Debate contribution: Core Grant Scheme
Debate contribution by Miss Órlaithí Flynn on .
- MLA
- Miss Órlaithí Flynn
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 7 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Core Grant Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4891273
Read the official Assembly record
Text
To be honest, most of the points have already been made by Members. I know that the Minister will not be surprised by what the Committee has expressed here today, because, at Committee level, we have raised our concerns and written to him. As Alan said, we have debated the same issues in previous debates. I know that the Minister and his colleague who sits on the Health Committee — he was uncomfortable with our tabling the motion — are as frustrated and disappointed as all the other Members. We know that the Minister is working with a really constrained budget, but the first point to take from today's debate is that NICVA and all the groups that took part in the redesign process to look at the model were really pleased with that and the intent behind it, which was to put an end to groups getting the same amount of funding as they had got for 20-plus years. Trying to take a positive out of a negative, I will say that some of the groups that had not formally engaged with the Department before were really pleased to be involved in that process, even though they lost out. As we know, many groups lost out, and the issue of the criteria was raised. When I wrote to the Minister about that, his response was that the breakdown of all the criteria was on the website. That is fair enough; I accept that. However, it may be worthwhile doing a bit more co-production with the groups, regardless of whether they received any funding, to help them to understand the process, the marking and the criteria more fully so that it is crystal clear to them why they missed out. When all is said and done, it comes down to the pounds and the pennies. Having a three-year Health budget was mentioned a couple of times as a way of trying to deal with that. If the groups that missed out could get a sense of whether the Minister will be in a position to plan for a three-year budget, hopefully in the next financial year, that would give them a bit more hope that he may be able to slightly increase the money in the core grant scheme. It is just about giving them a sense of whether a three-year budget will make a difference to the core grant funding. Diane, I think, mentioned one of the action points in the mental health strategy. I make this point as a West Belfast MLA. The Minister will know that one of the key objectives of Protect Life 2 was to ensure that the areas of greatest need — the most deprived areas with the highest numbers of suicides — have appropriate resources to deal with suicide prevention. Some suicide prevention groups missed out on the core funding. Some of the groups from West Belfast that I have spoken about applied and were not successful. That is why it is really important to unpick why some critical local groups missed out on the funding. If we can make that clear to people and local groups and make them feel involved and if a three-year budget becomes a reality, hopefully, we can keep them involved so that they can apply again, at which point they may be in a better position to secure some of that funding. I hope that the Minister takes from today's debate the fact that the Health Committee supports him in his work, so that he can help people better. Hopefully, in his feedback, he will not say that we have been too negative and that we are trying to get at him; we are just trying to express the frustrations. We also want to find ways to support him and give those groups a bit of hope.
640 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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.48 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.42 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 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.