Debate contribution: Voluntary and Community Sector Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 5 May 2026.

MLA: Mr Brian Kingston
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 5 May 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Voluntary and Community Sector Funding
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5525128

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the DUP, I will make a winding-up speech on our amendment to the SDLP motion. There has been a great deal of agreement across the Chamber in opposition to the conditions imposed by Westminster on the local growth fund, particularly the 70:30 capital/revenue split, which has substantially reduced the revenue element provided through the Shared Prosperity Fund and, before that, the European social fund. We are all aware of the difficulties that that restriction has caused, particularly to groups in the community and voluntary sector that deliver employability support for people deemed to be economically inactive. Given the relatively low number of people who are officially unemployed and seeking work in Northern Ireland, it is vital that government seek to address the relatively high number of our people who are categorised as economically inactive and are not seeking work, be that down to early retirement, disability, health issues or caring responsibilities. Voluntary sector groups across Northern Ireland, including the Belfast Works Connect consortium, have a strong track record of reaching and engaging with such people, assisting them into employment training programmes and into work. Between 2023 and 2025, such projects supported almost 24,000 people across Northern Ireland. That is money well spent for the benefit of the individuals and their families and of employers and the Northern Ireland economy as a whole. The restriction on the local growth fund has greatly reduced the number of beneficiaries and has caused projects to withdraw totally from some of their centres of operation. It has been suggested that the 70:30 funding split is being imposed because it is the overall split required of the sponsoring Westminster Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We in the DUP want to see the previous spending power under the EU structural funds replicated and enhanced. Under structural funding, the UK always paid more into the EU than it received back, so there can be no excuse for any shortfall in funding now. Previous Governments made promises that they ultimately did not honour. Some Members lamented the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom in the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union and the need to live up to our national security and defence requirements, but they offered no solution, only a distraction in the debate. EU structural funds were always additional to our Northern Ireland block grant, so any replacement funding should be additional. We are all aware of the severe demands across all nine Departments. If responsibility for the local growth fund were to be devolved to our Executive rather than being part of a national approach to supporting local economic growth, there would be a greater risk of Westminster evading its responsibility and reducing the funding over time. Our amendment therefore calls on the Finance Minister to:
"press the UK Government to align the aims and funding objectives of the local growth fund with the Executive's Programme for Government".
We also maintain that the focus must remain on the UK Government funding the scheme properly, at the same level as before. I commend our amendment to the House.

527 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: 0.08 (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 (0.95).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.06	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.08	No
Controversy escalation	0.04	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.95	Yes
Overall judgement	0.08	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.98
Reports or questions it	0.01
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.54
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits	0.34
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 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