Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 November 2026

256 contributions from 53 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Jon Burrows, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who has yet to receive a single vote in any election, said last week that he finds the fact that Sinn Féin gets so many votes in the North "deeply uncomfortable". We have been witnessing the DUP and the Orange Order try to turn the clock back 28 years on the Garvaghy Road to a time when they felt comfortable forcing a triumphalist and sectarian march through a nationalist community. Listening to Jon Burrows, you would think that he wants to turn back the clock even further to a time before 1969 when his party, the Ulster Unionist Party, felt very comfortable not giving Catholics the vote at all.

Let us be clear: Jon Burrows's comments are disgraceful and display the deeply arrogant, superior, supremacist attitude that allowed the state governed by his party to treat Catholics, nationalists and republicans as second-class citizens for so long. For over 50 years after partition, his party governed an Orange state in which Catholic families faced discrimination in housing, Catholics and nationalists faced discrimination in employment and electoral boundaries were designed and drawn to maintain unionist control. I wonder whether Jon Burrows would feel more comfortable with the scenario that existed in Derry when his party ensured that a nationalist majority was denied its rightful representation through gerrymandering. That was the UUP's record in government.

We will take no lectures from Jon Burrows on democracy. He also likes to lecture us on law and order, so let us look at the UUP's record on that. The Special Powers Act 1922 provided sweeping powers of repression with the sole aim of defending the unionist state for a unionist population. Its powers included internment without trial; draconian policing powers, prohibitions and censorship; and even the right to carry out public whippings. Sinn Féin was banned, republican commemorations were prohibited and political expression was suppressed. All those laws enforced discrimination, overseen by a discredited RUC and a sectarian militia in the form of the B-Specials, and, when people organised peacefully for civil rights, fair housing, fair employment and one person, one vote, they were brutalised by the armed wing of the unionist and Orange state at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party.

That is the history of the Ulster Unionist Party. Thankfully, those days are gone, and, if that equality makes Jon Burrows uncomfortable, tough. The days when unionism could determine whose voice counted are long over. The days of supremacy and domination are over. There are no second-class citizens any more. There is no going back.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On Sunday past, in St Andrew's Parish Church in Killyman, I joined sir knights, families and members of the community to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in both world wars and those who lost their lives during the years of terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland. This week, Killyman Royal Black District Chapter No 1 is hosting a special festival of remembrance entitled "Service and Sacrifice". The exhibition runs for the rest of this week until Sunday evening in Killyman Orange Hall. I commend everyone who helped organise the service and artefact display. The display also honours members of the loyal orders who served and died in two world wars and subsequent conflicts.

It is vital that we continue to teach future generations about the meaning of the duty, courage and sacrifice shown by thousands from this country and beyond, many of whom never returned home. Across mid-Ulster, communities will gather at remembrance services, exhibitions and events in the days ahead. I encourage everyone to take the opportunity to attend, remember and reflect on the courage, service and sacrifice of those who served our country and the families who stood beside them through times of war, terrorism, loss and hardship.

The Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal was launched on 22 October, and this year's appeal highlights an important message: when someone serves, their family serves too. Families endure separation, uncertainty, relocation and, at times, the lasting impact of injury, bereavement or hardship. Through the Poppy Appeal, the Royal British Legion provides practical, financial and emotional support to serving personnel, veterans and their loved ones.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I rise to highlight the life-changing impact of newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and the need for it to be available in Northern Ireland. There was an event yesterday in the Long Gallery organised by Muscular Dystrophy UK and Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK at which we heard from families affected and those with experience of living with SMA. It is incredibly important that we have those conversations, as lived experience is paramount in understanding how we get it right going forward.

In the UK, around four babies are born with SMA every month. Left untreated, around 90% of babies born with SMA, sadly, will not make it or will need at least 16 hours per day of ventilation support before they reach their second birthday. I am saddened by the fact that we are in this position and that there are currently no plans to begin newborn screening for SMA in Northern Ireland, meaning that babies born here are at risk of missing out on life-changing early diagnosis and treatment. Families in Northern Ireland should not have to face a different pathway to an SMA diagnosis simply because of where the baby is born.

With newborn screening now being introduced in England and already available in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, there is an important conversation to be had about the disparities emerging in Northern Ireland and Wales. Without access to newborn screening, a diagnosis can take place only once the symptoms appear, usually within the first six months of life, but, by that point, the damage caused by the condition is irreversible. As a result, even once treatment is initiated, most babies diagnosed with SMA will never walk independently, and many will need mechanical ventilation, nutritional support and 24/7 care. We know that the first baby identified through screening in Scotland has already begun treatment, and I keep thinking about what that means for that family. While we are here today discussing the merits of earlier diagnosis, children across the border already receive the care that we are talking about. Every baby born should have the same opportunity for an early diagnosis, and the region in which they are born should not play a part in that.

As a registered nurse, I know how important early diagnosis can be for children and their families. We need to ensure that families in Northern Ireland are not excluded while other parts of the UK progress with the introduction of newborn screening programmes for SMA, and we must continue the conversation about how we can address that disparity. A UK-wide newborn screening programme for SMA could transform the lives of babies born with the condition. However, delivering on that depends on the UK National Screening Committee completing its review of the case for SMA newborn screening at pace.

There is also a financial case for doing it. Investing in a screening programme now can prevent disability and change the lives of children born with SMA and their families and avoid the need for more intensive medical care and support costs throughout their lives. I call today on the Minister to make that a reality.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

According to leaks in the media today, Whitehall and the EU have agreed a draft deal on removing post-Brexit checks on food and agricultural exports ahead of the thrice-delayed UK-EU summit, which is now scheduled for later this month. After many false starts, the GB-EU 200-page draft text on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) arrangements has been circulated to EU nations in Brussels for consideration at a meeting tomorrow. That should be broadly, albeit cautiously, welcomed. The notoriously indiscreet European Union has been remarkably quiet on this, and I hope that the information provided to the BBC is not part of a poorly managed negotiating tactic by Whitehall, especially as the draft has to be agreed by the 27 EU nations. In addition, there remains, as always, a lot of scope for change to the circulated draft.

If the SPS agreement is agreed, checks on most agricultural goods coming from the rest of our nation into Northern Ireland will be significantly but not completely reduced. Tellingly, however, according to informed sources, the agreement is a GB-only arrangement. As we know, Northern Ireland is separate from the rest of our nation when it comes to a vast swathe of EU regulations, tariffs and duties, and it will remain so. None of the proposed SPS arrangements changes the fact that Northern Ireland remains in the European customs union. The implementation of the new Union Customs Code and the considerable divergence and disruption that it would bring, along with the resultant extra bureaucracy, mean that the cost of doing business with our largest market — our own country — will escalate.

The Assembly's most useless Committee — the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee — received evidence that the new Union Customs Code will create significant changes to the existing arrangements and ensure that divergence will accelerate. That should be of concern to everybody, but, of course, those from the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin, who are blind to the impact of the Irish Sea border, voted against our taking any action. The real costs arising from the Union Customs Code will impact on every consumer in Northern Ireland. They will damage competitiveness and burden our companies with double the level of bureaucracy in an opaque system that we have no say in regulating and from which, despite changes to the SPS agreement, there are no additional benefits, yet the Secretary of State and others persist with statements that we enjoy the best of both worlds.

Agreeing an all-United Kingdom SPS agreement and an all-United Kingdom carbon adjustment mechanism should be our Prime Minister's goals, not tinkering around the margins.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am genuinely puzzled by what we are witnessing from the DUP. I think that a lot of people across our communities are asking exactly the same question: what on earth is going on?

Time and time again, the DUP tells us that it wants to make this place work, deliver for people, grow our economy, attract investment and build a better future. However, it seems to be doing the very opposite. At a time when we are pressing the British Prime Minister for proper funding for our public services, the DUP blocked a meeting between the First Minister and the British Prime Minister. In doing so, it also blocked itself. At a time when we have a platform from which to grow our economy, the DUP blocked our Economy Minister from attending an important economic summit. Can somebody — anybody — please explain to me how the DUP's actions make any sense? How does preventing the First Minister from representing this place, engaging with the British Prime Minister and promoting economic opportunities benefit any person living here? How does that create one job, attract one investment or help one struggling family? It does not. I genuinely cannot get my head around it. It is incomprehensible, illogical and irrational. It is just bizarre.

It is very obvious that the internal dysfunction in the DUP is spilling over into the business of government. Who pays the price for that?

Ordinary people pay the price: families who are trying to make ends meet, businesses that are trying to grow and young people who want opportunities and a future here. Those people could not care less about the internal chaos, dysfunction and turmoil in the DUP. They are people who simply want their political representatives to get on with their jobs; people who are aghast at attempts to resurrect the long-settled, painful dispute over an unwanted Orange march in Portadown; people who appreciate peace and the progress that we have made over the 28 years since the Good Friday Agreement.

We have come too far and people have worked far too hard to allow politics here to be dragged back to a time when one tradition was dominated by another; a time of unionist supremacy; a time of sectarian discrimination, inequality and institutionalised injustice; and a time when unionism would not have a Catholic about the place. Just in case anyone is in any doubt, I say that those days are over and are not coming back. Michelle O'Neill is the First Minister —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

She is a nationalist —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Peter Martin.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— and a proud Irish republican.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Martin.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It is called democracy.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

On 9 October 2025, during his 'Free State' podcast, Joe Brolly compared presidential candidate Jim Gavin's campaign to a Rose of Tralee contestant who has said that she is a devout Catholic but has been caught upstairs in a bar doing the reverse cowgirl. He proceeded to simulate giving oral sex on air whilst answering questions that are commonly asked of presidential candidates. At the time, he denied that any of those references were directed towards female candidates in the election. His comments were branded, across the world, as being deeply offensive to women. One candidate in the election, Heather Humphreys, called his actions "very misogynistic". Catherine Connolly stated that what had been reported was "crude and disrespectful to women" and said:

"Women in public life deserve respect, not ridicule. Misogyny has no place in our politics or our media."

Two days after the podcast, I wrote to the Bar Council of Northern Ireland to raise the issue of the conduct of Brolly, who is a practising barrister in Northern Ireland, and to lodge a formal complaint. Since the incident and my initial complaint last October, I have sent four emails to the Bar Council to ask for an update or an outcome. Frankly, I am astounded that there has been no action that I am aware of, no outcome and no substantive dialogue with me. That is unacceptable: it certainly is not acceptable one year after the event. Regulatory bodies exist to uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence and cannot expect the public to have confidence in their processes if people who raise legitimate concerns are left wondering whether anything is actually being done.

