Debate contribution: Local Growth Fund
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Local Growth Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197394
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Democratic Unionist Party is deeply concerned about the lack of clarity on the new local growth fund, which is supposed to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, itself a post-Brexit replacement for the European social fund. Last week, a response from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to a question for written answer asked by our party leader, Gavin Robinson, provided no real new insight. Hilary Benn stated that his Department:
"is working in close partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to implement and develop the new Local Growth Fund."
There are reports that 70% of the new fund will be allocated to capital, which, if true, will greatly reduce revenue support for voluntary and community sector programmes that aim to level up society. Throughout my time on the Committee for Communities, I have raised concerns about the future of community-based employability projects that support economically inactive people into employment or training for employment. I firmly believe that such community-based projects have the ability, contacts and appeal to reach people whom statutory services are less likely to reach. With just five months of funding left until the end of the financial year, there is no certainty that those projects will continue. As it stands, the staff will receive protective notice before Christmas. It is appalling that those dedicated staff are once again in that uncertain position.
One such group is the Prosper NI consortium, which operates in 10 of the 11 council areas in Northern Ireland, helping disabled people into vocational training and sustainable employment. Prosper NI reports that, since April 2023, it has enrolled 2,158 economically inactive participants, of whom 874 have achieved qualifications and 753 have progressed into paid employment. Those are economically inactive and disabled people who have gained confidence, skills and independence, and local employers have benefited from additional motivated staff. With the unemployment level among those actively seeking work in Northern Ireland at a record low — around 2% — it is all the more important that we have projects that help us to address our high level of economic inactivity. Around 27% of adults are not working and are not actively seeking employment. That category includes those with long-term sickness or disability, those with caring responsibilities, full-time students and people who are in retirement. Extra investment, support and outreach are required to assist such people into employment. Belfast Works Connect is a consortium of five community-based groups across Belfast, covering the north, south, east and west of the city and the Shankill. It supports people who are economically inactive due to ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, early retirement, complex needs etc. Those people are considered to be furthest from the workforce. Between 2023 and 2025, the consortium has enrolled 5,244 such people. That is 112% of its target. Of those, over 3,000 have achieved a qualification and 850 have been helped into employment — again, exceeding the target — 651 of whom are now in sustained employment lasting over six months. That shows the important work that those groups carry out in our communities. On a day when all parties should unite in support of our voluntary and community sector, the comment from the Alliance Party Member was an indulgence and regrettable. We will take no lectures on the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland from the Alliance Party, which called for the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol and was left with a red face when the EU agreed to change it due to the stand taken by the DUP. We continue to campaign to restore our place in the UK's internal market. As for his comment that my colleague Diane Forsythe is not a champion for the voluntary and community sector, the Alliance Member clearly knows nothing about her work, including as chair of the all-party group, but ignorance is no excuse on his part.
654 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: 0.32 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.73).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.23 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.49 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.32 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.73 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.25 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.73 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.26 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.