Debate contribution: Community and Voluntary Sector Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 30 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

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 4564080

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As I listened to the debate, I was reminded of some of the meetings that many of us attend where somebody says, usually from the back of the room, "Somebody would need to do something about that".

You know what that means; it means "somebody", but not them. Listening to the debate, I have heard everybody laud and praise the community and voluntary sector, everyone has talked about the valuable role that it plays, and everyone has talked about how important it is in dealing with people's mental health and being there as a support. Of course, it is. The level of priority and commitment given to mental health and of funding for the community and voluntary sector in the Programme for Government tells me that it was a case of, "Somebody had better do something about that". I will move my way through Members' comments. My colleague Mark Durkan, who proposed the motion, referred to the importance of the core grant. There were numerous references in the debate to the legacy of the conflict and the Troubles in our society and to the fact that people are still living with PTSD. Many other services are required in the community. In an earlier debate, we mentioned suicide prevention and what can be done on that. The Minister mentioned many core services such as those for elderly people and to tackle isolation. The list of services is endless. The gap has been filled in many instances by community and voluntary services. There was reference to the fact that schemes have been discontinued, and it is important that those are reinstated. Multiple references were made to the year-on-year funding, which means that there is no certainty and that — indeed, the Minister referred to this — people's employment is not secure, despite the fact that they provide vital services. People therefore leave those jobs and move on to other jobs that, in many instances, are in the statutory sector. Robbie Butler referred to the financial pressures and budgets. He referred to, again, the community and voluntary sector. Liz Kimmins referred to her constituency and South Down, the voluntary sector and its important role in working with the most vulnerable in society. Diane Forsythe referred to issues with the Department and was somewhat critical of the Minister and his Department. However, that criticism was later rebutted very well by the Minister. The information that she referred to — she asked how many referrals were made to the sector — and which was not available would perhaps be useful and, indeed, helpful to the Department in its quest for reinstatement of the core funding. Danny Donnelly referred to, again, the importance of the legacy of the Troubles, suicide rates, the 50% cut in funding, the gap that was left by the absence of political leadership and the need for institutional reform. Alan Robinson commended the work of the community and voluntary sector and the lifeline that it provides in many of our communities, including, indeed, rural communities where there is isolation as well as financial stress. We are all well aware of the problems that are faced by the people who come to our offices and the inordinate pressures that they live under. Nuala McAllister spoke about support for the sector, the 50% cut and the fact that £1·8 million is not a lot to ask for. As a member of the Opposition, I will again say that £1·8 million is not a lot to ask for. I go back to the idea of, "Somebody would need to do something about that", and suggest that that be referred back to your Executive colleagues, given the need for someone to do something about it.

Yes, sure.

Indeed, especially if £1·8 million is not a lot. One would presume that a Programme for Government by the Executive parties could come up with that, given the inordinate pressures, needs and requirements in society and how important the community and voluntary sector is in the community. Again, it goes back to the Executive. Over to the Minister. The Minister referred to the decision to cut the grant and was very specific about the fact that the permanent secretary did that at the time because the DUP was not participating in devolution. He also referred to the loss of the European social fund. Minister, I will happily give way to you if you can provide us with some further information on the quantity of the European social fund that was lost through that perturbed period and stupid vote. Do you have that detail?

Indeed. Perhaps the Prime Minister from that time, who is on the very lucrative speaker circuit, could make up the shortfall out of his own pocket. I say that with tongue in cheek. Minister, you referred to your role as a victims' commissioner, where you saw the issues at first hand. You recognised the valuable role that the core grant scheme played, the choices that the statutory services made and the funding provided to the community and voluntary sector. It is now a very difficult place to be in. Minister, I will highlight your reference to the fact that potential exists through making a transition from care in hospitals to care in communities. In my experience, you have a long hard road ahead of you there. I represent a rural area where domiciliary care workers and care in the community are unavailable until some poor cratur dies and a slot becomes available for the next person on the list. All that I will say to you, Minister, is that it is perhaps not one to hang your hat on. Incidentally, we are supporting the amendment. Given the consensus in the Chamber today, all parties represented on the Executive can hopefully make a case to the Minister of Finance to come up with the £1·8 million.

Yes.

I was referring specifically to the motion that we are debating today, but I take the Member's point. The Minister referred to the care system for older people, some of whom have life-threatening diseases or conditions, and the need for them to get the care that they require. We are debating today the loss of community and voluntary sector funding, and I have no problem supporting the amendment and making the case for it. I emphasise a really important thing that we all know in the Chamber, which is that the community and voluntary sector plays a vital role for people. It is actually life-saving. On that note, we will support the Ulster Unionist amendment, and I ask that Members support our motion, please.

1,111 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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