Debate contribution: Community and Voluntary Sector Funding
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Community and Voluntary Sector Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4564066
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much. I thank all the Members for the mostly good-natured tone of the debate. As the Minister said very clearly, the main issue that we have to deal with is the irony klaxon. The Minister and the Department of Health made these decisions only in the worst possible cases. The cut was made not by the Minister but by the permanent secretary when the Assembly was not sitting. Let us just focus on that for a second. Here we are, an Assembly debating. Nobody here thinks that the community and voluntary sector does not do a good job or that it does not add significantly to what we do for health outcomes across Northern Ireland. It is a vital part of what we are trying to achieve. Nobody here, I believe, does not consider the fact that we need to look at other members of the voluntary and community sector and not just at the ones that have previously been in that sector. We need to look at what is the best value and the best approach for us to be able to do that, but we cannot do it without the necessary funding. That is why we tabled our amendment. This issue is about funding, and our party took the decision not to support the Budget because the funding is not there for Health. Some Members spoke eloquently and some did not, but some of those who spoke eloquently talked about, in the overall size and context of the Health budget, the small amounts of money that should be available to be able to do that. Other Members will be aware that we have similar situations with policing, Infrastructure and Education. Every single penny has to be scrutinised and looked at effectively. Finding extra funds is not just a matter of pulling them out from wherever they are, and that is why we tabled our amendment. We are calling on the Finance Minister to make sure that, when additional funds come through, they do indeed come to Health.
I thank the Member for his intervention. Much as I feel quite happy to talk about the Education Minister and some of the other issues with the DUP, we have had similar issues on Infrastructure, Justice and Economy, and we go on and on. The reality is that the funding is not there, and funding must be put there correctly and be appropriated for Health. Many of us sat around the table at Hillsborough Castle less than a year ago, and every party that is now in the Executive agreed that Health was the number-one priority.
I fully agree. It is a pity that other members of the Finance Committee are not here, although we do indeed have the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee here. Where is the sustainability plan? It was supposed to be here by the end of the month. I believe that the month finishes at 23.59 tonight, and we have not seen a sustainability plan, so I am not quite sure where that is going. I welcome the Member's comments. The most important thing that we need to appreciate — this is why I encourage all Members to support the amendment — is that finance has to be found. Finance has to be found for our number-one priority, which is Health. I do not believe that anybody disagrees that the community and voluntary sector needs more resources, but we can only allocate those when we have them. Unless we are given an adequate funding mechanism and support, we are not going to be able to do that. I ask all Members to support our amendment.
612 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.