Debate contribution: Shared Prosperity Fund
Debate contribution by Mr Conor Murphy on .
- MLA
- Mr Conor Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Shared Prosperity Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486287
Read the official Assembly record
Text
A lot of the funding that we provided to the sector came directly from European funding. That European funding was lost. We managed to plug the gap over COVID, but that funding came to an end in the last round. The funding was not replaced, despite the Government's promises. We have moved from a process where the Executive had funding that could be used through the Department for the Economy, which knew the groups that did that work and could support them, to one where those groups are in a competition-based approach that is run directly by Whitehall. The outcome of that has been haphazard. There were groups that received funding to continue their work, which I very much welcome, but they are now coming to a cliff edge, with no certainty on what will happen. Of course, we will try to work with the groups. We will continue to engage with the Department in London. I raised the issue with Minister Michael Gove at the East-West Council, and they appear to be moving more to the line that the Executive will have some input into the process, which I hope is the case because we know the groups and the necessity of the work that they do, and we will give them whatever support we can. It will be a matter of looking at what we have in our limited resources and encouraging continued funding from Whitehall to the areas where it is needed most.
246 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: 0.04 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.79 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.18 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:08 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.