Debate contribution: EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- 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 4511876
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As mentioned by all contributors today, the British Government's replacement for EU funding, the Shared Prosperity Fund, fell well short of what was delivered under the European social fund and the European regional development fund. As we know, the totality of funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund was £127 million over three years, whilst it was £65 million every year from the European structural and investment funds. That failure, as mentioned, put many groups that have worked tirelessly to support the most vulnerable in all our neighbourhoods and communities at huge risk. It left many families and households at even greater risk, because people are employed by those projects, and they have families. They have skills, and they have worked tirelessly for years. It left them in jeopardy of becoming unemployed. Even more importantly, it left the people in the communities that are the furthest removed from the labour market without a safe space in their community to call into and seek help. As someone who has worked under an ESF project for many years in the neighbourhoods and communities, I know that we have a wealth of talent. We have people who are so talented but who may, at the moment, have complex issues that have arisen throughout their lives, be it trauma, bereavement, mental health issues, childcare issues or caring issues. That group of people would die to get back to work to improve their income and make life better for their family. At the moment, however, they need support and assistance. I found that two of the biggest issues for women in particular were lack of confidence, where they just needed support and confidence to get back out into the workforce, and mental health, which was another huge issue. In any employment programme that I have run throughout the years with a range of organisations, 25% of the individuals who came through our doors had mental health issues. They needed that support.
By working in neighbourhoods and communities — that is where the local knowledge and expertise exist — you can connect those people to the range of services that is available. That is what is so important about the programmes.
That is why I want to come to the Shared Prosperity Programme. We have a range of organisations, and I think that all of us have had the opportunity to visit them. In my constituency, those include 21 Training, Mencap, Action Mental Health, Disability Action, NIACRO, Enterprise North West, Include Youth and Triax. Those organisations have worked here for not just the past few years but the past 15 to 20 years. They have gathered the expertise and experience to support our communities, and they play such a vital role, not only in providing employment and skills but in promoting social inclusion and combating poverty. I had the privilege to go back to a project that I used work with. That was called Skills North West, but is it now called Success North West. In March, it did an interim evaluation of its current project, and it found that it is already exceeding its targets. More importantly, it spoke to the individuals who are currently benefiting from that and saw, in such a short time, the resilience of those individuals, who can only be admired for getting back out there, starting their training and education and starting to network. You can see their confidence and their ambition to get back into the workforce. You could not pay for that. If you could bottle the work that those organisations do on a daily basis for individuals who need support, it would be priceless. I will also mention the employment and mentoring officers and staff in Success North West. The 18 staff who work there bring their skills, experience and drive to the table. However, those individuals are at a cliff edge. We need to commend their work and that of the organisations. We need to ensure that this crisis does not continue. Funding needs to be secured for those valuable services. The British Government must make clear their commitment to continue funding the Shared Prosperity Fund beyond March 2025 and to provide a full replacement for EU funding with local control over its use.
707 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.88 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
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.