Debate contribution: EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511840
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
A chairde
the folly of Brexit is playing out across all our communities in the North. The loss of funding, such as the European social fund (ESF) and the European regional development fund (ERDF), is impacting vital services across the community and voluntary sector, causing uncertainty in services that are often most needed by the most vulnerable groups across society. We in Sinn Féin opposed Brexit, as we understood the importance of continued European Union support for our community and voluntary sector, peacebuilding, our agriculture and our economic development. The British Government have to date failed to live up to their commitment to replace European funding in its entirety.That failure to replace funding has placed many groups in a precarious position and has caused uncertainty about their long-term sustainability and their ability to provide the services that are so badly needed. The Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) of £127 million over three years represents a shortfall of approximately £23 million per year for programmes that work to combat poverty and increase social cohesion, reduce economic inactivity and increase the skills base that is so important to our economy. Services provided by the voluntary and community sector are of particular importance to our rural communities. For example, community transport is a vital service that connects many isolated people to essential amenities. NICVA has reported that, of 216,000 journeys taken on community transport in 2016, 46% were for health-related matters and transporting patients to hospital appointments when other means of transport were simply not available. I also cite the important work of groups in my constituency, such as First Steps Women's Centre in Dungannon, which provides much-needed support. I hosted the Committee for Communities there for it to see at first hand the support that the centre provides particularly to women in south Tyrone in education, skills, child support, language development and in so many other important ways. I flag to Members the fact that First Steps Women's Centre will present here in the form of a human library on 8 October. I encourage MLAs to take the opportunity to meet them. Voluntary and community and social enterprise organisations employ approximately 53,600 people across the North in the provision of mental health, disability and autism services and on projects dedicated to alleviating poverty, helping the homeless and those who struggle with addiction, assisting with employment skills development and assisting women to enter the workforce. Between 2014 and 2020, the ESF programme supported over 77,000 people into employment. The impact of the loss of £23 million per year is being felt by groups such as the Training for Women Network in east Belfast, which has already had its funding cut from 8% to 3·7% and faces yet another cliff edge as March 2025 approaches. The Shared Prosperity Fund, administered from the distance of Westminster, is problematic and should, rather, be delivered through our Executive and Departments, which have a much clearer understanding of where the money is best spent to deliver the best outcomes across our communities. Local projects that provide local services to vulnerable people, create jobs and provide opportunities for young people are far better understood by local representatives and organisations, who understand the specific needs of their clients and communities. The Sinn Féin Minister of Finance, Caoimhe Archibald, continues to lobby the British Government on funding guarantees beyond March 2025. I am sure that Members will be keen to hear about progress on that. Sinn Féin MPs have supported NICVA's calls for assurance from the British Government on the continuation of vital funding for the community and voluntary sector through the Shared Prosperity Fund. Just last week, John Finucane and Paul Maskey were in Westminster, meeting Minister Alex Norris to urge him to provide clarity on funding for the community and voluntary organisations that, we all know, form the backbone of our communities, providing transformational services for young people, workers and families. There is no guarantee that the Labour Government will continue the Shared Prosperity Fund in its current form. Regardless of that, we need community groups that rely on it to have clarity on funding as soon as possible and to be given a guarantee that the funding will continue beyond 2025. I ask Members to support the motion.
713 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: 0.07 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.70 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.11 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:01 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.