Debate contribution: Community and Voluntary Sector Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .

MLA
Mr Danny Donnelly
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
30 September 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Community and Voluntary Sector Funding
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4564026

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank my SDLP colleagues for bringing the motion, and I reiterate the positive decision of the official Opposition to use their three Opposition day motions to focus on health, especially mental health. As was highlighted in the previous debate, it is clear that community and voluntary sector organisations provide an invaluable resource through the provision of mental health services for the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland. That is particularly important here because, as was raised in the previous debate, we are continually dealing with the legacy of the Troubles and its impact of poor mental health. As I and other Members mentioned during the previous debate, it is concerning that more lives have been lost to suicide here since 1998 than were killed during the Troubles. Community and voluntary groups in Northern Ireland and their hard-working staff and volunteers deserve to be acknowledged, and it is right that we use this debate and others to do so. I know of many such groups in East Antrim, and I am sure that other MLAs will know groups in their areas that do fantastic work to support people in need. The 50% reduction in core grant funding in 2023 was extremely damaging and led to staff redundancies, a reduction in services and some organisations no longer being able to operate at all. At the time, a Children in Northern Ireland survey of core-funded organisations showed that 62% were at risk of collapse if the grant scheme was not restored. It is important to remember that that decision was taken in the absence of Ministers, because there were no Ministers in 2023 as a consequence of the one-party veto over the operation of the Assembly and the Executive. It is worrying that that veto remains in place; it has been used by both the main parties and therefore could be used again. We need only look at the 2023 Budget and its devastating impact on core grant funding as evidence of why that cannot be allowed to happen again. As Mark mentioned, we need to move to multi-year budgets in the health service, but, first, we need to secure a multi-year Government. We also need to acknowledge that many brilliant community and voluntary organisations, whose hard work we all regularly see in our constituencies, have, in many respects, filled the gap left by an absence of political leadership and, in the case of the Department of Health, a failure to embrace necessary reform and transformation. The loss of funding has reduced the likelihood of the Department's mental health strategy being implemented. For example, action 17 in the strategy requires the Department to:

"Fully integrate community and voluntary sector in mental health service delivery with a lifespan approach including the development of a protocol to make maximum use of the sector’s expertise."

How can that be actioned and implemented when the sector is struggling to survive? That also calls into question the sustainability of our existing funding model. We cannot fully address that issue in the Assembly, but the new UK Government and the House of Commons must consider it. We all know that Northern Ireland is underfunded relative to need. The Fiscal Council estimated that that underfunding has been by £300 million to £400 million per year since 2022 versus what we would receive if an appropriate fiscal floor was in place. However, we cannot just turn to Westminster to solve our problems. In addition to the obvious need for institutional reform here, we need to reform how we approach our public finances and our health service, seeking to reduce the costs of division across every Department and reforming the mental health sector to prioritise early intervention and prevention. We need a collaborative approach between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance. Together, they should work to identify the necessary funding to ensure that valuable community and voluntary sector organisations can continue to provide those essential services. Funding alone will not fix the issues facing the community and voluntary sector. Fundamental reform of our health and social care sector is necessary to ensure that our public services are equipped to deal with mental health crises and to deal with individuals in a caring and compassionate manner. As I have mentioned, organisations are fulfilling responsibilities that should be completed by the Department and local trusts, but, in some cases, they cannot do so due to the unprecedented pressures on our health service, specifically in relation to waiting lists. We cannot continue with the status quo. We must do what we can to support our community and voluntary sector and urgently reform how we deal with mental health services.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.66
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.30
No identity-related subject0.04
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification