign policy and ignoring international law. There is also a question about why the Minister had not declared that he was about to receive thousands of pounds in hospitality from the Israeli Government before rising in the Chamber to praise the actions of the IDF. A Minister in any other part of these islands who engaged in that conduct would already be gone. Of course, the Minister will be keen to claim that his permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health in a report that, coincidentally, has not seen the light of day. However, I am aware that the head of the Civil Service is undertaking further enquiries that have not yet concluded. Ultimately, confidence is at the heart of the issue, and the manner in which the Minister has responded to the fiasco has not helped in that respect. It is clear that the confidence of teaching unions, the wider public and a majority of parties in the Chamber has been shattered by the Minister's behaviour. He could, at any point, have recognised and apologised for the hurt caused, committed to an independent review of his and his Department's actions or referred himself to the standards process, but, instead, he lashed out and doubled down. Successive attempts have been made in recent weeks, disgracefully, to overlay this debate with sectarianism and prejudice. They are not orange or green issues. People from across our community are horrified at the disregard for the ministerial code, international law and human rights. It is entirely possible to condemn the terrorism of Hamas on 7 October and the genocide that has followed. The previous Member to speak made reference to Oliver Napier and Bob Cooper: I mean, she is not fit to utter their names

The DUP, throughout the history

Throughout the history —.

Throughout the history of the Alliance Party, the DUP has attacked us and impugned our integrity and our motives, so that certainly has not changed. We have been consistent, unlike her party, in standing up to paramilitarism, wherever it comes from, and standing up for the rule of law. Let it be beyond doubt: the comments of the proposer of the motion, Gerry Carroll, on 7 October were abhorrent and repulsive, and Alliance condemned those comments clearly at the time. Indeed, if Gerry Carroll held ministerial office, we would be in the Chamber supporting a motion of no confidence in him as a result of his conduct.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 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