Debate contribution: Voluntary and Community Sector Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 5 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

5 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Voluntary and Community Sector Funding

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5525134

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I get into the meat of my remarks or cover comments made by Members, I will say that, despite some of the fairly lurid and pretty pathetic allegations that have been thrown at us from across the Chamber, particularly from the Minister's party, the reason that we tabled the motion and that is at the very front of our thoughts is the fact that we care about the community and voluntary sector and the people whom it serves. We have engaged with its representatives, including in the Building today. Brian Kingston mentioned Belfast Works Connect: I have engaged with that consortium, with community and voluntary groups and with NICVA, the umbrella organisation. I know the seriousness of the situation that they not only face into but face now. They have had to make their colleagues redundant and are having to turn service users away: people who are vulnerable; people whom the community and voluntary sector has helped to get into work but whose employment is, perhaps, fragile and contingent; and people who have issues in their lives that require employment support, such as additional needs or vulnerabilities. Those people are literally being turned away. That is why we tabled the motion. For clarity, Members, including those in Executive parties, we make no apology for doing our job as an Opposition. Carál Ní Chuilín had a rant at me earlier — I say this with the greatest respect; she has left the Chamber — because of the idea of the official Opposition bringing before the Executive a matter of vital public importance. Indeed, an aspersion was cast that the community and voluntary sector was somehow wrong to bring a protest to Stormont, and it was suggested that they should have, if not spoken to the hand, brought that protest to the NIO instead. Let me be clear: in spite of what was said, our motion is clear in calling out and challenging the British Government's unacceptable and indefensible distortion of the funding split. They have acted heedlessly and recklessly. I do not know how many times I will have to say that before Sinn Féin Members stop their pathetic, desperate attempts to reject any form of legitimate scrutiny from the official Opposition as somehow taking the Brits' side. That is pathetic. The people whom we serve deserve better. I come to other parties, including the DUP, which supported not just Brexit but a hard Brexit that removed critical European funding. We cannot pretend that Brexit had nothing to do with that. We cannot pretend that the reason that we are here is nothing to do with Brexit — the decision to leave the EU. It was warned of in advance, and it was clear afterwards that the funds would be placed at risk. For people to say, "Oh, this is nothing to do with Brexit," is an absurdity that insults people's intelligence. That has to be challenged. There is also the question of what happened to some of the successor funding and moneys that were returned to the Executive. I am happy to take an intervention if someone wants to explain that to me. When the European social fund came to an end and was replaced by the deeply flawed Shared Prosperity Fund — I went to meetings, as, I am sure, Members across the Chamber did, with consortia and community and voluntary groups that were deeply concerned and frustrated that that previous cliff edge has now been replaced by another inadequate fund, the local growth fund — one of the things that happened at the last minute with that successor fund was that there was no obligation for match funding, so, in a sense, there was a saving for the Executive. There would have been other pressures, but we have never been told what happened to that money. I presume that we were not told partly because there was no Executive here at the time. Again, that goes back to certain parties choosing not to take responsibility. We have heard again in the Chamber parties not taking responsibility. When the Opposition challenge them, they say, "Oh, you are taking the Brits' side" and "The community and voluntary sector should not have even protested here". There has been a shameful refusal to take responsibility for the people whom we serve. To go back to the point, when the Shared Prosperity Fund came in, the Executive realised a saving of about £30 million. I do not know where that money went. I presume that it went to meet other pressures in other parts of the Executive Budget, which is fair enough, but we should have at least been told. In the same way, we should be told what happened to the working group that was apparently going to be set up in January last year. However, we have heard no detail of any specific outcome. We did not table the motion today to score points against the Executive; we brought the motion today to stand up for people in the community and voluntary sector and those whom they serve and to try to get answers for them. It is important to say, as Gerry Carroll did, that money has been found for other priorities in the Executive. I am told that there are conversations about a bid to the transformation fund for use in relation to economic inactivity. If that is the case, why could money not have been found to help plug the gap that the British Government created? It is not enough to say that the British Government caused the problem. To be clear, our motion states that the British Government caused the problem. Does it not say that? I am happy to give way to the Minister. I will read out our motion, because it has been distorted and, frankly, lied about in the Chamber today. I really do not like that, so I will be absolutely clear and do my job here. The motion states that we regret:

"that many organisations have been forced to scale back or withdraw services ... due to the mishandling of the local growth fund by the British Government".

That is who is primarily responsible for this. There is no contradiction in saying that the British Government are responsible for mishandling it and that the Executive will have to deal with the consequences. That is not taking the Brits' side, and it is not misleading the community and voluntary sector; it is holding people accountable. If you do not want to be held accountable, do not take the salary, and do not take the ministerial Pledge of Office.

That is why our motion says that we knew that that was what was happening. Let us be clear: of course I agree with Sinn Féin Members that this is another example of why our interests are not best served at Westminster. We agree with that, and we agree that we want to build a new future in a new Ireland back inside the European Union, where we can access all sorts of funds, including, hopefully, the European Investment Bank and other things, to rebuild our communities. It cannot be an answer simply to say, "It's their responsibility. They've created this problem, but we are just going to wash our hands of it". If we agree that they have created the problem, it is incumbent on us to do our best to mitigate it. It is not just me asking that question. I noticed that the Member for Foyle Ciara Ferguson has submitted a question to the Minister for Communities asking what plans he has to mitigate the loss of local growth funding. I do not know whether it is illegitimate for Ciara to have asked that question of a Minister —

— or whether it is legitimate simply because it is a DUP Minister. Is her asking that question taking the Brits' side? I am genuinely confused. I am happy to give way.

I am glad that you said that, Minister, because then we are making progress. The progress is that, if you take ministerial office in this place, you are responsible. I will come on to a point that is important to me. I am in politics here to build a new Ireland back inside the European Union. I used to work in the British system — people carp — and I know how little they care about this place. I am here now trying to make change in Ireland. Those of us who want a new and united Ireland are engaged in a big act of taking responsibility back onto this island. That is what I want.

I want us to be run from this island; I do not want us to be run from London. We are not going to get there by not taking responsibility. We are literally asking the public on this island to take collective responsibility; we are not going to get there by not taking responsibility. There are limits to what the Finance Minister and the Executive can do. The UK Government should not have imposed this wrong and reckless split, but we will not make progress in this society, serve the community and voluntary sector or build a united Ireland, as I and others in the Chamber want — others do not, obviously — by simply not taking responsibility. Our job is to take responsibility collectively, despite all the difficulties and divisions

The public has contempt for us because we continually refuse to take responsibility. Small and irritating as we are, the official Opposition's job is to constantly try to force responsibility to be taken in this place. If others do not like it, fine. Slurs will be cast at us, and our motivations will be questioned, but we will keep doing it, and that is what we are doing today. I hope that Members will support our motion. There is some sense in both amendments, but I am pleased that we have been able to discuss this today.

1,679 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