Debate contribution: Local Growth Fund

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .

MLA
Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
21 October 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Local Growth Fund
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5197380

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the motion on the future of funding to replace the European programmes that sustained so much good work in our communities for decades, and I acknowledge and welcome the presence in the Public Gallery of Celine McStravick and others from the community and voluntary sector. I have said before that I was proud to be at the heart of the Remain campaign in Northern Ireland, and, while people here voted to remain, we were dragged out of Europe against our will. I do not want to dance around all that again, but it has to be said. The value of that membership, particularly in the European regional development fund and the European social fund, continues to be seen across our region every day. We can see the legacy of the regional development fund in infrastructure in our towns and cities, the growth of our local businesses and social housing delivery. Those projects remind us of the tangible benefits of EU membership and what it brought to each of our communities.

The European social fund's impact was quieter, but vital. It helped people rebuild confidence, gain skills and move much closer to work. It underpinned much of our community and voluntary sector, and it transformed lives. The community and voluntary sector is one of Northern Ireland's greatest strengths. It employs over 53,000 people across 7,400 registered charities, and 73% of those working in the sector are women — many in part-time roles. Those organisations hold communities together, often on insecure funding, yet with unshakeable dedication. At a time of enormous pressure in our health service, they are essential in supporting older people, families and those facing poor mental health, addiction and isolation. We all know the pressures that our health service is under. If we did not have the community and voluntary sector, it would be on life support. We are not far from that, but it would be, because the sector is providing core functions in our communities. It is often the only support when statutory services cannot cope. In Derry, the loss of the European social fund saw such support organisations as Women's Centre Derry and Derry Youth and Community Workshop lose staff, skills and capacity, along with vital services. It was not only Westminster that pulled the plug. European funding relied on partnership, with local Departments providing match funding. Since 2016-17, the Executive contributed tens of millions in statutory match funding. When European funding disappeared, so did the match funding from our Departments, with real consequences for organisations and the people whom they serve. Virtually the same motion was debated here almost a year ago and was passed, yet the sector still lacks clarity about the future of funding. The Department of Finance is the lead Department for developing the fund for Northern Ireland. It committed to engaging with the sector, including through the hosting of an event, on 18 June, and agreed to produce a report outlining the Executive's position, yet that report still has not been made available. That adds to the uncertainty that is faced by the community organisations. I would like to hear about that from the Minister in his response. The NI Can't Wait campaign warns that almost 24,000 people could lose vital support unless urgent action is taken. Those are people with disabilities, lone parents, carers and people with health conditions. They rely on community organisations to move closer to employment. The British Government say that the local growth fund will replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026, but serious concerns remain about its design and accessibility. It cannot become another overly centralised fund that is out of reach for community organisations. NICVA's message is clear: groups across Northern Ireland need leadership, and they need it now. The SDLP believes that the Executive must take action and must take matters into their own hands. We cannot continue to go to Westminster with a begging bowl, come away with nothing and have no solutions closer to home. We need leadership at home that explores such funding as social finance, which allows organisations to leverage private capital for social and environmental good. Departments must also provide stability for our organisations to deliver essential services. The community and voluntary sector has carried this region through some of its darkest days — through conflict, austerity and political collapse. It deserves certainty, sustainability and respect, and as NICVA rightly says —

— Northern Ireland cannot wait.

741 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.09 (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 (0.94).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.09At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.71
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.13
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.07
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.05
No identity-related subject0.03

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.

Challenge this classification