Debate contribution: Fishing Industry: Capital Investment
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Fishing Industry: Capital Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4237618
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank all Members who have contributed well to the debate and, indeed, for their support for the motion and the amendment. Initially, Michelle McIlveen asked whether the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs had raised the issues of the departmental budget and the need for investment with the Minister of Finance. The Minister mentioned that in his response. Miss McIlveen referred to labour shortages, price increases and problems with the visa system, which my colleague, in speaking to the amendment, sought to highlight in particular. It is not an area that I know very well, but I am reliant on good people such as the representatives of fishing areas to highlight the issues as they see them and as they pan out. The consequences of Brexit, rising fuel prices and UK Government immigration policies were raised. Those immigration policies were referred to as being extreme, and, in fact, they are, with people not being able to bring their families over with them. All those issues contribute to the problems facing the sector and, indeed, other sectors. It is not just the fishing sector but the home care sector, the nursing home sector, the nursing sector and the health service that are affected. In all those sectors, those vicious migration policies are having an impact on how we go about our care and our economy. I thank Members for raising those issues. My colleague Colin McGrath referred to the effects of Brexit on the fishing industry, how Brexit went wrong, the capacity in the fishing sector and the uncertainty that has been brought about by the various factors that have been raised multiple times by Members around the Chamber. He also referred to the migration laws that I have already spoken about. During the debate, we heard Cathy Mason refer to marine conservation; the need for sustainability of our flora and fauna; the requirement for, and the importance of, regulation; and the need to prevent overfishing. John Blair spoke about the importance of the fishing industry to the economy and about the importance to the industry and, indeed, all of us of the climate change targets that are on us now to meet. He also referred to the need for the green environment, stock management and the importance of North/South and east-west bodies to ensuring a coordinated approach to the entire fishing industry and that economy. Tom Elliott made good points about Lough Neagh and, during an intervention, some more local points about the ESB substation in Ballyshannon. He referred to the European Union quotas and to Brexit, the NI protocol, the Windsor framework and the need for support for fishing. Sinéad Ennis spoke about the number of occasions on which she and her party colleagues have met fishermen from the local industry. She referred to workforce issues, the importance of resolving labour difficulties, the need for training and the need to encourage young people to take up the trade. That need is not confined to the one industry but is reflected in many cases across our rural workforce. William Irwin referred to the tremendous respect that he had for people who go out to fish in dangerous seas and the work that they do. He also referred to people not being as aware as they should be of where their fish suppers come from. William, the next time you are travelling through Cookstown, I recommend the Brewery Lane Grill, which does a great fish supper. The fish there is delivered every week from Ardglass, and it is a top fish supper. Thank you for drawing attention to that. Kellie Armstrong mentioned fishing in Portavogie. She also mentioned the problems with Brexit and access to funding and asked how the Minister can help in that regard. The Minister outlined that, hopefully, there will soon be proposals in that regard. Diane Forsythe gave a very local perspective as someone who grew up in Kilkeel. She provided local knowledge of how the markets, the factories and the subsidiary businesses there need the local fishing industry. She called for capital funding for the ports, as reflected in the motion. Patrick Brown referred to the hard-working people, UK immigration rules, the problems with the UK's exit from Europe and, indeed, decarbonisation —.
That is just some of the synopsis. I am sorry that I have not got around everyone: if I had more time, I would do that. I thank Members for their input to the debate and their support for our amendment.
750 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.88 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.