Member's statement: Government Accountability: Minister of Education
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 24 November 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Government Accountability: Minister of Education
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5253906
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I associate myself with the previous remarks. I want to talk about accountability. Since we came into opposition, we have made a specific point of addressing what has been a crisis in accountability in our politics. When the public see what happens in the Assembly, they feel that there is a crisis in accountability, that people are not answerable for their actions and that nobody is answerable for the quality or lack thereof of public services. A fortnight ago, a motion of no confidence was tabled against the Education Minister. Per the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, that motion was not successful, so I do not propose to relitigate its terms. However, I want to draw attention to information that has come out subsequently about the Education Minister's trip to Israel and the occupied territories and, indeed, the response of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) in order to put it on the record and to be clear about accountability. Some said, erroneously and offensively, that holding the Minister and, indeed, the broader Executive to account over that episode was merely party politics and sectarianism, and, at worst, some even alleged antisemitism. Let us be clear about what has emerged since that day. The Education Minister has confirmed to me that his view and that of his permanent secretary, which we heard in evidence to the Education Committee, is that that meeting did not represent "an official meeting" and, therefore, did not engage the provisions of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021. Subsequently, we have found out in answer to a question for written answer from Mr Carroll, that the meeting at the Ofek School in east Jerusalem was attended by a director and deputy director from the Israeli Ministry of Education. Therefore, an unofficial meeting at an Israeli government-run facility in occupied east Jerusalem, attended by two senior Israeli government officials, was not an official meeting: I merely place that on record. Others can judge whether they think that its unofficial status is credible. Subsequent to that, we have had confirmation that the Minister did not inform the UK Government of his decision to have a visit to a school in east Jerusalem that engaged his official responsibilities. Whether he or his permanent secretary deemed that to be official, he did not inform the UK Government. I am not an unionist and certainly do not think that the UK Government should have any ability to veto or say where devolved politicians visit overseas, but the Education Minister is a unionist. The UK Government's stated position for the past nearly 60 years has been that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. It was confirmed to my colleague Colum Eastwood that no UK Minister would ever be advised to visit Israeli occupied territory. Those are important matters. Accountability matters. The Senior Civil Service should defend the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Civil Service.
I am concerned that those things not happening.
494 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: 0.31 (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 (0.68).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.38 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.31 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.20 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.10 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.68 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.59 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.34 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:48 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.