Debate contribution: Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 5776726
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I was going to open my remarks by thanking the Minister for individual pieces of work that he has helped me with, but, since he has stormed out of the Chamber as part of the Alliance Party's political stunt, I will not even bother with that, to be honest. As the only South Down MLA to have signed the motion, I am proud to stand here and speak up for our farmers, fishermen and rural community. I support the motion. The Alliance Party leader called the motion "silly" and a "sham", and her general tone was absolutely outrageous. It showed how detached her party is from our rural communities and agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. Time and time again, the Minister has failed to listen to farmers and give them a voice. He has taken a specific direction that, understandably, has led to farmers passing votes of no confidence in him. We saw that with NAP and the inheritance tax matter. I know that not everything is devolved, but the farming community is looking for its Agriculture Minister to speak up on its behalf on what such things mean for farmers and their businesses. As my colleague Gareth Wilson said, for so many in that community, the cattle cull earlier this year was the straw that broke the camel's back. My colleague Deborah Erskine described in detail how she had given the Minister the opportunity to answer questions. She had done it quietly, as a constituency representative, through correspondence back and forward multiple times. Honest answers could have come out if the Minister had taken the matter seriously. The situation should never have escalated, but it did, and my colleague spoke to it well. She has been a strong local representative, and I know that the people of Fermanagh are glad that she has given them voice. I was down in Clady a few weeks ago, and it was the number-one thing that people spoke to me about. The motion is about having no confidence in the Minister. I put on record that it represents more than just the farming community; it represents the fishing industry as well. Fishermen across the United Kingdom were some of the loudest campaigners for Brexit. They wanted to take back control of British waters. The failure to deliver Brexit for the United Kingdom has failed them badly. The fishing industry is under immense pressure across the board.
I thank the Member for that intervention. I agree, and the fishermen and farmers whom I represent agree. The fishing industry is on its knees. It is being cut from all directions. It faces quotas and increased fuel prices. As we come to the end of the calendar year, it stands on a cliff edge of visa pressures. We have seen the squeeze on Isle of Man visas. Led by my colleague Michelle McIlveen, our party made strong representations on that. The Minister went to the Isle of Man and got his photograph taken, but he did not feed back to the fishermen or to any of us what came of that visit. The consultation on the fisheries management plan closed recently; once again, he is squeezing the waters in which our fishermen can fish. The Minister has lost the confidence of the fishing industry. He has lost the confidence of the farming industry. The fact that he and his party colleagues would not even stay in the Chamber to listen to the debate is, frankly, disgraceful. I do not know whether I heard the leader of the Opposition correctly, but what I heard was that it was wrong to table the motion. It is OK to table no-confidence motions against DUP Ministers, but there is a problem with this motion, because the DUP tabled it. We know the political circumstances that we are in. Unionists have the right to table motions of no confidence in the same way as everyone else in the Chamber.
I thank the Member for that intervention, but he questioned the motivation behind the motion. Our motivation is the farming industry, the rural communities, the fishing industry and all the people whom we represent. On this issue, I have to say, that includes unionists and nationalists, because there are a lot more in the agri-food sector than just those who traditionally vote for unionist parties. I support the motion. My colleagues have done the right thing by tabling it. I am really disappointed that it has not been taken seriously. The Alliance Party will regret storming out. It will regret its political stunt here today, because the industries and the rural communities are watching.
772 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: 0.20 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.85).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.56 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.46 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.34 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
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.