Debate contribution: Local Growth Fund
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Local Growth Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197375
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the signatories to the motion for highlighting the concerns of the community and voluntary sector. Northern Ireland was long a beneficiary of European funding. I agree with the proposer of the motion's comments on how valuable that funding was. We have seen at first hand how it transformed communities and gave opportunities, particularly to disadvantaged rural areas such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The EU regional development fund supported entrepreneurs and small businesses, while the European social fund supported the valuable fabric of our society, the community and voluntary sector, to give people a real chance to live improved and purposeful lives.
After Brexit, as other Members have noted, the British Government introduced the Shared Prosperity Fund as a replacement for the European social fund and the European regional development fund. However, closer analysis shows that the totality of the Shared Prosperity Fund has not matched what was delivered through the EU structural funds, delivering £127 million over three years: an average reduction of £23 million a year compared with the EU funds. Despite the shortfall, the Shared Prosperity Fund delivered tangible results. Between April 2023 and March 2025, £57 million was committed to helping Northern Ireland tackle economic inactivity and promote opportunity. It was effective. It supported almost 24,000 people over two years; 6,500 people moved into employment; 3,445 jobs were sustained for at least six months; and almost 9,000 individuals progressed into further education or training. Those figures demonstrate the profound difference that properly resourced initiatives can make in transforming lives, strengthening communities and boosting local economies. Now we wait to see whether the successor to the SPF, the local growth fund, will deliver. We are told that it will support at the same cash level as the 2025-26 SPF allocation: £45 million a year. Beyond that, there is no clarity about the local growth fund, and the absence of detail on how the fund will operate is leading to an atmosphere of deep uncertainty for many community and voluntary groups that rely on that support to deliver essential services. Without clear guidance, those organisations are unable to plan or retain staff, leaving Northern Ireland once again in limbo. This is not simply about funding being delayed by Westminster; it is about real people, real progress and the ongoing support for those in our communities who need it most. The UK local growth fund must include a dedicated regional fund for Northern Ireland beyond 2026. By comparison, on 14 October, it was announced that Wales is to receive £500 million from the local growth fund. The delivery plan for that funding will be developed and led by the Welsh Government, with local authorities, community organisations and other stakeholders being involved in determining how the money will be used, alongside a full public consultation. That model provides transparency and accountability, ensuring that local voices are heard in shaping how the fund delivers meaningful outcomes. It is exactly that type of model that needs to be replicated in Northern Ireland, where it can be most effective. The local growth fund will be vital to the groups and organisations that carry out such incredible work across our communities, supporting those with disabilities and others into employment, skills and social cohesion. With only a handful of months left before 2026, when the Shared Prosperity Fund will be replaced by the new growth fund, time is quickly running out for clarity and planning. The Labour slogan, "Things Can Only Get Better", has yet to ring true for Northern Ireland; in fact, for many community organisations, the opposite seems to be the case. What we need now is not more rhetoric but decisive action, genuine engagement and a clear plan that ensures that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of funding, with local decision-making at its core. Words of praise for our region's valuable services, as expressed by Rachel Reeves on her recent visit to Belfast, need to be matched by a solid undertaking to match EU funding in full and support the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland.
681 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.57 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:32 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.