Debate contribution: Social Value Policies
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Social Value Policies
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494203
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In the previous mandate, my predecessor, Conor Murphy, brought forward a number of procurement policy notes that the Executive agreed, including one on social value. That existing policy on social value is already delivering. For example, 3,500 long-term unemployed people have gained employment; 90-plus social enterprises are now part of government supply chains; 3,600 hours of volunteering have been delivered with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector; 8,000 hours of skills development activities have been completed; 2,800 weeks of work experience have been delivered; and 3,800-plus hours of environmental awareness initiatives have been completed. A review of the scoring social value policy is in progress, and I plan to bring a refreshed policy to the Executive before summer recess. The revised policy will make it easier for small businesses and microbusinesses to deliver social value. There will be a new requirement for Departments to have targeted social value strategies and to consider grant funding for social and community services. Social value themes will better align to a new Programme for Government, climate change commitments and/or the investment strategy. In major capital projects that impact on communities, there will be a requirement for effective community consultation on social value.
199 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.90 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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.