Debate contribution: AI Strategy: Stakeholder Engagement
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- AI Strategy: Stakeholder Engagement
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5001446
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department is developing AI policy to maximise the benefits of the technology for our people and our businesses. That work will build on existing initiatives such as the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) to ensure that our workforce is equipped to utilise AI; that businesses can adopt it safely; and that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support implementation. Stakeholder engagement is central to that process. Officials have already engaged with industry and academia and will broaden that outreach in the coming weeks and months. I recently met Professor Helen McCarthy, the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA), who is leading efforts on the public-sector adoption of AI. That includes forming an AI task force consisting of government, academia and industry representatives to advise on opportunities and principles for adoption throughout the public sector. My officials have also met her office and will continue regular engagement to ensure alignment. Policy development will also be informed by relevant evidence, including the recent AI adoption report from Ulster University's strategic policy unit.
172 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).
- 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 | 0.43 | No |
| 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:43 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.