Debate contribution: Community and Voluntary Sector Funding
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Community and Voluntary Sector Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4564001
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I start by putting on record my thanks and the SDLP's thanks for those community and voluntary sector services that provide vital support to all areas in our society, and many of the people from those sectors were present today in the Long Gallery. I particularly pay tribute to the teams behind the mental health services, who go above and beyond each and every day in our communities. Many of you will have met people from some of those teams today at the launch of the Mental Health Policy Alliance.
Northern Ireland is unlike many other places in Europe when it comes to the devastating and complex nature of mental health issues here. As Members said in the previous debate, our society is still recovering from decades of some of the most barbaric tragedies. It is little wonder that, in recent years, we have still recorded the highest number of people with PTSD in the world. The toll that that takes on our mental health services, not only currently, must not be underestimated. In the absence of effective government delivery from Stormont, our voluntary and community sector has stepped into the breach, providing key services that have become core. However, the cut to core grant funding in 2023-24 had a devastating impact. It was a huge blow to those organisations, which are the first line of defence against poverty and inequality in communities. I cannot speak to that without mentioning the fact that the cut left Women's Aid NI as the only Women's Aid federation in the UK without state funding. That is unacceptable. We already see other vital community-based services having to close their doors: in the previous debate, I mentioned the Men's Action Network (MAN) in my constituency. We continue to see report after report about the health service calling for a "Prevention first" approach to health. If we are serious about that, we must also get serious about how we utilise and fund the vital services in the community and voluntary sector. From the care provided to young people suffering with their mental health to the support given to those in the later years of their life, the sector plays a vital role. At the publication of the mental health strategy, the Minister stated that he wanted to:
"provide early intervention to prevent serious mental illness".
If that is, indeed, the case, Minister Nesbitt must appreciate that the preventative approach will be possible and effective only if mental health services receive adequate funding. As the Health Minister's colleagues will, no doubt, articulate, that cannot be a job for Minister Nesbitt alone: the entire Executive must get serious about their approach to the sector. In the newly published draft Programme for Government, the community and voluntary sector is barely mentioned, and neither is mental health. I appreciate that stakeholders are involved in the development of the new core grant funding scheme, but that will come as cold comfort to those left behind in the here and now. It would be remiss of me not to mention the elephant in the room regarding funding, namely the fact that this is the tenth year in a row that a single-year Budget has been agreed, despite the repeated calls and professed support from all parties across the Chamber and from those in the health and social care sector for multi-year Budgets. How can we expect our community and voluntary sector to thrive if we do not give it stable assurances in the form of multi-year funding? I am fully aware of the context in which the Budget was signed, after more than a decade of brutal Tory cuts and the long-term scarring caused by the underfunding of the health service relative to our huge level of need, but we will only add salt to the wounds if we do not reinstate the core grant funding to its previous level and evolve the way in which the community and voluntary sector is funded. The current funding scheme is clearly not fit for purpose, and it is right that it be reformed. I know that the Health Minister will take that forward. The scheme's current failures risk souring beyond repair relationships between the community and voluntary sector and the Department of Health or government as a whole. I ask the Minister to do his best to rectify that and to ensure that no more damage is done, that no more trust is eroded and that all organisations in the community and voluntary sector are afforded equal opportunity to access funding. It is also important for us all not to lose hope. There are examples of successful funding models that have adequately supported mental health services. For three years, the Department of Health ran a successful mental health support fund that brought together 80 charities and organisations that were tasked with supporting people in their mental health and well-being. Not only did that scheme encourage greater collaboration between mental health services but it granted them further funding, which allowed them to carry out their services and provide support to an ever-expanding audience. Unfortunately, that scheme, like so many others, was discontinued due to funding constraints. If we are to explore more schemes like the mental health support scheme, we must ensure that adequate funding is available to do so. The community and voluntary sector can provide the key that we need to unlock the deadlock that our health service finds itself in. However, it is only through an adequate and stable source of core grant funding that that can take place. I call on the Minister today to reinstate that core grant funding as a matter of urgency. People everywhere and from all backgrounds appreciate the thankless work that the community and voluntary sector organisations undertake day in and day out. They are the best of our society. People know, understand and value their work, and it is time that the Executive did the same.
1,000 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: 0.05 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.79 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.14 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:12 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.