Debate contribution: PEACE PLUS Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 13 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

13 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

PEACE PLUS Funding

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5484033

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It has been an interesting debate this evening, and we are happy to support the motion. PEACE PLUS has been a hugely important financial support for this island, particularly the North and the border communities, as we journeyed from conflict into peace. I welcome the fact that we are able to debate its continuation today, and I welcome the fact that there is in-principle agreement from London, Dublin and Brussels that PEACE PLUS will continue. I agree that there is some concern about the central funding, and I welcome the fact that MEPs are working on that, so I am happy to confirm our agreement to all of that. Obviously, it would have been more impactful to have the First Minister and deputy First Minister here to respond to the debate or, even better, to have embraced this as a policy collectively. Given that it would appear that the parties of both the First Minister and deputy First Minister are in agreement with the motion, even if they present the text in a slightly different way, it would probably have been, in a sense, more useful for them to have collectively communicated that agreement in person or via some other means to London, Dublin and the European Union, rather than our coming here to debate the motion. Nevertheless, we support the motion. People have talked about their parties' perspectives. My party is strongly pro-European and always has been. Mr Brett was talking about the history of Sinn Féin: perhaps, it was not quite as pro-European as it is now. He talked about being old enough to remember Sinn Féin not being so pro-European. Of course, I am old enough to remember not just the DUP's stance on Brexit but a certain MEP from this part of the world getting kicked out of the European Parliament for calling the Pope an Antichrist. Now, the DUP is in league with a fella who literally presents himself as Christ on social media. What a turn up for the books. Talk about meeting yourself coming back. We all evolve over the years. Sometimes, certain people should, perhaps, look at their own history and think more carefully before they call out others.

Sure, yes.

Thank you.

I do not need another minute. It is fine, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me say this: PEACE PLUS is an extraordinarily important fund. It is extraordinarily important for community groups and voluntary organisations that have benefited from it in the border counties and across the North. As Stewart Dickson said appositely a moment ago, it is a unique fund. Therefore, while people will say, "Ah, but the UK was a net contributor and a lot of that money was funded by the UK Government", and that is true — I have no difficulty in acknowledging that the UK Government clearly are a major and, in fact, majority funder and I am glad that, even in the dark days, Tory Brexiteers were willing to fund it — it is a distinct and unique pot of funding. It has a specific purpose and set of purposes that are distinct from other areas of European funding. It has helped with the process of reconciliation. I hope that it can help with the continued process and ongoing work of conflict resolution and reconciliation on this island. It would be remiss of me not to mention — it has not been mentioned thus far — another issue with regard to European successor funding that looms large in Northern Ireland at the minute: the loss, a few years ago, of European social funding. The European social fund was critical to funding things like employability and employment-related support. It was succeeded by something called the "Shared Prosperity Fund". Most people in the Chamber were not fans of it, but it did, at least, continue the cash amount of funding for a year or two. Those organisations were able to continue that work. Now, the Labour Government have insisted on a local growth fund that is calibrated differently, with an emphasis on capital as opposed to resource. That has created an extreme problem for local organisations. The frustrating thing for them is that the UK Government's short-termist and, frankly, reckless and heedless approach has been made worse by the fact that the Executive have simply put their hand up and said, "Talk to them. Go away and talk to London. Not our problem, not our doing". It is important to note that, because people have also talked in the Chamber about who has paid for what. When the old European social fund ended, the Executive saved money. That was a match-funded project. The Executive match-funded the European social fund work on employability in Northern Ireland. When that fund came to an end in 2024, they saved £30 million. We have never found out where that £30 million went, but the community and voluntary organisations that have had to lay people off and stop doing work for vulnerable communities were told, "No, we do not have any money", despite the fact that, just a few years ago, the Executive saved £30 million. Therefore, when we are accounting for European funding and match funding, let us reflect on that and on the fact that the Executive, in conjunction with the UK Government, have, I am afraid, let down the organisations who benefited from the European social fund. When it comes to PEACE PLUS, I hope that we never get anywhere near that. I commend the Member who proposed the motion. It is apposite. It is right that we agree that it should be brought forward. However, we would be better hearing from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, whose collective voice on behalf of the devolved Government in this region would have even more impact in London, Dublin and Brussels to ensure that that funding continues. My party is happy to support the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:21 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