This is not about restricting freedom of expression or denying anyone the right to respond; it is about ensuring that standards mean something and that complaints are treated with the seriousness that they deserve. Does the Bar Council realise what message its absolute silence on the issue puts out to the public, given the strength of feeling, from women especially, regarding those frankly appalling comments? Silence is not accountability and is certainly not an acceptable response to an elected representative who raises legitimate and widespread concerns on behalf of the public. I encourage the Bar Council to engage a little with me.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

One of my North Antrim constituents, Alex Patterson, is undertaking an important challenge today. He is walking from Belfast City Hall to Stormont, accompanied by his guide dog, Angus, and his daughter, Jana. While that is an impressive walk in itself, it is about so much more than the distance that he will travel. Alex is using the challenge to shine a light on the barriers that blind and partially sighted people continue to face every day. For someone who is sight-impaired, a guide dog is so much more than a companion. Angus is Alex's independence, confidence and ability to navigate the world safely. Even with a highly trained and skilled dog, getting around can be challenging. Street furniture, poorly placed advertising boards, pavement obstructions, outdoor seating, roadworks and inconsiderately parked cars — things that many of us would barely even notice — can become significant hazards and make a journey difficult, stressful and, potentially, dangerous.

There is then the issue of access refusal. Imagine someone having navigated their way to a restaurant or to public transport only to be told that they cannot enter or board because they have a dog. It is not just an inconvenience. It is excluding the person, undermining their independence and denying them the same opportunities that would be afforded to anyone else. Importantly, it is not something that the law permits. In Northern Ireland, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 protects disabled people from discrimination when accessing goods and facilities. Service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, which include changing policies such as the blanket no-dogs rule in order to accommodate guide dogs, subject to very limited exceptions. Those are rights, not privileges, and they need to be understood and respected by all. Alex has not experienced that in the past.

Alex, Angus and Jana are walking today to make sure that such issues cannot be ignored. Their message is very simple: people with sight loss deserve to be able to move around safely, to access our public spaces and to enter businesses and use services without having to fight for the right to do so. I thank Alex for his determination and for his work to make Ballymoney a more sight-inclusive place. I thank Jana for joining him and, of course, Angus for the incredible work that he does. As a representative of North Antrim and a friend of Alex, I am incredibly proud to support his campaign, and I want to make sure that the journey towards a more accessible and inclusive society does not end when Alex reaches Stormont later. Please come and meet Alex and Angus in room 144 when he arrives after midday and have a chat with him about his experience of access refusal.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Fógraíodh i mí Mheán Fómhair go bhfuiltear leis an scéim phíolótach le haghaidh comharthaíocht dhátheangach tráchta a leathadh nó go gclúdófar Bóthar na bhFál agus an Cheathrú Ghaeltachta ina n-iomláine. Gabhaim buíochas le Liz Kimmons, Aire Bonneagair, as a cuid oibre le cur le feiceálacht na teanga. Is cuid thábhachtach d’athbheochan na Gaeilge an teanga a chur i bhfeiceálacht ar na sráideanna agus sna pobail againn. Aithníonn an tAire an fás atá faoin teanga agus rinne sí bearta leis an teanga a chothú agus a chur chun cinn agus rinne sí sin le freastal ar líon na bhfoghlaimeoirí Gaeilge, líon atá ag méadú agus ar na daoine a labhraíonn Gaeilge i ngnáthchúrsa an lae.

Ó tharla sin amhlaidh, cáinim go neambhalbh an damáiste a rinneadh do chomharthaí dátheangacha sráide i mBéal Feirste agus in áiteanna eile ar na míonna seo a chuaigh thart. Tá an cineál sin iompair go hiomlán do-ghlactha agus is cúis mhór díomá é. Caithfear cur i gcoinne iarracht ar bith ar scanradh a chur ar phobal na Gaeilge. Ní dhéanfaidh éileamh méadaithe ar chomharthaíocht dhátheangach, ná méadú ar fheiceálacht na Gaeilge, ní dhéanfaidh sin díobháil nó dochar do dhuine ar bith. Ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge.

Taobhaím leo siud atá i mbun an iompair sin éirí as laithreach agus taobhaím ar gach comhalta den Teach seo a bheith páirteach liom ag cáineadh an iompair sin. Ba cheart fáilte a chur roimh gach duine agus meas a thabhairt do gach féiniúlacht agus gach teanga.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I welcome the official opening of the new Resurgent fabrication hall at Harland and Wolff, which took place yesterday. For a state-of-the-art fabrication facility, the name "Resurgent" is particularly fitting, because it tells a story not just of investment and renewal but of determination, perseverance and a belief in the future of shipbuilding in Belfast. It is worth remembering that that great shipyard was in administration as recently as 2019. There were genuine fears for its future, and the obituaries were literally being written for an institution that had been central to Belfast's identity and industrial heritage for generations.

Thankfully, however, that was not the end of the story. A different course was set through the efforts of many people, not least my colleague Gavin Robinson MP, who worked tirelessly to champion the yard and fight for its future. That course recognised that Harland and Wolff should not simply be remembered for its remarkable history but should have a bright and ambitious future. The 5,000-square metre extension represents a significant investment in Belfast, with a £98·5 million package forming part of Navantia UK's wider £157 million capital investment programme.

To people in east Belfast, Harland and Wolff is not just a business; it is a historic icon. Samson and Goliath stand as internationally recognised symbols of our city and a beacon not just of our past but of our people, few of whom are without family connections to the yard. This investment ensures that, from that history, there will be a legacy and a future. It is about continuing the restoration and strengthening of our industrial capability and our resurgence as an industrial force and creating the modern facilities that are needed to deliver complex defence programmes and provide opportunities for generations of skilled workers to come.

The Fleet Solid Support programme, which will deliver three new ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, is central to that ambition. It will provide vital operational support to the Royal Navy, while ensuring that the expertise and capability to build complex vessels remain in the United Kingdom and in Belfast. The refurbished cranes, robotic plasma-cutting technology and new mechanised panel line demonstrate that the shipyard is embracing modern manufacturing and advanced engineering. At the heart of all of that are people: the workforce, the engineers, the apprentices and the wider supply chain, whose skills and commitment will make the ambitions a reality.

For Belfast, the investment represents jobs, opportunity, economic confidence and the chance to build on the extraordinary engineering heritage of the city. We should all be immensely proud of our shipbuilding history, but it is even more important that we create a future in which young people can look at the iconic cranes and the shipyard and see opportunity for themselves. In noting the opening of the new Resurgent hall, we join the workforce and all to whom the yard is dear in celebrating how far Harland and Wolff has come, even over the past six or seven years. We recognise those who helped to secure its future and look forward with confidence to what can be achieved.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I rise to highlight the impact that the refusal of waste water connections is having in preventing development in north Belfast and the greater Shankill area. I have raised the matter in multiple meetings with Northern Ireland Water, as well as in correspondence with the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for Communities. It is resulting in planning refusals from NI Water for social housing and private housing developments in the area. It is also preventing the advancement of long-awaited new community facilities and commercial premises.

In Glencairn — an uphill, mile-long estate that is known as the longest cul-de-sac in western Europe — there is a lack of facilities. At long last, funding was received from Belfast City Council and the Department for Communities for a much-needed community facility, but the waste water connection needed for that facility is being refused by NI Water. Funding has likewise been received from Urban Villages for replacement community centres in the Westland estate in north Belfast and at Sunningdale, both of which are being prevented by the refusal of waste water connections, even though there were existing centres on those sites. We are told that there are unsatisfactory intermittent discharges (UIDs) from combined sewer overflows. We know that that is a problem in various areas, and Members will be aware of those.

The Minister for Infrastructure has approved special initiatives to enable housing developments in other areas, such as Andersonstown in west Belfast. I will continue to call and lobby for similar special initiatives to address waste water infrastructure problems in the greater Shankill area and in north Belfast. In recent correspondence, the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins MLA, pointed out that a development was upstream from unsatisfactory intermittent discharges.

She said that those were not currently planned to be upgraded as part of the current price control period, PC21. The projects were included in an NI Water submission to the Utility Regulator for the next price control period, PC28, for the betterment programme.

I will continue to argue for that along with community representatives involved in the BUILD Shankill partnership and the Shankill Plan to Grow initiative. For one development on the Woodvale Road, it was failing six combined sewer overflows. That is unacceptable.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

There must be a special initiative for the greater Shankill as there is for other areas.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

There is huge strategic importance to the A26. When you consider that the A26 takes us to and from the huge tourist honeypots of the north coast, I find it dumbfounding that either side of it is mostly single carriageway. Indeed, at the very least, a climbing lane has been asked for many times for the A37 Coleraine mountain road, and a bypass for Ballykelly is an absolute must.

I also want to focus on the urgent need for a significant upgrade of the A26 between Coleraine and the Ballycastle Road roundabout. That is an important road for the people of Coleraine and the wider Causeway Coast and Glens area. It is also part of a much wider strategic transport corridor to connect people across the north-west with Ballymena, Antrim and Belfast. Yet despite the importance of the route, there is an obvious gap in the quality and capacity of the A26 as motorists approach and leave Coleraine.

We have seen major investment in the A26 further south. The £55 million Frosses Road dualling scheme provided 8 kilometres of new dual carriageway between Glarryford and the A44 Drones Road junction, which has been a huge success since it opened in 2017. We, as north coast and north-west MLAs, use that road every day and feel the benefits. That section previously carried around 18,000 vehicles every day. That investment was welcome, but it also highlights the problem that DFI cannot continue to improve sections of the A26, while leaving important remaining sections that carry significant volumes of traffic without the capacity and infrastructure that modern Northern Ireland requires.

The approach into Coleraine, particularly between the Newbridge Road area and the Ballycastle Road roundabout, experiences significant pressure at peak times. Anyone who uses that road regularly knows the problems and queues for drivers travelling into and out of Coleraine. There are particular concerns when traffic volumes increase during the summer months, when the Causeway coast experiences a huge increase in visitor numbers on that road network.

While we focus on road safety, there is also the potential for towns and businesses to grow. Coleraine is a major economic and educational centre for the north coast. It is home to Ulster University, Causeway Hospital and a significant number of businesses and services. The A26 is therefore a vital artery for the north coast. DFI needs to recognise that that road serves much more than Coleraine. It connects people in Portrush and Portstewart with employment, education, healthcare and services in Coleraine and beyond. For many who live in the isolated parts of the region, there is no realistic alternative to the private car. That makes the quality and reliability of the road network in that region absolutely critical.

We have also seen significant investment —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thanks, Mr Speaker.

Executive Committee Business

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 47/22-27] be agreed.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Credit unions have a proud and distinctive place in communities across the North. As member-owned and locally rooted organisations, they provide a trusted institution for savings and affordable credit. They promote financial inclusion and help to keep money circulating within local communities.

The legislative framework within which credit unions operate must keep pace with changing member needs and modern business practices. The Bill provides a focused package of reforms to give credit unions greater flexibility to serve their members and grow sustainably while preserving their cooperative ethos and maintaining appropriate safeguards. The measures have been informed by engagement with the credit union sector, its members, the general public and other interested parties such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

The measures respond to calls for a modern framework that allows the sector to properly meet the evolving needs of members and communities. Specifically, the Bill modernises the services that credit unions provide. It enables specified additional financial activities, including conditional sale, hire purchase and insurance distribution. It allows referrals between credit unions and wider collaboration on and participation in loans. It permits charges to be made for ancillary services and provides a power to prescribe further activities and conditions. These are enabling provisions, and regulated activities will remain subject to the applicable regulatory framework.

