Debate contribution: Job Creation: Ambitious Targets
Debate contribution by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Job Creation: Ambitious Targets
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279702
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Economy Minister set out his economic vision a month ago today. That vision was based on creating good jobs, increasing productivity, tackling regional imbalances and transitioning to net zero. Therefore, Sinn Féin will support the motion and the amendment today. We can absolutely endorse the calls for an inclusive and innovative economy that prioritises jobs and investment. It is only fair to point out that the previous seven Ministers responsible for the economy have been members of the DUP. I also note that the 10X strategy, which was overseen by the previous three DUP Ministers and constantly referenced, did not set targets for job creation in new tech, or any other sector for that matter. It is great, therefore, to see that, after just six weeks in post, the DUP finally has such confidence in an Economy Minister that it can come to him with a motion that references 5,000 new tech jobs. That is very good. The Economy Minister has set out a positive vision and step change for the economy, and that should be our focus.
In the past, we have seen investment and economic policy being shaped on the premise that every job was a good job. That resulted in businesses being given financial support to create jobs that were low-paid and insecure and offered little opportunity for career progression. The current Economy Minister's focus on good jobs should be commended by all parties as a means to ensure that funding for jobs assistance by Invest NI and others is linked to the quality of those jobs. That will mean that jobs created with the help of public funding pay the real living wage and give workers secure terms and conditions. I note the overlap between that objective and the Minister's intention to introduce an employment Bill to improve the rights of workers by banning things like zero-hour contracts and fire/rehire practices and by improving workers' rights through a better work-life balance and the ability to organise via trade unions. Improving those rights through legislation is the basis for delivering good jobs across the skills spectrum, as mentioned in the motion, and improving the rights of workers should be the basis of any economic policy. Another key aspect of the Minister's vision is the focus on net zero and delivering green jobs and a just transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. A shortcoming of the previous 10X strategy was its lack of focus on green skills and renewable energy. Despite the vague mention of new tech, the 10X strategy critically overlooked the importance of the green economy and the job opportunities in it. Studies by the Nevin Economic Research Institute show the vast potential of the green economy. There are around 5,000 people employed in full-time green jobs in the North. However, that number is expected to grow as more jobs become available in areas like renewable energy, manufacturing, retrofitting and conservation. The number of jobs created in a circular green economy could and should be substantial. Rather than trying to set arbitrary targets on job creation, as the motion seeks to do, let us look at the evidence and the need to move to net zero and work together towards that. That said, Sinn Féin will support today's motion and amendment, and we look forward to the Economy Minister implementing the vision that he announced some weeks ago.
564 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: 0.08 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.88 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:53 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.