Debate contribution: Apprenticeships
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Apprenticeships
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252893
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the economy spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist Party, I am happy to support the motion and the amendment. I like the amendment for a couple of reasons: the recognition of the crucial role for further education and the call for a dedicated skills fund. The latter was a manifesto commitment of my party in 2022. We made it so after having studied similar initiatives, namely the Skills Development Scotland initiative and Skillnet in the Republic of Ireland, which are both very successful. They coordinate, organise and make sure that funding for job skills goes to the right place, and that includes apprenticeships and lifelong learning. Importantly, given the day that is in it, we also envisaged that body as a tripartite arrangement between government, business and trade unions. I say that because, earlier today, in the Long Gallery, I was with the Minister and other Members, as the Northern Ireland Committee, Irish Congress of Trade Unions published its document 'Democracy at Work: Social Dialogue and the Tripartite Model'. Our view of the role of further education is, I think, a fundamental of how we view our society, what we think of education and which intelligences we cherish. We all know that there are different forms of intelligence, and it seems to me that our formal education system values the academic over everything else. If we want to breed a nation of academics, we will probably be able to publish some great intellectual papers — just before we all starve to death. I often liken it to there being a new supermarket in the area, with 100 jobs. It sometimes seems that we think that only three of those jobs are worth having: general manager, finance manager and human resources manager. If the other 97 are not in play, we will not be able to put food on the table.
We had an interesting debate or the start of an interesting debate at the Economy Committee last week about the definition of the term "good job". I know that the Minister had that in his economic vision, and he might care to expand on it. We will not get to a fully agreed definition today. There are probably many definitions, but it does not have to mean high-skilled, high-paid jobs. For me, a "good job" is a job that a person takes pride in, that society values and that the employer rewards appropriately. Working in that supermarket without being one of the three people that I mentioned could make for a very good job for an individual. You might also say that a good job is one of high value, but is that high value to society/the economy or is it high value to the individual? If it is both and you harmonise both, you will have a definition of success and of what a good job is. The idea of what we think about education was mentioned. I am sure that we all know schools that take pride in saying, "We have a very high percentage of sixth-formers who leave to go on to university", but is that about that school enhancing its reputation as a centre of excellence for academic study or is it about saying, "We do the best for each individual pupil"? I suggest that it is the former, not the latter, because there tends to be the thought that a university degree is good but an apprenticeship is second best. However, that is not the case, so we need cultural change on that. At the first meeting of the Economy Committee, the Chairman asked us all to talk about our priorities and interests. One of my key priorities is tackling our high rate of economic inactivity. That covers people who want to be at work but cannot because there are barriers. We know what those barriers are. One is affordable, accessible childcare, but another is skills, and skills and apprenticeships go hand in glove. Therefore, I am more than happy to welcome the debate and to support the motion and the amendment.
677 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.59 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.33 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:50 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.