Debate contribution: Core Grant Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Core Grant Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4891266
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not a member of the Health Committee, but I am passionate about some of the groups that have lost funding, and I am more than aware of the amazing work that they do. Recently, I, along with my colleague behind me, Diane Dodds, facilitated a meeting with a number of groups that have lost funding. At that meeting, they highlighted the tangible impact of that loss of funding. Let me be clear: I am not calling for the scheme to be run again, or for money to be taken off any successful groups. Rather, I want to highlight the work that the community and voluntary sector does in Northern Ireland to deliver first-class services and how it fills the gaps that, sometimes, public services do not reach. Members have already highlighted a number of organisations. We all work with different organisations. Three or four weeks ago, I was standing here highlighting the amazing work of the Samaritans. Previous to this round of funding, they got a very modest grant of about £10,000, but even that was significant for them. Celine McStravick, the chief executive of NICVA, has been mentioned in the debate. She said that the cut in funding:
"reveals a serious misalignment between the Department's reliance on our sector and its investment in our capacity to deliver."
I do not underestimate the difficult job that the Minister has. There are a lot of demands on the Department of Health and its funding. I imagine that the Health Minister has already instructed his permanent secretary to look down the back of the Health sofa to see whether there is anything that he can get his hands on. Maybe he will tell us whether he has done that when he responds to the debate. Members have highlighted the Minister's shift-left agenda, with which I completely agree. However, if we displace from the third sector some of the support and interventions that we are talking about, very often people end up in more acute settings. The more acute the setting, the more expensive the intervention. We know that funding for the sectoral bodies allows them to support thousands of people who receive their services. We also know that those organisations are operating in really difficult fiscal circumstances. Again, three-year Budgets in the Assembly, and therefore in Departments, would be incredibly helpful in offsetting that. The Minister should work towards a level of sustainability in the voluntary and community sector to ensure that the people who work in it, delivering first-class interventions for some of Northern Ireland's most vulnerable citizens, feel completely supported.
My ask today is that the Minister at least consider a reversal and an uplift in funding to the original amount, which, I believe, was £3·6 million.
459 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.88 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:20 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.