Debate contribution: Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour 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 5224206
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My time is brief, so I will be clear about why we are here today. I will be clear about why the SDLP supports the motion of no confidence and why I am a signatory to it.
We are not here solely because of Paul Givan MLA's views on Israel, which I and others in the Chamber find reprehensible and abhorrent. Nor are we are here solely to debate Israel's genocide in Gaza, which has scarred the moral conscience of the entire planet. We are here because of Paul Givan's misuse of office, his shameless compromise of Civil Service impartiality and his flagrant breach of a law that was passed in the Assembly four years ago. Yes, and all of it in territory that has been deemed by the international community, including successive British Governments of all stripes, to be illegally occupied. Israel's bombardment of Gaza, following the appalling and evil atrocities of 7 October, unleashed, as I said, a wave of revulsion across the world, and it has tested the ability of language to capture horror and misery. Today's debate is not simply about that. I do not think that there is any debate left to have on the justification of that, but had Mr Givan simply embarked upon a tour as a private MLA and a DUP representative, as he first claimed that he had done, we would probably not be here today. He would have angered and appalled people — perhaps, much to his delight, because that was the entire point — but that would not necessarily have been anything new. However, on 27 October, with the Minister having already been in Israel for several days, the Department of Education, at the Minister's instruction, posted a news story online and on social media about his visit to the Ofek School in occupied East Jerusalem, commending:
"Israel’s innovative approaches to gifted education and inclusive learning."
That communication is at the core of why we are here today. The Minister also posted a picture on his own account, which included a nameplate that described him as the "Minister of Education". I want to be precise and clear about why we are here today because Mr Givan has been imprecise and inconsistent and spoken with a forked tongued. He confirmed last week that, in addition to the extraordinary social media posts, officials had been involved in setting up that meeting, so it was an official ministerial meeting. He shakes his head, but his nameplate was in front of him, and he said last week that his officials helped him to set up the meeting. Under section 7 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, he and all Ministers are obliged to ensure that official meetings are attended by at least one civil servant. The meeting has all the appearance of an official meeting: it was an official meeting. In my view, and that of the Opposition, he has clearly breached the Functioning of Government Act. Ironically, in the DUP's haste to outdo the TUV in offending people, it has broken a law that was introduced by the TUV. We then come to the matter of Civil Service impartiality in the NICS code. He said that the permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health. We have not seen that, but I am afraid it has all the credibility of one of Donald Trump's medical exams. The content may not have mentioned the DUP by name, but it should have been obvious to the Minister, the special adviser, and, indeed, senior civil servants, including the permanent secretary, that a visit to occupied East Jerusalem was highly and profoundly controversial. Add to all of that the extraordinary situation in which a unionist Minister conducted an official visit to a place that has been deemed by the UK Government to have been illegally occupied for the past six decades. That is the precise diplomatic equivalent of visiting a school in Russian-occupied Ukraine, in Luhansk or Crimea, with one of Vladimir Putin's officials. Minister, you are not a stupid man — you certainly believe yourself to be very smart — but, even if you do not care about Palestinian suffering, that was a moronic, stupid thing to do. The Minister is not a stupid man, but he cannot resist provoking and outraging people. Even before the trip, he had pushed the envelope when it comes to politicising his Department. In the EA, he forced in a chief executive against the wishes of the EA board and forced in a serving DUP politician as chair of the Education Authority. He also had a permanent secretary leave in murky and unexplained circumstances. Minister, you and your colleagues have already begun deflecting and distracting from your appalling actions. Worse, Minister, you have tossed around the profound libel of antisemitism. People from all backgrounds have got in touch with me to say that they are angry at your actions. Today, your party will protect you from your deserved fate, even though the majority in the Chamber have lost confidence in you. You will no doubt feel vindicated. You are already crowing with the smile of a panto villain, but you know, deep down, that, as is so often the case in your party, the victory will be pyrrhic, because more and more people will turn off politics in this place and look to an entirely different future. Mr Givan, if you had shame or sense, you would be gone by now.
Sadly, you have neither. We support the motion.
925 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.46 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.60).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.34 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.42 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.46 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.30 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Adopts it | 0.10 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.73 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.19 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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.