Debate contribution: Retaining and Inspiring Young Talent
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Retaining and Inspiring Young Talent
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497608
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Apologies. I was talking when I should have been listening.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I cannot get my speech up.
There we go. My apologies. Neither I, as party spokesperson for children and young people, nor my party has any issue with young people going elsewhere to study. It can be a wonderful experience that opens individuals' eyes to diversity and affords them independence from their families and parents. My issue is the lack of young people returning after that education experience. That is where our responsibility lies. We are caretakers of this place. It is up to us to create an environment that young people want to come back to. We have a profound duty to every single one of those students who gets on a ferry, on a plane or in a car to go to university. We need to foster a stable and welcoming environment that encourages them to return home after completing their education to invest in this place. It is essential that we create a region where young people feel confident about building their future, supported by robust economic opportunities, social cohesion and political stability. We therefore have to prioritise policies. It is not just about one policy. We have to prioritise all policies that enhance job prospects, as my colleague David has said. We have to improve our public services and ensure that there is a high quality of life. Why else would anyone come home? We have to make this an attractive place for graduates to return to and to invest and build families in. This commitment to stability and inclusivity will not just help to retain our talented young people but stimulate long-term growth and prosperity for the entire community, because it has a knock-on effect. Part of that creative stability has to include reform of these institutions. One thing that I have consistently heard from my best friend in America, my brother in Europe and my cousin in Australia is this: why would I come back when Northern Ireland can hardly sustain a half-functioning Government? We need to make sure that we create a stable political environment that fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual respect and where no one party holds disproportionate power to collapse these institutions ever again. Such reforms will build public trust, encourage political engagement and ensure that the focus remains on serving the best interests of all our citizens, thereby providing the stability that we need for our young people to see a future here. If we can create the political will to work together, it will put across a much more positive view of this place. Like David, I had a great team of work experience students with me last week who helped me out by giving me their views on this motion. The first comment that I heard was that university is not the only way. Although the motion highlights a critical issue regarding the exodus of students pursuing higher education outside Northern Ireland, it overlooks an equally important aspect: the need to support those seeking education through non-university channels, such as vocational training and apprenticeships. Many young people prefer or are better suited to those alternatives, which are vital for meeting the diverse needs of our economy and addressing those skills shortages. By focusing predominantly on university education, the motion fails to recognise the value of vocational routes and the necessity of enhancing those opportunities to retain and develop talent in Northern Ireland. It is imperative that any comprehensive strategy on reducing the brain drain includes robust support for all vocational and apprenticeship programmes and ensures that all students can access the education and training that best suit their aspirations and abilities. One of the biggest issues raised by the young people was that of CAO reform, which my colleague David also referenced. One of the comments was, "My teachers told me more about studying in Europe than they did about studying in the South of Ireland". We need to change that. It is down the road.
Ms McLaughlin and David both mentioned the waiting period of the two-week window, the non-alignment of the results coming out, the need for a fourth A level and the need for languages, as only 4% of students are taking languages at that level. Our work experience students brought up all those issues with me.
731 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: 0.06 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.47 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.32 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.10 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:48 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.