Debate contribution: Voluntary and Community Sector Funding

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 5 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

5 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Voluntary and Community Sector Funding

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5525058

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the motion and the amendments and I recognise the immense social and economic value of Northern Ireland's voluntary and community sector. We need to stop talking about the voluntary and community sector as though it were somehow separate from public service delivery, because it is not; it is so intertwined. As Youth Action has described it, the sector is:

"a critical cog, backbone"

and

"lifeblood in the lives of young people",

vulnerable people and communities across Northern Ireland. In many cases, those organisations are delivering essential public services — services that people rely on every single day that should be properly and sustainably provided for with long-term funding by the Executive. Every day, voluntary and community organisations support the people who are furthest from the labour market: people with disabilities, carers, women who face barriers to work, young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET), people who live with long-term health conditions and those who deal with addiction, homelessness, family breakdown, isolation, domestic abuse, severe mental health challenges and debt — the list goes on. That work is skilled, relational and built on trust. It cannot simply be paused and restarted when a funding stream changes its name. That is why the UK Government's handling of the local growth fund is so utterly damaging. The new model does not reflect Northern Ireland's needs. You cannot mentor a young person with a capital budget, support someone who is going through suicidal ideation with bricks and mortar or help a disabled person into employment if the specialist worker who truly understands their situation has been made redundant. YouthStart shows what that means in human terms. Funding for the seven YouthStart partners is being reduced from £3 million to just £1·08 million. That programme has supported over 1,500 young people a year. Youth Action has said plainly that young people's lives are changed and, in some cases, saved by that intervention. As someone who came through the Youth Service, I can, hand on heart, attest to that work being life-changing and live-saving. Action Mental Health has warned that more than 80 of its staff may lose their jobs and that 900 people will no longer receive support next year. Its chief executive, David Babington, said that lives will be lost here. That is the reality of that cut.

Yes.

I can understand how the sector feels that frustration. We feel that frustration. You hear it in the House as well, Matthew.

However, the blame for the design and implementation of this particular fund lies squarely on the shoulders of the UK Government.

Thank you very much, Kellie. When EU structural funds ended after Brexit, the sector was promised that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund would replace that support. That transition brought instability, delays, uncertainty and a really damaging loss of the workforce. Organisations lost staff, and programmes were paused or closed. There was a loss of institutional memory, community knowledge and hard-won expertise. Now, with the transition from the UK SPF to the local growth fund, we are repeating the same mistake. When experienced youth workers, employment advisers and community mentors leave, they do not simply wait for the next funding round. They move on, so the sector loses knowledge, relationships and know-how. There has been no proper consultation with the community and voluntary sector and no published impact assessment. Organisations were notified late in the delivery year, days before Christmas. That is absolutely no way to treat a sector that delivers essential public services that, in reality, should have been properly and sustainably funded on a statutory basis. Northern Ireland is particularly exposed when it comes to the work that was being delivered by the sector. We have the highest economic inactivity rate in the UK. We have a very specific set of circumstances here and the lowest employment rate for disabled people. We do not have access to the same alternative programmes that are available elsewhere, like the DWP's Connect to Work. A capital-heavy model is simply not fit for purpose. We cannot keep allowing funding cliff edges to hollow out our voluntary and community sector, and we cannot keep losing the very people who know what works and how to deliver it. Then we wonder why services collapse. This is about people; it is about dignity; and it is about prevention, opportunity and hope. I thank the SDLP, once again, for bringing the issue to the Chamber. We support the motion and the amendments.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:38 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