Member's statement: Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Council of Sanctuary

Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on 7 October 2025.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

7 October 2025

Type

Member's statement

Business

Members' Statements

Heading

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Council of Sanctuary

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5164485

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Last night, my constituency of South Down was severely affected by a council decision. The majority of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council voted that Newry city and our district should become a city and council of sanctuary. Out of 41 councillors, the five DUP councillors have stood firm throughout in their opposition to that, alongside the single UUP councillor. However, they are hugely in the minority. The process by which we have arrived here is shameful. Time and again, we have seen the legitimate concerns of local people on issues surrounding immigration being disregarded, ignored and, in fact, openly mocked in council last night, which was another episode in an unfortunate series. The council decided to progress on that path. It did not provide answers or clear information to local councillors with concerns. There was no public consultation. The public learned of it in the press and had many questions. They went to councillors and Council Direct and received nothing. The council then issued a scant "frequently asked questions" document answering the questions that, the council decided, needed to be answered, not those of the public. The people arranged a public meeting in a local place, inviting the council to outline the plans and what they meant. The council blocked the meeting, and it did not occur. The people then took to the streets of Newry city to voice their concerns. Only two DUP councillors went along to speak and share the concerns of the wider public. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council needs to be honest about the practicalities and costs of what it means for the people of the district. We need to have the details to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised by many. Where people are ignored and silenced, trust is lost. Our DUP team has significant concerns about what the charter might mean for encouraging illegal immigrants to come to this country. It could create a barrier to lawful and justified removal of those who come here illegally. The fact is that legitimate concerns are ignored and swept under the carpet time and again in the House and throughout councils. The lack of respect serves no good end. It is commonplace in our Sinn Féin-dominated council, where our unionist councillors, who are severely in the minority, are, time and again, shut out, cast aside and shown a huge lack of respect. Council needs to tread carefully. A council that ignores genuine concerns and local people is one that is destined for a difficult path. We in the DUP will always speak up on that, even if we stand alone. We will speak up for common sense and for the ratepayers of our district, who have legitimate concerns. They deserve to be heard.

460 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The statement does raise process points, namely that there was "no public consultation" and that the council should be "honest about the practicalities and costs". But its core objection is to a council publicly committing to welcome people seeking sanctuary, a recognised migration flashpoint. It presents that commitment as "encouraging illegal immigrants to come to this country", which casts people seeking sanctuary as illegal entrants. It sets "local people" and "common sense" ratepayers against the council and the migrants it would welcome. It also adds a communal framing, describing unionist councillors as "shut out, cast aside" in a council dominated by another party.

Public interest or divisiveness

Concerns about consultation, transparency and cost are legitimate matters for scrutiny of a public body, and they take up much of the statement. Alongside them, though, the statement objects to a public body supporting a vulnerable group, links sanctuary to illegal immigration without evidence, and uses populist "people ignored and silenced" language. It also frames the council dispute as one community's representatives being disrespected. Both elements are substantial, but the overall effect is to contest a welcome for refugees and deepen division.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:21 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.

Challenge this classification