Debate contribution: Social Enterprise Action Plan

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 27 January 2026.

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 5345272

Text

I thank the Member for that important question. Everybody in the Chamber is concerned about the impact of the funding cuts as a result of the end of the Shared Prosperity Fund. The local growth fund does not meet the funding need, and the capital/resource split is really problematic and shows that Ministers in London are clearly not listening to the needs of our communities. The programme was clearly not designed with our interests in mind. Thousands of people will lose out as a result. I have been working with my Executive colleagues to make our case. The Finance Minister has been leading on it directly with Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). We have made the case to the Secretary of State and urged him to support us in making the case to the British Government. There will be a significant impact on the economic inactivity work that is supported by the fund and through Go Succeed, which provides entrepreneurship support. We are working to address those challenges but are still making the case that the funding shortfall in resource needs to be met and the split between capital and resource needs to be fixed.

201 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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 (0.91).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.04	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.91	Yes
Overall judgement	0.04	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.95
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.05
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	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.

Challenge this classification