The Bill also updates membership arrangements. It sets 18 as the minimum age for full membership, with transitional protection for existing members and applications, while retaining age-appropriate savings arrangements for younger people. It also permits admission to a credit union through a family connection where relatives do not live in the same household. This will be subject to a 5% safeguard to protect the credit union's principle of common bond. The Bill strengthens the sector's financial capacity by, for example, providing for deferred shares as a longer-term basis of capital and widening the circumstances in which surplus funds may be applied. It also clarifies the power to acquire and hold land where premises are not used wholly for credit union business. The Bill supports modern and efficient administration. It expressly enables electronic communications and remote meetings, protects ordinary members' information on the register and modernises provisions for auditors, credit union names and the making of regulations. Finally, the Bill improves continuity when credit unions merge or consolidate. Following such a transfer of engagement, the transferor's common bond will become part of the transferee's common bond, allowing the receiving credit union to continue to serve transferred members and to admit new members who satisfy that inherited element of the bond.

Taken together, these reforms will reduce unnecessary constraints, support sustainable development and maintain appropriate protections for members, savers and the wider sector. They do not alter the fundamental character of credit unions; they reinforce it by ensuring that these cooperative member-owned institutions can adapt to a changing financial and social landscape. My Department will continue to work constructively with the Committee for the Economy, the credit union sector and other stakeholders as the Bill progresses through the Assembly. Where detailed provision is to be made by regulations, that work will be taken forward transparently and in consultation with those affected.

For generations, credit unions have served our communities with unwavering commitment and integrity. The Bill provides a practical and balanced framework to help the credit union sector to continue and to strengthen its work, to widen its reach and to meet the evolving needs of members. I am therefore pleased to commend the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill to the Assembly.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will speak on behalf of the Committee for the Economy in the absence of the Chair and Deputy Chair. This is the sixth Executive Economy Bill that has got as far as Second Stage. The Department briefed the Committee on proposals for the Bill in 2025, and officials briefed us again on the legislation just before Halloween.

As the House is well aware, credit unions are not-for-profit financial cooperatives that are owned and controlled by their members. They exist in communities up and down Northern Ireland, and they provide gateway savings services and access to loans to those for whom credit may be hard to obtain. They are a key part of the fabric of our communities, enjoying higher membership levels here than in most parts of the United Kingdom.

To become a member of a credit union, individuals need to demonstrate that they satisfy a common bond. A key element in that regard is a savings account offered by the purchase of shares. The minimum initial shareholding is usually very small and differs for each credit union. Credit unions in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland are subject to different legislation and regulatory regimes. Credit unions in Northern Ireland can usually offer only a range of basic financial services such as share accounts, loans and life assurance. Elsewhere, however, credit unions can offer extra services, such as current accounts and other insurance services. In other places, they can also lend and borrow from other credit unions, which is generally not the case in Northern Ireland, although I understand that, since 2025, at least one credit union in the north-west has been approved to offer mortgages.

The Ulster Federation of Credit Unions (UFCU) and the Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) have long campaigned for legislative reform and financial support for all credit unions in Northern Ireland. The Bill and the accompanying departmental measures are therefore very welcome. As the Minister indicated, before summer 2025, she launched a consultation on proposed changes, with a view to introducing legislation in this mandate. Thirty-two reform proposals were included in the consultation, and many of those have made it into the Bill. Following the consultation, the Department is understood to be in the process of undertaking a number of non-legislative actions. Those include, first, establishing a permanent credit union advisory group, bringing together regulatory bodies, subject matter experts and key stakeholders to explore best practice and co-design solutions that reflect the unique needs of the sector; and, secondly, supporting the development of credit union support organisations that would provide shared services, including back-office functions and IT support, thereby providing economies of scale. Those services may, in future, include compliance, core banking platforms and payment systems, cybersecurity and digital banking tools.

The Bill covers a lot of ground, the detail of which I have just referred to, as well as providing some tidying-up measures around family membership, the transfer of members and the provision of officer information. Interestingly, the Bill also changes the minimum membership age to 18. Officials advised that credit union representative organisations deemed all those measures necessary for good governance.

Mr Speaker, as you may have noticed, from time to time, there are disagreements in the House, and it may seem as though Members find it hard to get along. That leads to some people suggesting that the Assembly simply cannot get anything useful done, but the Bill shows that those assertions are just not true. The Committee was unanimous in its support for the legislation. On behalf of the Committee for the Economy, I am therefore happy to commend the Bill to the House. That concludes my remarks on behalf of the Committee.

I will now say a few small things as an Alliance MLA. When I think of credit unions, I think of John Hume. Colleagues from the SDLP are right to have a lot of pride in him. That is such a wonderful legacy. Credit unions offer hope, financial stability and independence when people need it most. They prioritise the needs of members, not shareholders. The legislation is really welcome.

Finally, I thank the officials, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who briefed us so well on the Bill. It is really important legislation and an example of how we can all come together on something that will benefit everyone in Northern Ireland.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I begin by indicating my support for the general principles of the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill. The credit union movement has a very special place in the history of my home city of Derry and, indeed, the history of the SDLP. In October 1960, six people came together in Derry to establish the first credit union in Northern Ireland. Among them was a very young John Hume, who was 23 years old at the time. They recognised that ordinary, working-class people were being denied access to financial services that many others took for granted and that many of us take for granted today. Families who needed to borrow money to furnish their homes, provide for their children or meet an unexpected expense had little choice but to turn to moneylenders. John Hume and his colleagues wanted to change that. They pooled their savings — just £8 and 10 shillings — and established the Derry Credit Union. From those very modest beginnings, the credit union movement grew into something that was to make an enormous difference to families and communities across this island.

It is worth remembering that, despite everything that John Hume went on to achieve in his life, including the Nobel Peace Prize and his contribution to securing peace on this island, he regarded establishing the credit union as the achievement of which he was proudest. He said:

"no movement has done more good for the people of Ireland, north and south, than the credit union movement."

When we consider the difference that credit unions have made to generations of families, it is not difficult to understand why he felt that way. Credit unions have helped people to buy their first car, contribute to and pay for some of their children's education, improve their home and get through financially difficult periods. I am a proud member of the credit union. It was drummed into me from an early age. Like many others in my home town, I was taken along to the credit union and became a member.

Credit unions provide affordable credit to people who might otherwise struggle to access it. Their contribution goes beyond the financial services that they provide.

Credit unions are part of the fabric of our communities. They are owned by their members, run for their benefit and built on the principle that people working together can improve their circumstances and those of their neighbours. That is something that we should value, particularly at a time when so many families struggle with the cost of living and when traditional banking services have been withdrawn from towns and communities throughout Northern Ireland. It is important that credit unions have the legislative framework that they need to continue to provide those services and to develop in response to changing circumstances.

That brings us to the Bill. I welcome the proposals to give credit unions greater flexibility in the financial services that they can offer and to make it easier for family members to join. I particularly welcome the provisions that would allow credit unions to direct more of their surplus towards social, cultural and charitable purposes, because that reflects the principles on which the movement was founded. Credit unions have always been about supporting their members and giving something back to the communities in which they operate.

As my Committee colleague Kate mentioned, there are aspects of the Bill that require further consideration, although I am sure that there is logic in them. In particular, I would welcome from the Minister clarification around the proposal to raise the minimum age for credit union membership to 18. Credit unions have played an important role in encouraging young people to save and develop good financial habits, and they regularly go into schools to support children in getting a good understanding of finance and the benefits of saving. While I recognise that young people can still save with the credit union without being full members, I am interested to understand the rationale for removing the ability of 17-year-olds to become full members. I hope that that can be examined further at Committee Stage. We also need to ensure that smaller credit unions, which are often deeply embedded in their communities, have the support and capacity to benefit from the new powers that are being introduced.

The credit union movement began in Derry with six people who believed that they could make life better for those around them. Sixty-six years later, the principles that motivated them remain every bit as important. I want to see credit unions continue to grow, develop and serve their members while retaining the community ethos that has made them so successful. I hope that that is what the legislation will achieve. I support the principles of the Bill and look forward to working on it and giving it further scrutiny in Committee.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and support the legislation. I commend the Minister and Department officials for bringing forward this pivotal modernising legislation, which enhances the offering of credit unions. No matter where you go the length and breadth of Ireland, credit unions form the centre of our communities. They differentiate themselves from other financial institutions in their offering and their approach by being a hub of the community and providing a service that is designed to support and build communities from grassroots funding and through organisational cohesion. I know that at first hand as, in Derry, they have funded several projects and groups with which I am involved, projects that often do not qualify for other funding pots or statutory allocations.

Credit unions have always played an important part in our communities, because they are built on trust, mutual support and a genuine understanding of the people whom they serve. They are member-led, and that matters. Decisions are made by members for members with the interests of members at heart, rather than simply focusing on profit. At a time when we see so many high street banks closing branches and a reduction of services in our communities, the role of credit unions is becoming even more important, as it differentiates itself as one that puts people first. For many people, particularly older people and those who struggle to access online banking, having somewhere local to go for advice and support makes a real and tangible difference.

As anyone who has sat with me on either the Committee for the Economy or the Public Accounts Committees will know, I am obsessed with numbers and statistics. Unfortunately, many of you will have had to endure some long and detailed questions because of that, but I attribute a lot of that to coming from a family of teachers and from helping out with our parish savings at St Eugene's Cathedral from when I was no age.

Community involvement and ownership is pivotal to encouraging young people to hone their financial understanding, financial confidence and financial literacy. My first memory of the credit union is a visit by Mary Crumley, the then education officer at Derry Credit Union, to St Eugene's Primary School when I was in primary 7. She made the complex world of finance literally seem like child's play, as she used board games and interactive tools not only to teach 10- and 11-year-olds the importance of saving but to teach us that it was within our ability to aspire to the best. She told us that any of us could start a business, buy our first car and use the credit union's services as a springboard to achieve what we wanted. She used a strong community initiative to teach young people in the Derry community about global financial services and to tell us that we could compete internationally and deserved to do so.

The Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill is vital if we are to enhance and protect that work and allow credit unions to enjoy many more years of shaping and transforming our communities, because offering extraordinary opportunities to ordinary hard-working communities is at the heart of what they do. I am a proud lifelong member of Derry Credit Union, which is located on Abbey Street. It now offers mortgages, because it recognised that, for many people in our community, homeownership seemed like a far-off dream. Once again, the credit union stepped into a space to deliver affordable and accessible opportunities to people in Derry and further afield.

Credit unions play a key role in our communities, and we all know the positive services that they have provided to many people over many years. The Bill presents an opportunity to modernise the legislation to allow credit unions to develop their services to meet the changing needs of members and communities. The need for the modernisation came through in consultation with the people who work in credit unions, members and others who rely on its services, including the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

The Minister is ensuring that people in the North are not left behind in the services that they receive, thus protecting access for all. The services include reduced-risk lending, a wider range of financial products and services, easier mergers, enhanced property ownership and deferred shares. The Bill also introduces an enhanced ability to hold remote meetings. The reforms in the updated legislation will ease unnecessary restrictions and support sustainable development while retaining the necessary safeguards for members, savers and the wider community. Rather than changing the essential character of credit unions, the reforms will strengthen it, enabling them to respond to financial and social changes while remaining firmly rooted in their cooperative, member-owned ethos.

We must be careful to protect what makes credit unions special. Their strength lies in being rooted in the community, listening to their members and putting people first. Credit unions understand the communities that they serve because they are part of those communities. They see the pressures facing families and the challenges people experience in accessing financial services. We should do everything that we can to support their work and ensure that credit unions can continue to grow and respond to local needs. What is vital about our credit unions is not just the service that they provide but how they provide that service in the heart of our communities. Decisions are made by people for people. That is a model of good practice and one to which our broader financial services should aspire. For those reasons, I support the Bill at Second Stage.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I am glad to speak on behalf of my party in the Second Stage debate on the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill and to note the progress that is being made in modernising credit unions in Northern Ireland. As has been noted, credit unions are much more than financial institutions; they are rooted in our communities, owned by members and run on a not-for-profit basis. They provide an invaluable service by helping people to save regularly, access affordable loans and manage their finances without turning to banks.

In Northern Ireland, credit unions have a particularly important role. We have heard from other Members about the local aspects of some of our credit unions. We have a proud tradition of community-based credit union membership, with participation levels here among the highest in the whole of the UK. As has been noted, for many families, workers and older people, the local credit union is a trusted part of local life.

The sector has not always had the legislative framework or flexibility that it requires to keep pace with a fast-changing financial world, and the Bill is an opportunity to address that. I note the proposals to modernise the rules around membership transfer between credit unions and the provision of officer information. They may seem like technical changes, but they can make a real difference to how credit unions operate and serve members. Technology is important, and people are increasingly expected to access financial services online, which can be challenging, especially for some of our older generation. As noted by the Member who spoke previously, credit unions are on the high streets, and you can have a face-to-face conversation without having to go online.

I welcome the work by the Department and the Minister towards the establishment of a permanent credit union advisory group and development of credit union support organisations. Collaboration, shared resources and access to specialist support could help smaller credit unions become more efficient, resilient and accessible.

Importantly, the legislation should be seen not as the end of reform but as the beginning of a stronger future for the sector. We should continue to listen to credit unions, their representative bodies and their members. Credit unions demonstrate that financial services can be built around people rather than profit. They encourage responsible saving; they provide an alternative to expensive borrowing; and they are in the heart of our communities. The Bill is an important tool in giving credit unions the flexibility that they need to thrive.

Ms McLaughlin mentioned John Hume and the local connection to Londonderry. As I prepared for the debate, I noted that another famous person is a member of her local credit union: Her Majesty Queen Camilla uses her membership to highlight the importance of community financial services.

My party is content for the Bill to pass to the next stage.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Bill's Second Stage. I will not delay the House long, because the Ulster Unionist Party is more than happy to see the Bill pass to Committee scrutiny. We have no issues with the policy intent, which appears to be to modernise the 1985 Order across three areas: governance, members' expectations and changes to the way that financial practices are managed. None of those poses any threat to the ethos of credit unions as a set of member-owned organisations, nor does it offer relief from their obligations to follow the regulations of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

One area that, I think, the Committee will probe more deeply, as Sinéad McLaughlin mentioned, is the proposal to change the minimum age for full membership from 16 to 18. On the face of it, that could be regarded as just adding to a rather complex and perhaps confusing mixture of age limits that we impose on young people for what they can and cannot do. However, I have had an initial discussion with the relevant officials, who assure me that that came about at the request of the credit unions and of some parent members who have been saving from the birth of their young people with a view to them receiving the money at 18, when they might go into third-level education, and who get frustrated that their children get access to that money two years early. I believe that the Committee will continue to discuss and investigate that proposal.

It is not my intention to go into the Bill clause by clause, as that is not the purpose of today's debate. The Ulster Unionist Party is content to support the Bill through Second Stage.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Molaim go hard an Bille seo, go háirithe ag an am seo agus oibrithe faoi bhrú ag an ghéarchéim costais maireachtála.

[Translation: I strongly support this Bill, especially during this time in which workers are struggling with the cost of living crisis.]

The legislation to reform and modernise credit unions will benefit approximately 600,000 citizens across the North from all sections of our community. I want to thank the departmental officials for the work that they have put in to bring the Bill to this stage.

As others have said, credit unions are a vital element of our community life here. They support families, community groups, sports clubs and wider civic initiatives. Members can save money and borrow at competitive and affordable rates. They are community-owned and not-for-profit organisations. They support and invest in local people and local communities. They operate ethical and accessible financial services. That is critical. They are a lifeline for more rural and isolated communities that have been impacted on by high street bank closures. They are also a safety net for ordinary workers who are exposed to being ripped off by profiteers and loan sharks. In these challenging times, with the relentless cost of living bearing down on workers and families right across our society, credit unions are a crucial source of relief for many families who are struggling to pay their bills. Sinn Féin supports the Bill.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Alliance welcomes the Bill and supports its general principles. I do not want to take up too much time. We want to see the Bill move to Committee.

Credit unions have served our communities for generations, helping people to save, borrow and get on with their lives. Their community focus is really important. It is about people's money working for people themselves. I know, from my former life in small business, that access to money is absolutely essential to anybody who is getting started or moving on with their business. I know the importance of having easy access to finance. The more that we can do, the better that we will be able to help people here.

My party welcomes the greater flexibility to operate, collaborate and develop services. I totally get, and absolutely support, the need to update legislation to make it more reflective of today's world. Credit unions should be able to compete and develop while also protecting their members. That is really positive. We see that coming through in the Bill.

With regard to family savings, the issue of members aged 16 to 18 has been mentioned a couple of times. I really appreciate the engagement on that from departmental officials. It has been really useful, right through to this point. I can be very critical of how slow the Department can be on certain issues. In this case, however, it has been really great. It provided clear answers and set out exactly what it is trying to do. I just want to put that on record and thank you, Minister, and your officials for that.

We will tease out the issue of members aged 16 to 18 in Committee. I understand the response that we got about parents saving for university, or whatever that looks like, and wanting their children to access funds at the age-appropriate time. I totally get that. However, I also think that there is a way in which to encourage young people to save. Maybe we can tease out something there and do both with the protections that are there. We can look at that.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

I want to raise another issue that is not in the Bill but could be brought into it. It is a real issue in our communities. It is about people's ability to borrow money and access funding. There is a real issue in our communities with banks not giving access to our community groups, sporting clubs, or whatever that looks like, in all our areas. In Lagan Valley, I have dealt with, in particular, many sporting clubs that cannot access basic banking services and are then unable to access finance and borrow small amounts in the way in which a person could. The principle of credit unions is that they are run by volunteers to deliver for young people and communities. We have got to look at how we can also help those groups to access services and finance. Maybe the Minister could —

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member take an intervention?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes, absolutely.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

You have raised a really important point. In my constituency, the credit union goes even further than that. Paramilitaries and unsavoury moneylenders put a heavy boot into people when they are at their most vulnerable financially. On occasion, the credit union has actually given the person the money to give back to the unsavoury moneylenders to get that debt away from them, so it is fundamental that we support the credit unions in doing that type of work in our communities as well.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I completely agree with Sinéad. The work around that wider piece is fundamental to how we move forward.

I was talking about the community groups, be they sports clubs, arts groups, the Scouts or the Guides. It is the access to finance, funding and basic services that they have. I know that the Bill is not specifically around that, but we have a Bill to expand credit unions and bring them up to date. Those groups are a part of our community that is missing out on a lot of services. There is a barrier there with the banks, so maybe future regulations could allow credit unions to play a bigger role in financing local community groups and sporting clubs. The money has been saved and it is in our community. It is about how we create more opportunities for that money to be invested back into our community.

In closing, Alliance absolutely welcomes and fully supports the legislation. We want to see the credit unions grow and thrive. We want to give people more choice and create opportunities and access to finance to help families and small businesses, but also community groups, sporting organisations, arts groups and community and voluntary organisations. We want to build a better future, and this is part of it. I reiterate my thanks to the Department. We appreciate its work on the Bill, its honesty and answers, and the stuff that has come to the Committee. We look forward to seeing the Bill coming through.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

This is to give an initial response on behalf of the Finance Committee, in part because the Finance Committee did significant work on credit unions as part of its inquiry into the local banking and financial services landscape. I should say up front that the Committee has not discussed the Bill, so I am not giving the Committee's view. However, I will give an update on some of the credit union-related issues and, obviously, the Bill will be scrutinised by the Economy Committee, and I am sure that members of the Finance Committee will want to give their view on it, and the Finance Committee is happy to share further information.

As I said, the Finance Committee looked at the work of credit unions as part of the quite significant inquiry that it undertook, and we are keen to keep talking about that inquiry because it is one of the most significant bits of work that has been done on financial services and banking in the North. It is a reserved subject, as we all know, not just because of attention levels and interest in this place from over the water but because we have such a distinct banking and financial services landscape: different commercial banks and high use of credit unions. It was important that it got local attention from our Committee. We forwarded our work to the Department for the Economy's consultation for the Bill, and I will base my brief comments on that work.

In an evidence session for its inquiry on 19 February 2025, the Committee heard from the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions. Both bodies engaged fulsomely with the Committee's inquiry, and members recorded their support for credit unions and the work that they do. In its evidence, the ILCU outlined that credit unions here face several challenges. Those include regulation from London through the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, meaning that they must comply with rules designed for a broader UK financial sector that, as you might expect, do not always suit our community-based model and the community-based model of credit unions. They highlighted the lack of devolved oversight — that is, regulation happens from London, where credit unions are nowhere near as popular or well-known as they are here, notwithstanding Queen Camilla's fondness for credit unions. It was news to me, but I am happy to hear that. I suppose that it helps when your husband is on the money, but anyway.

[Laughter.]

Most people who use credit unions here would not be in that position, in any case. Credit unions are not as regulated, and they are often seen as an extremely niche sector, which they might be in Britain but they are not here. They are very important. The regulators there do not readily understand the role and significance of credit unions here in the North.

When compared with our counterparts in the Republic, credit unions here have fewer product options, particularly in areas such as mortgages, debit cards and current accounts. Younger consumers, more accustomed to mobile banking and instant transactions, may not therefore find traditional credit unions appealing, even if there is a community or family link to the credit union. In the ILCU's oral evidence to the Committee's inquiry, its representative advised:

"The withdrawal of high-street banks and limited access to cash services have left many individuals and small businesses struggling to access basic services. Where possible, credit unions have stepped in to fill the gap, often at their own expense, offering services, savings and loans, facilitating government payments and, in some areas, supporting local businesses with cash lodgement services. However, we"

— the credit unions —

"are not banks, and we face challenges in continuing to provide those services. We pay substantial fees to access banking services and clearing houses and to provide payment services to members."

The Ulster Federation of Credit Unions described to the Committee how a lack of funding from Westminster had also hindered the sector's development here. Its representative drew attention to this fact:

"Credit Unions in Great Britain have received in excess £180m of investment to ... develop the ... sector. Funding has come from Westminster, Scotland and from Wales",

together with funding from local councils, whereas:

"During the same period the UFCU received £20k and ... colleagues in the ILCU’s also received £20k."

The UFCU called for legislative reform, as legislation had not been substantially updated since 1985. Although the Bill updates the 1985 Order in relation to credit union organisations and the demands on them, one of the specific changes that the UFCU and the Irish League want to see is around some of the lending caps. The ILCU representative told us:

"A credit union is currently caught in a catch-22 situation: it would potentially like to lend to corporate members or community organisations, but, if a credit union has a loan book of £7 million, the 10% cap"

— that is, the cap on the loan that it can offer such entities —

"means that it can loan only £700,000 to corporate members... The difficulty is that our regulations, from the Bank of England, do not let credit unions invest in a company. Therefore, we could not set up what we call a 'credit union service organisation' ... which would be able to do ... analysis of the business loan side of things and reading accounts"

and so on.

The fact is that the use of credit unions in Northern Ireland is higher than that in any neighbouring jurisdiction, and they are firmly embedded in our communities. However, they get much less support than their counterparts in the South or in Britain. It was the Committee's hope that the Executive, and, potentially, local councils, might continue to mitigate some of the particular issues faced by NI small businesses, community organisations and consumers with regard to banking and financial services by working with credit unions in a constructive and proactive way. To that end, it would be helpful if the Economy Minister could clarify how far she sees the Bill going in meeting those issues and whether she is willing to engage further on them, including through the ongoing work by her Department and the Economy Committee.

I will make some brief remarks in a personal and party capacity. We welcome the Bill. Clearly, it deals with logistical issues that credit unions have wanted to be addressed for some time. There are simplifications and clarifications. Some questions have been raised, including those about the raising of the age threshold. We welcome all that. We strongly support the Bill's proceeding through Second Stage, and, hopefully, it will be dealt with before the end of the mandate.

I want to ask a genuine question. The Finance Committee heard that credit unions feel that those things are vital, and we all know how important they are. It is in our party's DNA to support credit unions, community-based finance and all the amazing things that they do for local communities in not just towns, villages and parishes but cities. A brilliant credit union on the Ormeau Road is expanding and supporting local financial services in that area. At a time when the high street banks are closing down, credit unions support small businesses as well as local, individual members. The Bill will make some welcome changes, but they are relatively modest. That is not a criticism, but this is my question: are they modest because we are time-limited by the end of the mandate? Is there an intent for us to go further? Going further will require engagement with the UK Government. They have introduced a Bill covering financial services, which has been published at Westminster. We need to look at a range of things specific to regulation in the North, and, if we do not shout more about those — I mean that in the nicest possible way — they will not do anything about it. Ministers regularly make that point about a range of things, from the Budget to everything else. Changing the threshold to enable more flexibility for credit unions to lend to corporate entities is one thing that would allow credit unions more flexibility. I know that there is a change to a 10% cap in the Bill, but I do not think that that change allows them greater lending flexibility.

More broadly, what is the Executive's approach to making the UK Government proactive and front-footed on some of the things that we would like them to do on regulation? Are we asking the UK Government to make some of the changes via the Financial Services and Markets Bill? Would they be able, let alone willing, to do that? We all agree that the changes in this Bill are welcome, but we want to go further in supporting credit unions, because they are such an amazing asset. They support communities, local enterprise, small business and charities so well. We just need to give them more support, including by making the regulations work better for them. If that regulation has to change in London, surely we should shout about it from here and call for more action and more pace. If the Minister could update us on that, it would be welcome.

We support the Bill's proceeding to the next stage, but we ask for more detail on what else we can do to support credit unions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

For transparency, I declare an interest as a credit union member.

I thank Members in the Chamber today for their contributions and the positive commentary on the Bill. I am really pleased to note the level of support that it has received. I am also grateful to the Economy Committee for its contribution and scrutiny so far. What we have heard in today's debate underlines the strength and significance of the credit union movement across the North and the value placed on its continued success. The measures that are before the Assembly today are intended to give credit unions greater scope to serve their members effectively and adapt with confidence as expectations and circumstances change. Taken together, the provisions strike a proportionate balance, enabling the sector to broaden and improve its services while preserving the protections and public confidence on which it depends.

I will address some of the points that Members have raised. Mr Nesbitt and, I think, Mr Honeyford reflected on the evidence from officials about raising the minimum age. That measure was an ask of the credit unions and brings the sector into line with other loan products that are available. In some respects, it also adds a layer of protection for young people. However, I remain open to the work that the Committee will undertake on it and look forward to hearing the views that it will obtain. I do not have a fixed position on the matter, but I see the merit in the credit unions' specific ask and understand why they made it. Obviously, we want to encourage young people to be financially literate and to save, which they would still be able to do so through minor accounts, but, as I said, I look forward to seeing the Committee's evidence on it.

Community-based groups and organisations were mentioned, along with the issue of supporting vulnerable people. There will be an opportunity to do that through the credit union advisory group, and officials will be happy to engage on that to give further information. It is very much in the ethos of credit unions to support community organisations and groups and to have perhaps a lower barrier than some banks and other financial services organisations apply. We have all, I am sure, had representations from community organisations and small businesses on the challenges, so I am particularly conscious of that and, as I said, am happy for officials to engage further on it. We can look at what we can do to support those organisations.

The Chair of the Finance Committee mentioned corporate lending. It is our intention to raise the cap on that to 25%. It is not in the Bill, however, because we already have that regulation-making ability. We intend to do that concurrently, so we will be addressing the issue. Some of the other issues that the Chair highlighted that came out of the Committee inquiry are really useful, and I am more than happy for us to work collaboratively to address them. For some of them, particularly those related to regulatory oversight, we do not have the ability to legislate, but we can continue to raise those issues and try to remove the existing barriers, which are not helpful to our credit unions.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I thank her for clarifying that; it is really useful. There is a Bill floating around Westminster, and we have asked her colleague the Minister of Finance to look at another issue that is related to that Bill. Is the Minister willing to update the Assembly or, indeed, the Committee for the Economy on whether there are specific things that, she and her officials think, they might meaningfully do to help credit unions through that Bill so that, as an Assembly, we can say so to Westminster?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I have not had specific advice about that Bill, but I will take the point away and look at what we can influence.

I am grateful to all Members who contributed to today's constructive debate on this important legislation. I ask for the Assembly's support for the Bill at Second Stage so that it can be referred to the Economy Committee for scrutiny. I assure the Committee that my officials will continue to support it in whatever way it needs to complete its scrutiny. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 47/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That concludes the Second Stage of the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

Members, please take your ease.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the value of the all-island labour market, with the 'Ireland and Northern Ireland - A Joint Census Publication 2021-2022' finding that over 18,000 workers regularly travel both ways across the border for work; acknowledges the barriers facing cross-border workers, particularly those seeking to work remotely, as a result of tax complexities; further recognises that the current arrangements mean that workers living here cannot work remotely for an employer in the South of Ireland unless their employer operates a second payroll; notes that this is a barrier for workers applying for remote working jobs based in the South of Ireland and that it can leave them open to paying double taxation; welcomes the Minister of Finance's recent meeting with Chartered Accountants Ireland to discuss these issues, thereby ensuring that they remain on the political agenda; and calls on the Minister of Finance to write to the Governments in Dublin and London to request a bilateral agreement that would reinstate transborder workers' relief for cross-border workers and remove the barriers preventing workers from availing themselves of remote working opportunities.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Over the past number of years, the all-Ireland economy has gone from strength to strength. Businesses continue to make the most of our unique trading arrangements in order to grow jobs and opportunities. Owing to partition and current taxation rules, however, barriers still exist for workers and businesses, and they need to be overcome. For workers and businesses, those issues have been accentuated by the removal of the North of Ireland from the European Union. That has created increased divergence in employment legislation and an associated increase in barriers to accessing work across Ireland.

Moreover, changing work patterns since COVID, with a move towards more remote working, have heightened those frictions, which now impact on more workers and businesses than ever. That was demonstrated most acutely with Allstate in Derry seeing its Donegal-resident workforce drop by a third post-Brexit and post-pandemic. However, in countries across Europe, we see how government can respond quickly and effectively to emerging flexible and remote working arrangements. Germany and Switzerland, for example, both have arrangements with several neighbouring countries to harmonise systems and remove barriers to remote working, thereby negating the need for dual payrolls and avoiding administrative complications. Similarly, the Nordic Council has done outstanding work to navigate the challenges and collaborate on finding solutions.

We must use that framework and best practice to create a specific agency that can coordinate all-Ireland policy and ensure that there is a one-stop shop for all-Ireland mobility. What we have seen in this space to date is a clear lack of appropriate guidance, with InterTradeIreland, individual businesses and cross-border representative bodies having to step in and fill the void left by a lack of official guidance from the British and Irish Governments. Across Ireland, we have an opportunity to be innovators and leaders, striving for the best practical solutions for our workers and businesses. The need for a dual payroll is a multidimensional and unnecessarily burdensome issue.

The benefits of a one-stop shop would be twofold. For businesses, it would streamline the process and limit the disputes in which they can inadvertently find themselves. That disproportionately impacts on our smaller businesses, which make up the backbone of the Irish economy. For individuals, payroll duplication creates unnecessary complexity on many levels, including their paying tax in the North and the South, or in one or the other — and not just income tax but Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI), National Insurance and pension contributions. It is barrier after barrier for hard-working ordinary people and businesses trying to make an honest living. Evidently, those issues cast a long shadow across the lives of cross-border workers. People and businesses should be able to operate seamlessly South to North and North to South, without being inhibited by complicated tax rules. That is common sense, and it should be enshrined in policy. It makes economic and social sense for people across Ireland, particularly those living in border communities.

The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and InterTradeIreland set out the current context effectively. More than 18,000 people regularly cross the border in both directions for work. That trend increased by over 50% between 2011 and 2021. Those workers contribute to businesses, support their families and help to grow our all-Ireland economy. However, when it comes to remote working, people still face unnecessary barriers. Like many MLAs across the Chamber, I regularly hear from workers about the barriers that they face in their working lives and the implications that those barriers have for their taxation and securing a mortgage. Increasingly, we see specific difficulties arising from work-from-home arrangements, which add further complications and require a dynamic focus from both the Dublin and London Governments. I have heard from workers who have been unable to secure a mortgage; workers who struggle to access employment in urban centres close to their homes because they fall on the wrong side of an artificial border; and highly skilled, highly valued workers who are considering leaving their employment because of the unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding all-Ireland working and remote access, or the lack thereof.

There is evidently a need for a broader conversation and a unity of purpose to tackle the issue and the myriad associated challenges, such as exchange rate volatility and social welfare access arrangements. Our economy is changing, and limiting access to remote working in Ireland is economically illiterate. Many of our workers living in the South and working in the North, or vice versa, face unnecessary bureaucracy because of payroll complications and the risk of double taxation. Employers can also be discouraged from recruiting people because of the extra costs and administration involved. InterTradeIreland's all-island business monitor (AIBM) report for the past quarter found that one in five businesses reported difficulties in recruiting people as a key operating challenge. The obvious solution to that is to remove any barriers and create a joined-up employment and economic ecosystem.

I know about that only too well from living in Derry, where we hear daily about people being negatively affected by those measures. The reality of the current system is that border communities are impacted on disproportionately, as is the case with so many other metrics. That curtails opportunity, stifles our economy and restricts the most natural economic and business interactions in our labour market, whether that be through increased tax or people being unable to apply for a job for which they have the skills, knowledge and expertise simply because of their postcode or Eircode. The movement towards increased flexible and remote working gives us a unique opportunity to rebalance our economy, fundamentally shifting the balance away from urban centres alone and into every town and village across Ireland. If we fail to seize the opportunity to remove barriers to remote working, we will fail every worker and community across Ireland.

In practice, the policy of limiting remote working across Ireland contributes massively to the fact that rather than a young person from Louth, for example, taking a job that is 10 miles away, in south Armagh, our young people move 10,000 miles away, to Australia, Canada or Doha, to get a semblance of financial security and a proper contract. That is because of uncoordinated policy between the North and the South.

This is about working together to streamline and strengthen our economy. We all need to push in the same direction to deliver tangible change and ensure that the Governments in London and Dublin work together to create accessible working arrangements for the jobs of today and of tomorrow. The current system prevents workers from securing employment and, when coupled with double-taxation barriers, means that even those who can access work cannot access a mortgage or financial security. That sets up our border communities, border businesses and border people in such a way that they have only a fraction of the success and economic growth that they want and for which they are abundantly skilled to achieve.

We need to have a collegiate and joined-up response if we are to nurture the best business environment — an environment that is mutually beneficial to people, businesses and communities, North and South. At a time when we should be opening up opportunities for workers and businesses, we are making things harder than they need to be. We need to retain young people, skills and talent in Ireland, yet we see daily the impact that an imaginary line in the map has, which is that people cannot apply for a job. I welcome the engagement that my colleague the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, has had with Chartered Accountants Ireland and the work of my colleague Senator Conor Murphy to ensure that there is a joined-up, all-Ireland approach to solving the problem.

As I mentioned in the context of Germany and Switzerland, there is an increased understanding, internationally, of the need for a strategic and swift solution to remove barriers to remote working. The OECD recently began a consultation on the mobility of workers. It is due to report its findings and make recommendations in the coming month. In March 2026, the Taoiseach and the then Prime Minister released a joint statement, outlining that they welcome any arrangement:

"to engage on reaching a decision in principle this year on a bilateral Ireland-UK approach to address concerns arising from hybrid cross-border working and to consider other aspects of the UK-Ireland Double Taxation Convention which may require updating."

It is imperative that all of us in the Chamber shift the dial to ensure that that promise becomes a reality and that the all-Ireland economy not only benefits those workers and businesses that are affected but contributes so much to our wider economy. This is about maximising opportunity for ordinary workers and businesses. It is about skills, potential and growth.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

It is refreshing to note Sinn Féin's recognition of the fact that there are two separate taxation systems, one in Northern Ireland, and the other in the Republic of Ireland, reflecting, of course, the constitutional reality that we in Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the motion's central premise of making it easier for cross-border employees to keep living in Northern Ireland actually helps to make the pro-Union argument, because it demonstrates that there is an appetite to benefit from the standard of living afforded to people in Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and the tax system here. It is important to note that there is already agreement between the UK and Irish Governments on double taxation, so cross-border employees are awarded a credit for any tax paid across the border. Any reform of that agreement must ultimately be mutually beneficial and must respect —.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I will shortly.

It must respect the sovereignty of each jurisdiction's tax and social security system, and it must be workable for business.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. I assume that the Member is referring to transborder workers' relief. He is incorrect in that he says that it gives relief to workers. It actually only gives relief to workers from the South who are working in the North on-site full-time, not the remote workers whom the motion is about. Also, it offers no opportunity for workers from the North working in the South to achieve any tax relief. Therefore, it critically undermines the purpose and the intent of the motion, which is to support remote workers across Ireland.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will come on to some of those matters.

Ultimately, this comes to down to the fact that taxation is important for public services. I am sure that Members will agree that people should pay their taxes. That is what provides the public services that we are passionate about seeing provided. Taxes should be paid primarily to where a person is living, to ensure that that is where they most benefit from those statutory services.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

No. I need to make progress, so I have to keep an eye on my time.

What Sinn Féin neglects to say in the motion is that, in the majority of pay grades, Northern Ireland residents working in the Irish Republic face a higher tax bill there. Therefore, in many ways, the UK Government's making provision for transborder workers' relief would not actually provide any practical or financial benefit. In fact, previous studies have highlighted the fact that the uptake of transborder workers' relief in the Irish Republic is low, raising question marks over its sustainability. It may not suit the constitutional aspirations of the Benches opposite, but there is an argument that extending transborder workers' relief to Northern Ireland residents employed in the Republic of Ireland could, at least marginally, harm our economy by increasing the difficulties that some sectors in Northern Ireland are facing with skills shortages. It should be the collective ambition of the Assembly to see highly skilled workers apply their trades and talents in Northern Ireland — we are the Northern Ireland Assembly — where they can contribute to growth and prosperity in our communities. We do not know how much it would cost the Treasury to introduce transborder workers' relief. We do not know how many taxpayers would be impacted on, let alone positively impacted on, by such a policy.

The current rules effectively mean that someone living in Northern Ireland and working remotely from home for two days a week could potentially move from making contributions to the Irish pay-related social security system to the UK National Insurance system, with all the complexity and upheaval that that causes for employers in payroll and taxation management. However, we would not be supportive of tax changes affecting remote working if they effectively permitted overseas working for those living in Northern Ireland without any contribution to or benefit for the Exchequer. National Insurance and social security contributions must ultimately be made to the Government where an employee resides and most benefits from statutory services and carries out a substantial part of their work. If remote working became unrestricted, that could also make it easier for Irish businesses to recruit Northern Ireland residents without requiring them to commute or relocate at all, with impacts for productivity in Northern Ireland. The associated business activity, profits, and potentially some tax receipts, would accrue elsewhere. Therefore, we will not be supporting the motion.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Were Dr Aiken not in the Chair as Deputy Speaker, he, as a long-standing expert on the Finance Committee, would make a better fist of this than I am about to, but you are stuck with me. As a sign of goodwill, perhaps, I will remind the House that I am on record many times, as Health Minister, as saying that I had no ideological or political objection to cross-border cooperation in delivering health and social care; in fact, quite the opposite. The last thing that the border defines in health terms is difference. Indeed, at my last North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) sectoral meeting, I got agreement from Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland, that we would task officials to look at barriers to cross-border working for health and social care professionals. In fairness, that was more about the barrier of asymmetrical qualifications than taxation. As I say, however, I make that point as a sign of goodwill.

I know that the debate is about remote working, but, these days, surgeons operate on patients who are not even in the same country, never mind the same hospital. I am making the point that the need for acceptable transborder working arrangements warrants proper and appropriate consideration. The considerable burden, for example, of making a self-assessment taxation declaration to the Irish Revenue, coupled with the need to pay extra taxation, is well documented. Indeed, the cost of seeking local tax accountants to help with the myriad rules in order to avoid being penalised by the Revenue or HMRC would eat considerably into any presumed benefits accrued by people on the higher but more highly taxed salaries paid in the Irish Republic.

New methods of working, including remote working and cross-border working, also create additional complexities. Under existing procedures, recognition of shared taxation perspectives, long-standing UK/Republic of Ireland agreements and the oft-forgotten implications of the common travel area all create barriers to flexible working. The tax authorities in the two jurisdictions, however, have concerns about how employers and employees have, in the past, sought to play the system in the most "tax efficient" way. It is necessary to have an improved understanding of current practices. The murkiness of the current system, which seems to benefit only accountants, North and South, causes genuine concern for cross-border workers about multiple tax bills and is an area that should be given greater clarity.

Our party is a party of business, and we have, time and again, emphasised that we need to improve opportunities for our economies and our workers. If that results in more workers living in Northern Ireland, paying the majority of their taxes here and even setting up companies and boosting employment here, that is to be welcomed. After all, the benefits of living and working in the United Kingdom speak for themselves. Further enabling that is a worthy outcome, if we can achieve a bilateral agreement, and is to be welcomed, and we, as a party, have no issue in supporting the motion.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I am pleased to able to debate the subject of remote working and frontier workers on the island of Ireland. Many of us in the Chamber have a constitutional view, but let us park the constitutional question and the question of sovereign tax arrangements for a second, Mr Kingston, and talk about the fact of living on a small island where each jurisdictions is commutable for large parts of the citizenry in the other. One of those jurisdictions has, to put it mildly, been growing somewhat more rapidly than the other, so it makes sense that there should be arrangements to maximise the economic and social benefits of cross-border working.

There is also the question of the large number of our people — it may not be the case in north Belfast or south Belfast — who live, literally, near the border and transact business and live their everyday life near the border. Their life is cross-border. They might not be working for a multinational; they might be a plasterer who lives in Derry but does most of their work in Donegal, or a vet who lives in Cavan but happens to work in a practice in Enniskillen. That is the reality of people's lives. Those are not people who are working for whizz-bang multinationals and earning high salaries; they are ordinary people who live in communities and have to put up with the rigmarole and hassle of multi-jurisdictional tax arrangements and financial services. Before we even get on to questions of constitutional identity, can we just be real and practical about the fact that this is a real barrier to everyday life for lots of our people?

That is why I am proud to say that the Finance Committee, which I chair — I referred to its inquiry in the previous debate — made a priority of looking at frontier worker issues and, indeed, cross-border jurisdictional issues in relation to banking.

Mr Delargy, who moved the motion, talked a lot about tax issues. That is the thrust of the debate, and it is important. Questions about financial services have also been raised by Brexit. It used to be the case that most banks in Northern Ireland were effectively all-Ireland banks in one form or another. For a range of reasons — Brexit being one contributory factor along with technological change and market diversification — that is no longer the case. It used to be much easier for a Bank of Ireland customer in, say, my home town of Downpatrick who was perhaps expanding a business and wanted to carry out some activity in Dundalk to have interoperability of advice. That is not possible now, because those banks had to divest, whether we liked it or not, and I do not particularly like it. Bank of Ireland up here is now Bank of Ireland UK and is very different. It is now not allowable for Bank of Ireland workers in the North to do the kind of client work that they used to do in the South. Those are the realities of Brexit. People often talk about the Irish Sea border: a whole border in financial and other services was created on this island by Brexit that we have not been able to ameliorate.

I will get back to the subject at hand: a world of opportunity is open to people on this island. We will best realise that in a new Ireland, but, even if we do not get there — I hope that we do — or it takes us a long time to get there or even if we stay in the UK, which is the preference of the Members opposite, there is still a range of possibilities in frontier working. We now have an Enterprise train that leaves every hour to go to one of the fastest-growing cities in Europe; a city growing so fast that it is growing too fast to accommodate its workers and where prices are becoming obscene for ordinary people.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Yes, I will give way in one second.

If you go to Newry or Portadown on a weekday morning, you will see people from all backgrounds hopping onto a train with their backpacks and water bottles, going down to the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) or tech companies in Dublin. Shock horror — that is the possibility of living on an island together.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In my previous life, I sat on the board of European Employment Services (EURES), and the biggest issue for the board was double taxation for frontier workers. That affected the productivity of workers in Northern Ireland. We were lobbied constantly by Allstate, Citibank, FinTrU and other such organisations to release their workers who were based across the border to do work for their business in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is the opposite effect to what the Member across the Chamber spoke about. It is complicated, but there is obviously a lack of understanding from the Member.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

You have a short minute left.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

You have used up my extra minute. That is not what interventions are supposed to be for.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

You got the extra minute, but your compatriot took most of it away from you.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Member is right: there are huge complexities. It does not necessarily serve us well to make it all about identity and the constitution. In the here and now, it is a barrier. There is also the issue of the ending of free movement. I talked about big businesses operating in Dublin: a French lawyer working for a tech company in Dublin cannot easily do a project in Belfast. That is a barrier to trade. A German backpacker working in a pub in Galway cannot think, "Derry looks like a bit of craic. I'll go and work in a pub there for a few weeks". That is sad. We need to tackle all those barriers, of which double taxation is a significant one. It has become harder outside the EU.

I say gently that we are, of course, keen to support the motion and agree with everything in it, but we would like to see more progress on this from the Economy and Finance Ministers rather than simply a private Members' motion in the mouth of the end of the mandate. However, we are where we are. Let us all get on the same page and make some progress from here on.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the confusion. The business was brought forward, and I was not down to speak, but you are going to have a little bit of me anyway.

I talk a lot in here about sharing this island. We absolutely support the motion, because it is already happening. There is a practical issue and a problem that needs to be solved. People are already living and working on either side of the border. In May, three families contacted me in Lagan Valley. They had moved from the South of Ireland to between Hillsborough and Dromore: a couple of them were in Hillsborough, and one was in Dromore. They were able to buy their houses there at a lower price, move their children into a different school system and do everything else and still be an hour and half from their work in Dublin, which is how long it had previously taken them to get to their work from where they had lived in another part of Dublin. The only reason that they contacted me was that, when the flags went up, they wanted to ask whether moving had been wise and whether they were safe, as they were not used to that aspect of life in Northern Ireland.

It is happening on an ongoing basis. I have a friend who got a job with Salesforce on the docks in Dublin. Salesforce is a massive company — brilliant — and the opportunities are there, so I do not understand how we can take something practical that is about making life better for people and turn it into something that is not practical. I fail to understand how the debate could be made to be about wanting less and about how that is better for people rather than about creating more opportunities for them. People do not see a border as a barrier to their opportunities to find a job or build a career, so why would we want to keep an outdated tax system that puts barriers in their way? It is a practical problem, and we need to solve it.

One of the guys whom I dealt with had to become self-employed. He was living in Northern Ireland but had to deal with the South's taxation system. That is something that people can do, but they lose all the benefits of being an employee of a company. They lose out on the protections, the pension contributions and everything else that being an employee brings. We tell people that they can work from their kitchen table anywhere on these islands, yet we create barriers. That makes absolutely no sense.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. I have a quick point to make. I totally agree with him. The motion is one that should bring the House together, particularly given that the London and Dublin Governments have agreed in principle to look at the issue. Does the Member agree that we need there to be a collegial and united approach from the House in order to send out the strongest possible message that we want the best for our workers?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Cheers, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I completely agree. In any part of Europe, it is absolutely normal for somebody to get a job in their nearest city regardless of what country it is in. It is normal for people to want to work and to have the best opportunities in life, be they from the South and working in Northern Ireland or from here and working in Dublin, Galway or wherever. We have only to look at the tradesmen who work in construction driving their vans to the South daily for work. People will go where they need to go to do better for themselves. We need to remove the barriers and allow them to have that freedom. We need to grow our economy, improve our productivity and create better jobs for people. We cannot do all of that if we have an insular mindset that says, "We're protective of whom we are". We need to be outward-focused and look at creating benefits for people to make things better for them.

Remote working has changed in the past six years. Since COVID, we have seen a difference in people. They expect to be able to work from home, regardless of where their office is, and to go into the office maybe a couple of days a week. I know that people do that on an all-island basis.

We cannot deliberately limit the jobs that people can apply for. We need talent here, so we need to encourage talent to come here. The more that we allow mobility across the island, the two islands and Europe, the better we will make things for ourselves. It is a practical, economic issue that we need to resolve. When we left Europe, our businesses lost the ability to attract staff. Since we lost freedom of movement, our businesses have been crying out for staff, often to fill the top jobs. Why would we not allow somebody to come from the South to work in one of our businesses and make it easy for them to do so? I do not understand that mindset.

For us, it is a practical issue that affects ordinary people, not a constitutional debate. In any other part of the world, it is normal for people to seek out the best opportunity, wherever it is, and to go for it. Cooperation between London and Dublin is essential. Our objectives should be straightforward: to create better job opportunities and greater flexibilities, remove barriers and make life better for people.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The deepening integration of the all-island economy is probably one of the greatest success stories of the Good Friday Agreement and our peace settlement. The all-island economy benefits us all. It generates economic prosperity through the creation of business and commercial opportunities and, most important of all, improves the lives of workers and families across the island.

In 1999, cross-border trade was worth €2 billion. Today, cross-border trade is worth more than €17 billion. The flourishing all-island economy requires careful management to ensure that the opportunities for growth and shared prosperity across the island, North and South, are maximised. Pragmatic and practical approaches will be required. What is required of us in this institution is to find those pragmatic approaches and solutions where anomalies arise that present impediments to shared prosperity and economic growth.

According to NISRA and the Central Statistics Office (CSO), there are over 18,000 cross-border workers. Many of them fill gaps and skills shortages in both jurisdictions. In a Confederation of British Industry (CBI)/Irish Business and Employers Confederation (Ibec) all-island mobility report, of the members sampled, 42% said that mobility barriers make it more difficult for them to fill skills gaps; 39% said that they find it hard to fill skills shortages; 24% cited administrative and legal burdens as a direct impediment; and 12% said that they will not hire a candidate, North or South, because of cross-border administrative and legal complexities.

Cross-border workers, particularly those who operate on hybrid-style contracts, face additional charges in respect of their employment. Those have been outlined by other contributors in the debate and include dual payroll obligations and complications around social security, pensions, mortgage applications and health insurance. Those cross-border workforce complexities were acknowledged by the British Prime Minister and an Taoiseach at a UK-Ireland summit in Cork earlier this year, as has been referenced in the debate. At that summit, there was a commitment to develop a bilateral Irish-British approach to addressing those difficulties. That should be welcomed by us all, because it goes to the heart of finding pragmatic solutions. That work must be progressed as a matter of urgency.

Smooth workforce mobility simply makes sense. The reality, of course, is that the most significant obstacle to social progress and economic prosperity for everyone on the island is the elephant in the room: partition. Fully realising our economic potential is completely dependent on constitutional change. A new constitutional settlement is the obvious way to achieve a friction- and barrier-free economy and to optimise all the gains and progress of the all-island economy. The best guarantee of economic growth, shared prosperity and a better quality of life for all workers and families on the island is surely through a pathway to Irish unity.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. While I recognise that there are legitimate issues facing some people who live in Northern Ireland but are employed across the border, it is important that we approach the motion with a degree of caution and, above all, a clear understanding of the practical and economic implications of what is being proposed.

As others have said, it is refreshing to hear Sinn Féin acknowledge that there are different taxation systems operating in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, rather than pretending that two distinct jurisdictions do not exist on this island. Of course, that is a direct consequence of our constitutional position within the United Kingdom.

Indeed, there is an important point here: the central premise of the motion is about making it easier for people to work for employers in the Republic while they continue to live in Northern Ireland. That in itself demonstrates the value and attractiveness of the standard of living that we enjoy as part of the United Kingdom. It is an argument that reinforces rather than undermines the case for the Union.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am disappointed that the DUP has tried to make this an issue of constitutional politics. The DUP has presented itself, time and time again, as the party of business. Every business that we have spoken to about this issue has asked for practical solutions that ensure that workers can go either North to South or South to North to work. If you are listening to businesses, and if you understand them and are speaking up for business, you need to reflect what they are saying, which is, "Let's get a bilateral arrangement. Let's make this work".

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Member for his intervention.

We should also recognise that arrangements are already in place between the UK and Irish Governments to prevent double taxation. Where an individual pays tax in one jurisdiction, provision exists for a credit against their liability in the other. Any proposed reform must therefore be carefully considered, mutually beneficial, respectful of the sovereignty of both jurisdictions over their taxation and social security systems, and be workable for employers and businesses.

The motion also fails to address a number of important questions. Northern Ireland residents who work in the Republic face a higher tax bill in the majority of pay grades. Consequently, extending transborder workers' relief may offer little, if any, practical or financial benefit to many of those workers. Previous studies have also highlighted a relatively low uptake of the relief in the Republic. That raises legitimate questions about its sustainability. Furthermore, we must consider the potential consequences for our economy. Northern Ireland businesses and public services are already experiencing skills shortages across a number of sectors. It should surely be our collective ambition to encourage highly skilled people to work, develop their careers and apply their talents here, thus contributing to productivity, growth and prosperity in our communities. We must be careful not to introduce arrangements that could make it easier for businesses elsewhere to recruit Northern Ireland's skilled workforce without generating corresponding economic activity here. We all want to see increased choices for our people when it comes to employment, but we should be careful not to damage local businesses or economic sectors in the process.

There are also significant unanswered questions about the cost to the Treasury. How many Northern Ireland taxpayers would benefit from reinstating transborder workers' relief? What would be the overall cost? We have not been provided with sufficient evidence to answer either question. I am interested to know how much work, if any, has been carried out with the Treasury on that subject.

