Debate contribution: Apprenticeships
Debate contribution by Mr Pádraig Delargy on .
- MLA
- Mr Pádraig Delargy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Apprenticeships
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252906
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In my role as Sinn Féin's spokesperson on further and higher education, I have had consistent engagement with businesses and, particularly in recent weeks, constituents who work in industry, in companies like FAST Technologies, Terex and Nuprint, which are going through apprenticeships in Derry and the north-west. When I speak to those businesses and constituents, the key thing that shines through in all of it is removing barriers, whether they are age or gender barriers, which colleagues have mentioned, or barriers due to location or qualifications. My party's number-one priority in the debate is to make apprenticeships accessible to all. On that, I want to touch on three key themes: North/South relations, careers guidance and nursing. A key issue that has been brought up in my constituency — I know that colleagues in other border constituencies have had it raised with them as well — is around the fact that, if someone is studying, for example, at the North West Regional College and is taking on an apprenticeship, they have to do that in the same jurisdiction. That locks out a lot of people who live in border constituencies. It comes back to that piece on regional balance and ensuring that those apprenticeships are accessible to all. It works both ways; it locks people out on both sides of the border. I know that the Minister has been cognisant of that. We need to look at it as a Committee. Hopefully, we can work on that in the time ahead.
Yes, absolutely. On this issue, in particular, we need to put politics to the side. In my constituency, I have not spoken to one business that does not see the benefit of this. That is across the board, and it is reflected in other constituencies as well. We hear from businesses and people who take on apprentices that they need that flexibility to grow and survive but also to continue to bring through new people and new skills in all those areas. The second key theme, which has already been touched on by colleagues, is careers advice. That is essential. What the Chair suggested regarding a link-up between the Education and the Economy Committees will be vital for us to do that. We suggested that in our party response to the 10X strategy. I would like to see that being reviewed and implemented, because there is consensus across the Chamber and our Committee that it needs to be addressed. There has been far too much focus on academic routes and on achieving university places. I would like to see a careers advice service that is professional, personalised and sustained throughout a young person's education. The third point that I want to touch on is about nursing apprentices. My colleague Philip McGuigan touched on the fact that there were 1,700 vacancies in December past in nursing. Both Minister Murphy and Deirdre Hargey, when she was Minister, introduced 45 public-sector apprenticeships during the last mandate. That was welcome, and it is an approach that we need to adopt in this mandate. There is now a clear pathway now for us to recruit nurses, but the barrier arises in retaining nurses. There is no point in us recruiting nurses if we are not going to pay them properly and make sure that they have fair conditions and a reason to stay. I want to continue working with all the Economy Committee members on that. We have identified where the gaps and barriers are, but the key will be working collegially to ensure that they are addressed. I welcome the motion and support it and the amendment.
603 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.88 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.