Debate contribution: Apprenticeships
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Apprenticeships
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252898
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion and the amendment. Apprenticeships are fundamental, because, if you want to grow your economy, the best place that you can start is with the skills base of your people. Skills drive economic growth and prosperity, and investing in apprenticeships is one of the greatest interventions that you can make to increase those skill levels. Every year, apprenticeships help thousands of people, particularly our young people, to develop their key skills and gain experience, which can then open the doors to full employment. Apprenticeships strengthen the skill base in the key industries of our future, bring people back into the labour market and help to boost our shocking productivity levels, which, as we all know around here, have been the Achilles heel of our economy for far too long. Investing in apprenticeships should be at the heart of the Minister's approach, and I know that he has made a commitment to that. Indeed, it has been a failure of past Ministers not to invest as heavily in apprenticeships, and that has proven to be profoundly damaging to our economic potential. The loss of EU funding after Brexit has compounded that damage, and we need to find ways to make up the lost ground. Earlier this week, Stephen Kelly from Manufacturing NI said that, if you talk to any business in the North, they will tell you that their biggest problem is the availability of labour. He is right. We have a skills gap in Northern Ireland in comparison with the rest of the UK that shows no sign of closing. That skills gap is fuelled by many factors, including the low level of human capital, aided and abetted by the brain drain from our shores; the attainment gap in our schools; the lack of quality careers guidance, which desperately needs to be reformed; and the dearth of support for employers who would be willing to offer apprenticeship programmes. In the context of those challenges, it is little wonder that the number of employers offering apprenticeships has stayed largely static in the last few years. We need to do so much more to improve our skills base by investing in apprenticeships and by closing the gap between us and other areas of the UK. I firmly believe that that investment must include the ring-fenced skills fund that can provide the financial support that is available; reform of the apprenticeship levy; more support for employers and further education colleges and the cohesion between them; and proper financial support for students who undertake those apprenticeships. They need to be supported and valued through their career pathways. It is also about finding the right balance between the appropriate pathways of further education and higher education, so that we do not overcompensate one and leave those who go on the other programmes feeling less valued. I also believe strongly that we must invest where the need is the greatest in order to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland has the chance to go as far as their talents will take them, regardless of their postcode. That means addressing — the Minister will hear it again — profound regional imbalances. Today, the rate of people with no qualifications in the lowest-performing council districts is more than double that in the highest-performing council districts. I say to the Chair of the Economy Committee that North Belfast has an extreme skills problem in this area that needs to be addressed. Of course, each area has its challenges, but that is an imbalance that we cannot allow to continue. It is another example of the need for legislation to address the inequalities. I support the motion and the amendment, which makes the motion much more targeted in a way. In calling for targets, we cannot have a Northern Ireland target; we must address where the inequities lie, so subregional targets would be really good.
Thank you. I absolutely and totally agree. There are certain imbalances that we need to tackle in order to support those areas and regions. There is also a gender gap in apprenticeship programmes. We really need to look at that in order to ensure that more women and girls pick up apprenticeships and choose them as their career pathway. Finally, I encourage the Economy Minister to be really ambitious in this space. We cannot overstate the importance of the issue for our economy and our people. Skills are the future. We need to put them front and centre of our approach.
749 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.79 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.