Debate contribution: Social Enterprise Action Plan
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Social Enterprise Action Plan
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5345264
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I plan to publish a one-year update in the coming weeks that will show the significant progress that has been made on the social enterprise action plan. Of the 14 actions, five have been fully completed, and work is ongoing on the remaining nine. Social enterprise champions are in place in every council and in Invest NI and InterTradeIreland. They are working to support social enterprises on the ground as they navigate the supports in place for them. Engagement events have been held to increase the understanding of social enterprises in the public sector. Those events have created a deeper awareness of social enterprises and their relevance for economic policy while highlighting the range of commissioning options to better support the sector. A support pathway has been produced that shows the five stages of business development of social enterprises and the supports available at each stage. It sets out for the first time a clear road map to help social enterprises navigate support more easily and effectively. Just this morning, I launched a new £30,000 fund and invited proposals to support the growth and development of cooperatives across the North.
190 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 | 0.44 | 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 14:21 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.