Debate contribution: EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 9 September 2024.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

9 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4511888

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment. The impact and benefit of the European social fund and the European regional development fund in the North was clear. The European social fund provided funding for vital services through the community and voluntary sector to support some of the most vulnerable people in society. It enabled people to develop new skills and to navigate the path to becoming economically active and promoted greater social inclusion. It was locally organised, place-based and person-focused. The European regional development fund provided funding that enhanced the competitiveness of small and medium-sized businesses. It also provided much-needed funding for research and development and for the move towards a low-carbon economy. Over the seven-year period from 2014 to 2020, those two funds invested an average of around £65 million per year in the North. We had to adhere to some EU requirements on how the money was spent, but, ultimately, it was invested locally in harmony with other programmes. As such, it was aligned with our priorities and objectives. While there were criticisms of how those funds operated, particularly the bureaucracy attached to them, the investment was significant and the results clear. I and my predecessor, Conor Murphy, have been engaged on this issue since 2020, while activity in my Department has been ongoing since the Brexit referendum. The previous Executive took the position in 2020 on the replacement of the ESF and ERDF programmes. That called for a full replacement of the funding that we derived from EU sources, local delivery of funding using existing structures and full compliance with our unique system of government, including section 75 considerations. The British Government's long-promised and much-delayed replacement for those funds — the Shared Prosperity Fund — fell well short of that position. The delays in launching the fund resulted in the community and voluntary sector here dealing with annual funding cliff edges with a significant impact on the capacity and, at times, even the very viability of the sector. It has delivered significantly less than the equivalent EU funds, with an average of just £35 million per annum across the three-year period in comparison with the £65 million from ESF and ERDF across seven years. The Shared Prosperity Fund operates with a reduced scope, creating gaps in provision. It is operated directly from Whitehall according to priorities set by the British Government, with no decision-making role for our Executive, nor was it subjected to our section 75 equality scrutiny.

At times, its delivery here has lacked an understanding of the North, as it has sought to apply an English template to a place with a different structure of government and different needs. It was simply inadequate, unsuitable and late, and, frankly, it has scarred our community and voluntary sector.

With the Shared Prosperity Fund due to close at the end of this financial year and a new Government in London, there is an opportunity to do something better. The new Government made a manifesto commitment to restore control over the funds to devolved Governments. That is a welcome position, and I look forward to working with the Labour Government, Executive colleagues, the Assembly and our wider community on how that will operate in practice. The position on the replacement adopted by the previous Executive remains valuable. However, my officials are working with all the other Executive Departments to draft a document outlining the North's requirements from future funds. That will be brought to the Executive for consideration in the near future. I wrote to Angela Rayner, on her appointment as Secretary of State, about this matter. In particular, I pressed for urgent clarity and for her to make good on the manifesto commitment to greater devolved decision-making. I will also meet Minister Norris, who has responsibility for future funding in Angela Rayner's team, next week on 17 September. I intend to press the vital importance of sufficient funding being provided; that it is provided at the right time to prevent another funding cliff edge through appropriate simplified local structures; and that it is provided in a way that minimises bureaucracy, that is aligned to our Programme for Government, that allows a meaningful decision-making role for our Executive in line with the Labour manifesto commitment and that respects local needs and differences. It is essential that any plans associated with the Shared Prosperity Fund are set out, at the latest, in the Chancellor's Budget at the end of October. To achieve that, I intend to raise concerns about successor funding directly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as well as with Minister Norris. Failure to provide that clarity would create yet another avoidable cliff edge for the sector. That would lead to protective notices being issued, result in a loss of capacity and impact the continuing viability of our vital community and voluntary sector. As the motion rightly says, certainty is now required. I will continue to press for urgent clarity and a meaningful devolved role in decision-making and delivery. It will require significant work from us once we have an understanding of what the Chancellor will announce. I and my Department stand ready to lead on that work and to collaboratively design, develop and deliver a meaningful programme of funding. I hope that our community and voluntary sector will soon have the certainty that it so urgently needs and deserves. Therefore, I support the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification