Debate contribution: Skills Gaps between Young People and Businesses
Debate contribution by Mr Pádraig Delargy on .
- MLA
- Mr Pádraig Delargy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 30 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Skills Gaps between Young People and Businesses
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5142936
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposers of the motion and of the amendment. The conversation has been good so far. The keyword that has jumped out at me from it is "collaboration". That is collaboration in the North between the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education; collaboration with employers, schools and colleges; and collaboration across the country on making sure that there is a role for the Government in the South and for agencies. We know that there are regional disparities, particularly in border communities such as mine. A few months ago, the Assembly passed a motion calling on the Department of Education to reform its funding model for sixth-form colleges. That is the crux of the issue, because, fundamentally, if students in schools do not have the same access to further education and other opportunities as they do to staying in school, skills gaps are created and the skills gaps that are already there are enhanced. That issue needs to be progressed. We need to continue to work on that, and I appreciate that the Committee has been working on that as well. Schools are compelled to keep students because of the current funding model. If we were to change that, it would enhance schools' ability to offer more focused courses and enhance our further education colleges' offering and ability to enhance the skill sets that are there. The Committee has also heard from colleges and employers who have difficulty accessing schools. As a Committee, we need to do a lot of work on that, because we know that a lot of the new, emerging jobs come from outside the traditional routes. Engagement with employers and innovators is key to building on that. Further education was omitted from the motion. That was probably unintentional. The motion focuses more on higher education than on further education. We need to be cognisant of that, going forward, because we all recognise the role that colleges play in our communities, particularly in addressing skill gaps. Skills academies build on and bring that as well. I speak from my experience with FinTrU, Alchemy Technology — which Sinéad mentioned — and other companies in Derry that have benefited from the responsiveness of the colleges in bringing forward those academies to address the skills gaps. As many of you know, I completed a SKILL UP course on productivity, because, when I came into this role, that is something that I was not sure of. That proves that SKILL UP can be useful for people across all sectors and of all ages: young people, people who are in part-time employment, people who are in full-time employment and, as has been said, people who are yet to be employed and are on that journey. It is important to recognise that there are opportunities for people across our society but particularly for those who are struggling and are outside that system at the moment. That is one piece of work that has been brought forward to address that skills gap, but another piece that has been working really well is higher-level apprenticeships. I regularly meet businesses and students who tell me how well they are getting on with those. I totally understand and appreciate what the motion and amendment bring forward, but we have to appreciate that a huge amount of work already goes on in our schools, colleges, communities and universities. Recently, we have seen the launch of quite a few tech clusters in the north-west. Huge amounts of work have been ongoing between ATU, North West Regional College, Education and Training Boards (ETBs) and Ulster University. We need to foster and encourage that, and that speaks to the motion. The digital hubs will increasingly become a part of that as we move forward. Members will know — it is in the motion — about the all-Ireland work that Sinn Féin already does as a party. I have worked extensively on trying to get alignment with Central Applications Office (CAO) result dates and ensure easier access to the South for students from the North and vice versa. The reality is that we have an all-Ireland economy. We have similar skill gaps, and we need to address those on an all-Ireland basis. I will support the motion and the amendment, because it is important that we look at this in an all-Ireland context and at the skills gaps that we have across the bases here.
737 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 (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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.48 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.43 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:16 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.