Debate contribution: EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- 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 4511898
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I commend everyone who has taken part in the debate for the sentiment that has been expressed and the demeanour of their contributions. That has happened because we all value the community and voluntary sector. Any MLA worth their salt will deal with those groups every week and will know the value that they contribute to our people in public health, mental health, transport, social inclusion, wealth, employment, regeneration and development. Every sphere of life and every sphere of governance is encapsulated in the community and voluntary sector. I want to see smaller government. That voluntary and community sector must have a pivotal role in delivering for our people — delivering better than government could ever do. That is why this is such an important matter and why we should discuss and debate it today in plenary on our first day back. There were a lot of thoughtful and informative contributions. I do not wish to get into naming Members and picking out bits and pieces other than to say that I valued every contribution. Whilst I am a great champion of tranquillity and peaceful debate in the Chamber, this really has done my heart good because I can see the worth. Every Member who spoke and all parties have a real opportunity to unite on this issue. I will explain our amendment. We have not sought to amend the motion to apply pressure on the Minister or to target her. We realise that, in her position with regard to finance, she is best placed to be the tip of the spear in combating poor governance from Westminster. Let us call it what it is. We have replaced Brussels with Whitehall, and it has let us down just as badly. We have had a missed opportunity. The British Government put more funding into the EU and got less money out, so why are we left in a position where the Government give Northern Ireland less funding than EU funding was delivering? It is absolutely appalling to be in this position, so it does my heart good to hear the united voice coming out of the Chamber. We have an opportunity, and we should remain hopeful because we have a new Government in Labour. We will hold their feet to the fire with regard to the broken promises that the previous Government made to this place and its people on EU funding. It is vital that we stress how important the funding is and the impact that this issue and the failed opportunity has had on the people who work in the community and voluntary sector and on the people who are serviced by it. It is so painful to have to live through this. It was painful enough to live through the bureaucracy of having to apply endlessly for funding on a yearly or three-yearly basis, but how much tougher is it now, when there is not the same amount of money to fulfil the needs of our people, needs that our Government will not be able to fulfil? That is why the community sector is so important to our people. I leave the Chamber with the hope that each party gets it and will do its best to deliver for our people and that the Minister of Finance will be the tip of the spear in the protest to get adequate funding for our people. It is vulnerable people, who need it the most, who usually end up getting supplied through and serviced by that funding, so it is critical that we sing with one voice, say to the British Government, "What you have done is not good enough. The failed promises of the past are not good enough", and call on the new Government to fulfil the promises and pledges of the previous Government.
642 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 (0.82).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.82 | 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 | 0.50 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.49 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.