Debate contribution: EU Funding for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Debate contribution by Miss Áine Murphy on .
- MLA
- Miss Áine Murphy
- 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 4511902
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank all Members for their contributions. As Paul referenced, it is heartening to hear the Chamber speak with unity on such an important topic. In my role as Sinn Féin spokesperson for rural affairs and as an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I take the opportunity to highlight how rural and border areas have greatly benefited from EU funding. For example, EU Pillar I and Pillar II programmes have provided financial support to farmers, businesses and communities. The community and voluntary sector has played a pivotal role in providing services for our most vulnerable. One such recipient of European social funds in my constituency is Fermanagh New Horizons. I highlight the excellent work that it does, working to support the recovery of adults experiencing mental ill health who are interested in progressing towards training and employment. Rural communities have benefited from a ring-fenced budget and multi-annual funding package and fully embrace the bottom-up approach to engage local people in the decision-making process. However, the Shared Prosperity Fund is neither rural-proofed nor equality-proofed but delivered directly by Whitehall. It is also worth highlighting that, as with EU replacement funds for the community and voluntary sector, there is no clarity on the future of farm support. Farmers have no clarity or certainty on whether farm support worth approximately £300 million per year will continue beyond 2024. My constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is the largest recipient of farm subsidy payments and, I would argue, the most rural constituency in the North. Farmers go to the very heart of our rural communities. Without farm subsidies, how can they be expected to compete with their counterparts in the South, who benefit from a full range of EU supports? The rural sector has been pointed in saying that, while the PEACE PLUS programme is cited a lot and the rural dimensions of that are welcome, it is not a replacement for the development programme. EU funding has provided significant benefits across a range of section 75 equality groups, including young people, people with disabilities, women and minority ethnic groups. That work has provided significant social and economic benefits, and it is imperative that EU replacement funding continues. We are in times of reduced public expenditure, worsened by the lack of clarity and certainty on EU replacement funds beyond 2025. During the Brexit referendum campaign, the Tory Government said that the North of Ireland would not lose out — I think that the exact phrase was "pound-for-pound funding" — but, of course, Brexit has delivered a huge cut to funding. The British Government committed to replacing those funds with the Shared Prosperity Fund, but that falls far short of what was delivered through the European social fund and the European regional development fund. After 14 years of a Tory Government who created and delivered austerity and Brexit, there will be a huge consequence for the community and voluntary sector, rural development and rural communities if the British Government do not replace EU funding in full. The community and voluntary sector needs certainty, clarity and stability. The current British Government must fulfil their promise to replace all EU funding in full.
527 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: 0.07 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.06 | 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-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.33 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.30 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
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.