Member's statement: Daisy Hill Hospital: Maternity Services
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 September 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Daisy Hill Hospital: Maternity Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5761222
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Following on from IRA bomber Pat Sheehan, I am clear in what I say: the leader of unionism is Gavin Robinson. I am proud to say that. He does a much better job than the part-timer Michelle O'Neill, First Minister on the run from the Chamber. We will see whether she shows up later today. A week ago, the Chamber heard from the Health Minister about the plans to close maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. That was disgraceful then, and it remains an unacceptable way forward. I believe that the Health Minister was railroaded in his new position to move towards that plan on incomplete information. The previous Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, understood and intervened. I urgently call on Minister Butler to push back, challenge officials and take a different position on the issue. Daisy Hill maternity services are critical to people in South Down and across Newry and Armagh. My three children were delivered there, I was born there and people across the area have a close affiliation to the hospital. The midwives are second to none; as professionals, they stand ready to continue in their services. Anxious mothers who are due to have their babies in the coming weeks look on in despair. I am working hard to ensure that messages are clear and that they know what services are there for them. The Minister needs to intervene. We need to see a Northern Ireland-wide register of gynae and obstetric doctors who are able to cover all hospitals to help them remain open. No matter what else has been going on, I have been working hard and continuing to raise the issue at every opportunity. It is shocking and disgraceful to see other MLAs abandon the issue when mothers across our area are devastated and midwives are heartbroken and do not know what is coming for them and their services.
They are more committed to lawbreaking, fighting to block roads and destroying others than to continuing with that local issue, with Newry MLA Justin McNulty standing blocking a road arm in arm with dissident republicans, smashing to pieces the SDLP's campaign for the great new Ireland that is welcoming to all of us as unionists.
We also have the Newry MLA Liz Kimmins, who usually speaks up for Daisy Hill, but, no, this is a Sinn Féin Minister whose priorities are standing with her First Minister and her ministerial colleagues blocking the roads, disregarding the law and defying how the country operates. Sinn Féin is not prioritising Daisy Hill. Its fundamental sectarian hatred of the Orange Order and unionists clearly comes above all. I respect the rule of law, parade determinations and the court rulings over the weekend, and I prioritise the local health services. I will continue to fight for maternity services at Daisy Hill, and people can count on me to do that.
478 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.81 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.87); Dog-whistle messaging (0.92); Controversy escalation (0.63).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.98).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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 | 0.36 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.87 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.92 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.63 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.81 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.98 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.