Debate contribution: Job Creation: Ambitious Targets
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Job Creation: Ambitious Targets
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279763
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome and support the motion. I am glad of and grateful for the support that has been expressed for my party's amendment. It is imperative that the Executive do all that they can to create jobs and opportunities. That means not just employment to help people to keep themselves and their families but employment and opportunities to help to keep people here. The motion lists a number of sectors that are ideal for growth. While that list is not exhaustive, it is correct to identify jobs of the future in dynamic and tech industries. Pathfinders here have already made huge progress, and there is every reason to support the innovators of today to create the industries of tomorrow. Our universities need to be supported not only to grow but to evolve, providing cutting-edge courses and producing more creators of ideas, employment and wealth that can be retained locally. When I say "locally", I mean "locally". The concentration of around 90% of university places in Belfast is not just detrimental to regional balance and the economic and social well-being of my constituency and constituents in Derry and many other areas across the North but holds Northern Ireland back. Nobody here will be surprised therefore that the amendment calls for the economy to be not just grown but regionally rebalanced. Everywhere and everyone should enjoy any new opportunities, especially in areas that have been deprived of so much for so long. In the debate, Mr Middleton spoke of the need to address inequalities and to have ambitious targets. That made me wonder and regret why previous DUP Economy Ministers were so reluctant to address targets on a subregional level. My party colleague, when proposing the amendment, pointed to effective economic policies that have been adopted in other jurisdictions and that have fairness at their core. Philip McGuigan emphasised the importance of the green economy not just to saving the environment but for the economic opportunity that it can and undoubtedly will create.
Ms Eastwood felt lucky to hail from a more affluent area but demonstrated great empathy for and understanding of those languishing in economic activity, unable to access work even when willing. She touched on the point about political stability and rightly so. You would not build a house on shaky foundations, so companies will be an awful lot less willing to invest where there is political instability and uncertainty. We have seen and heard a lot of positivity on that front recently, but we have seen it before. Potential investors have seen and heard it before as well.
Messrs Elliott and Delargy heralded the role of our regional colleges and the further education sector in upskilling our workforce to match the needs and demands of the market. I agree with my constituency colleague Mr Delargy on the need for positivity, but there is and always will be a need for honesty. Derry has been failed, and we want to fix that. I welcome any prospective investors who are watching the debate to come and play their part in an exciting new chapter for our constituency and the North. Mr Honeyford was also guilty of a wee bit of realism. He touched on the value of the FE sector and the need for fair pay for those working in it. The Minister, like others, wondered exactly where the figure of 5,000 jobs came from. I think that it came from a DUP manifesto pledge. We have seen that pattern over the past couple of months from the big two parties: picking motions based on manifesto pledges in areas for which their Ministers are not responsible. I do not know whether the figure is a case of saying, "We will build 5,000 jobs" and "We would make 5,000 more". Given that it was a manifesto pledge, I do not know whether it was based on a five-year term. Therefore, is it even more ambitious now that we only have three years left? Maybe Mr Buckley, who is no stranger to ambition, could touch on that when he is winding up the debate. He is no stranger to winding up either.
689 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: 0.07 (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 (0.83).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.80 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.10 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.