Debate contribution: Public Procurement: Social Value
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 7 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Public Procurement: Social Value
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4488300
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Social value in public contracts can make a real difference, particularly to the lives of some of the most disadvantaged people in society. Embedding social value in public procurement provides a significant opportunity to meaningfully contribute to economic, environmental and social outcomes. To date, some of the positive outcomes since the introduction of the procurement notice include 3,500 people who were long-term unemployed or disadvantaged in the labour market who have gained employment; more than 75 social enterprises that are now part of government supply chains; 2,700 hours of volunteering with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector; 6,500 hours of skills development activities; 2,800 weeks of work experience; over 3,500 hours of environmental awareness initiatives; and 2,400 hours plus of health and well-being initiatives.
125 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: 0.02 (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 (0.71).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.83 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:22 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.