Debate contribution: EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- 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 4511882
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion. It rightly highlights that uncertainty over the continuation of funding for important services delivered through the voluntary and community sector, previously funded through the European regional development fund and the European social fund, is causing a crisis in respect of the continuation of those projects and the retention of staff as we approach the last six months of current replacement funding through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. My party has proposed an amendment that we hope will be supported. It takes nothing away from the Sinn Féin motion, but it highlights the need for a collaborative approach between central government at Westminster and the Northern Ireland Executive to maximise the impact of such future funding in Northern Ireland according to our collective, agreed priorities. Three weeks ago, on 21 August, I attended a meeting with community and voluntary sector representatives, held at the premises of NICVA — the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action — to discuss the funding cliff edge that is fast approaching with the Shared Prosperity Fund, which is due to come to an end in March 2025. Also in attendance were MPs from all five main parties in Northern Ireland: the DUP, the UUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance. The voluntary and community sector groups represented at the meeting are all delivering employability support services. We were told that, to date, approximately £57 million has been committed to Northern Ireland via the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to address economic inactivity. Via the fund, over 680 staff across 59 voluntary and community sector organisations throughout Northern Ireland are delivering tailored support across the region to over 11,500 people — I will say that again: 11,500 people — who are considered furthest from the labour market for a range of personal circumstances, including long-term health issues or disabilities. Those people are clients who would otherwise struggle to access mainstream services and support. Through that community-level support, literally thousands of people have been helped into employment or training and education for future employment. There was agreement among all who were in attendance at that meeting that they would lobby the new Labour Government at Westminster for an initial 12-month extension to the Shared Prosperity Fund ahead of any spending review and for long-term funding for this important work. There was debate and a range of views expressed about the need to ensure that such funding is ring-fenced, recognising that if it were just to become part of the block grant to Northern Ireland, it could be at risk of being allocated to other pressing needs. Of course, the UK paid more into the EU than we received back, but, post-Brexit, it is essential that government funding for employability support services, which was previously delivered through those EU funding streams, is prioritised and ring-fenced. Furthermore, given the impact of Brexit on the free movement of labour into the country, it is vital for our economy that those of our citizens who need additional support to become economically active should receive that support and encouragement for their own benefit and for the benefit of the economy. I hope that this is an issue and a cause that all parties in the Assembly will be able to unite behind as they did at the meeting that I attended at NICVA.
553 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: 0.03 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- 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-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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.75 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.20 |
| 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 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.