On remote working specifically, the situation is particularly complex. Someone living in Northern Ireland and working remotely from home for part of the week for an employer in the Republic could move between the Irish PRSI and the UK National Insurance systems. That creates considerable administrative and payroll difficulties for employers and employees alike.

Let me be clear: we should support sensible arrangements that make cross-border employment practical, but we cannot support changes that allow people to work for overseas employers without an appropriate contribution to the Exchequer and social security system of the jurisdiction in which they live and undertake a substantial proportion of their work. Such a situation would be neither fair nor equitable.

Engagement between the Finance Minister and Chartered Accountants Ireland is welcome. That work needs to continue. If we are to know the exact implications of this proposal, any agreement must be evidence-based, affordable and fair to both jurisdictions. We should pursue practical solutions for cross-border workers, but not at the expense of our economy, our public finances or the integrity of our taxation and social security systems.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, you have 15 minutes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Members who tabled this motion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to it. The motion highlights a critical issue that is becoming increasingly important for workers, employers and our wider economy. It also speaks to something fundamental about our vision for this island, which is that people should be able to live, work, study and do business across the island with as few barriers as possible.

The all-island labour market is a reality. The most recent joint census publication from the Department and the Central Statistics Office in the South found that more than 18,000 people regularly travel across the border for work. Those workers make an important contribution to businesses, public services and communities in the North and South alike. However, the growth of remote and hybrid working has exposed limitations within existing tax arrangements that were designed for a very different world of work. An individual who lives in the North and works remotely for an employer based in the South can face significant tax complexities, and the same is true in the other direction. Workers often require specialist advice simply to understand their tax obligations, as well as their entitlements to social security, maternity pay and sick pay, and how their pensions can be impacted. Employers can face administrative and compliance burdens, including dual payroll obligations, which divert substantial time and expertise away from the tasks and activities that would otherwise add value to their business. Those challenges create a disincentive to participation in an all-island labour market and result in unnecessary costs being imposed on workers and, indeed, businesses. Ultimately, they act as a barrier to employment, labour, mobility and economic growth across the island.

These issues demonstrate the challenges created by the current arrangements and the need for change. The current position is unsustainable and unacceptable. While I recognise that taxation is not a devolved matter, it also has to be recognised that cross-border workers and their employers make a vital contribution to our all-island economy. It is crucial that action is taken to ensure that barriers for cross-border workers and businesses are minimised.

Given the importance of the issue, I have engaged directly with stakeholders and with my counterpart in the Irish Government. On 23 April, I met representatives from Chartered Accountants Ireland to discuss the challenges facing cross-border workers and to understand in more detail the practical difficulties being experienced by employees and their employers alike. Following that meeting, on 19 May I wrote to Peter Burke TD, the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment in the Irish Government, who had raised the issue of cross-border workers at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting earlier that month. In that correspondence, I highlighted the concerns raised by Chartered Accountants Ireland and others, and I reaffirmed my willingness to engage further and support efforts to identify practical solutions. I understand that my correspondence was shared with both the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Simon Harris TD, and the Department of the Taoiseach.

My colleague the Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, has also written to both the Irish and British Governments about the actions they can take to address issues around all-island labour mobility. Officials in my Department maintain ongoing engagement with Chartered Accountants Ireland and met as recently as September to discuss the reform of tax rules on cross-border working. Chartered Accountants Ireland has also presented case studies to my Department to highlight the complexities and how they can impact tax, payroll, pensions, social security and more. My officials also continue to engage directly with HMRC, as the body responsible for tax administration, to relay the concerns of local representative bodies.

Given those issues, I welcome the commitment made at the 2026 British-Irish summit in March this year, where the Governments agreed to engage and reach a decision in principle on a bilateral approach to concerns arising from hybrid cross-border working as part of the new double taxation agreement. I understand that a new agreement will include bespoke cross-border worker provisions, which are intended to significantly reduce, if not remove, compliance burdens and simplify tax obligations for cross-border workers and businesses. I also understand that, as part of the negotiations, the British Government do not intend to request that the Irish Government reinstate domestic reliefs such as transborder workers' relief, given that the new bespoke cross-border worker provisions are expected to deal with the issue in a more efficient and effective way. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Negotiations are ongoing, so the specific details in the final agreement have not yet been made available to me. Today, however, I call on both Governments to ensure that the new agreement meets the needs of a modern workforce and business landscape; that the agreement works across borders without unnecessary bureaucracy and cost; and that engagement is finalised and the agreement implemented as soon as possible. Those points have been directed specifically to HMRC by my officials.

While the issue raised in the motion requires action from the Irish and British Governments, my Department and I are also taking steps to support cross-border workers and businesses where possible. That includes the PEACE PLUS programme, for which my Department has joint responsibility. The programme is funding several projects and will consider the issues faced by cross-border workers and implement actions to meet those challenges. That includes €7 million being provided to the Border People FLOW project, the North South ESTEEM (Education, Skills and Training: Empowering Economic Mobility) project and the C-CASE (Cross-Border Collaboration to Activate the Skills Ecosystem) project. Those projects provide improved advice and support for cross-border workers and address skills and mobility issues to better support the all-island labour market.

My Department is also making the case for change on all-island economy issues, such as access to cash in rural border areas, the cross-border insurance market and pressing for a reduced VAT pilot for hospitality and tourism businesses here in the North.

In conclusion, the motion raises a complex but critical issue that must be resolved to achieve the vision of an all-island economy where people live, work, study and do business as seamlessly as possible. I will continue to use all the levers available to me to press the Irish and British Governments to agree an effective solution as rapidly as possible.

It is critical that a new bilateral agreement removes the current barriers that prevent cross-border workers from availing themselves of remote working opportunities. I will continue to make the case for an agreement that reduces administrative burdens, such as dual payroll obligations, provides greater certainty for workers and their employers and enables workers and businesses to fully participate in the all-island labour market.

Ultimately, we should strive for arrangements that make it easier, not harder, for people to access employment opportunities across the island. Supporting cross-border workers is not simply about taxation arrangements; it is also about ensuring that individuals can access opportunities and that businesses can access the skills that they need. I look forward to continuing to engage with colleagues in the Executive, the Irish and British Governments and representative bodies to help to advance that objective.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Aoife Finnegan to make a winding-up speech. Aoife, you have up to 10 minutes.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I welcome the opportunity to make the winding-up speech on the motion. I thank Members for their contributions. I hope to reference as many of them as I can. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion because it speaks to the heart of my constituents, particularly those in south Armagh, where I live. We live closer to County Louth and County Monaghan than to County Down or even Armagh city.

I support the motion because, in this day and age, it is unacceptable that people living on this island continue to face barriers to employment simply because of where they live. We have two economic systems operating side by side, yet workers and businesses must navigate arrangements that fail to reflect how closely connected our communities and economies already are.

Workers with the same skills and ability, doing the same job for the same employer, can have different access to remote working because their homes are in different jurisdictions. Your neighbour could live only steps away from you, work for the same employer and be able to work remotely while you face additional tax and payroll complications. You could have the same job, the same skills and the same employer. Where you live should never decide your opportunities, yet geography becomes the hurdle, and a person's home address becomes their disadvantage.

As Declan Kearney pointed out, the joint census publication referred to in the motion recorded more than 18,000 people travelling in both directions across the border for work. Those workers deserve arrangements that support their contribution to an all-island economy.

For someone who lives in the North and is employed in the South, additional tax and payroll requirements can obstruct remote working even where their employer agrees that the job can be carried out from home. I refer to Pádraig Delargy's comments, the detail of which Brian Kingston and the DUP clearly did not understand. The interaction between remote working and transborder workers' relief creates another difficulty. There are some benefits to workers but only if they work on-site. If we are to see real change, we need to see an all-island approach to remote working. I support reform that will allow those workers to benefit from remote and hybrid working without losing relief and facing an additional tax burden that makes the arrangement financially unworkable.

For businesses, particularly smaller employers, additional —.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. Has her party or any individual in it had any talks with the Government in the Republic of Ireland about them aligning their tax system more closely with that of the British Government in order to make it easier for everybody?

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There should be a bilateral agreement. If you can just give me a minute, I will focus on that later in my speech. Thank you for your intervention.

For businesses, particularly smaller employers, additional payroll requirements, accountancy costs and uncertainty about tax and social insurance obligations can discourage cross-border recruitment. The worker loses an opportunity, the employer loses access to skills and the economy loses benefit from both. We speak rightly about growing the all-island economy and making full use of the North's unique access to the British market and the EU single market for goods, but achieving that potential requires businesses to have access to skills and workers to have access to jobs across the island. When we should be strengthening economic cooperation, those barriers risk deep divergence between North and South.

If you will indulge me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

, it is important to note briefly, for the purposes of understanding, the complexities of cross-border employment for those of us who live in border communities. I know, from talking to many constituents and my family, what it means to fall between two jurisdictions while trying to earn a living. In some cases, taking a job a few miles down the road can bring complications that affect the finances of an entire household. Very few lenders will consider euro income for mortgages. That, therefore, restricts access to the property ladder for young families who are looking to find a home but cannot due to their address and currency. The ESRI research documents those difficulties, which includes how currency assessments affect borrowing capacity. Couples cannot access joint bank accounts without having to change their country of residence or income, which results in greater costs when your income is in euro.

Workers can also face tax returns in both jurisdictions, professional fees and uncertainty about reliefs. Although arrangements exist to prevent double taxation, overlapping deductions can create financial pressure while relief is being resolved. People should not have to become experts in two tax systems in order to simply work close to home. I note Mike Nesbitt's comments. Accountants are the people who are trying to resolve that issue, not reinforce it. Chartered Accountants Ireland has led on trying to secure a solution to that.

It will not be lost on Members or those who are listening to the debate at home and are directly affected that ending partition would allow us to address the divergence within a single all-island framework. In the meantime, however, workers cannot be left waiting. I welcome the Finance Minister's engagement with Chartered Accountants Ireland, and I support the call for the Minister to write to the Governments in Dublin and London seeking a bilateral agreement. The British Government must engage seriously with the complexities that face cross-border workers and take responsibility for helping to resolve them. That agreement must address remote working and transborder workers' relief, simplify payroll obligations and provide certainty for workers and employers in both directions. Clear information matters, but explaining the barriers is not enough; the purpose must be to remove them.

Before I finish, I hope that I misheard him, but I think that Brian Kingston spoke about cross-seas workers. Coming from a border community in south Armagh, I can assure him, and he will be glad to know, that there is no water between the North and South of Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly recognises the value of the all-island labour market, with the 'Ireland and Northern Ireland - A Joint Census Publication 2021-2022' finding that over 18,000 workers regularly travel both ways across the border for work; acknowledges the barriers facing cross-border workers, particularly those seeking to work remotely, as a result of tax complexities; further recognises that the current arrangements mean that workers living here cannot work remotely for an employer in the South of Ireland unless their employer operates a second payroll; notes that this is a barrier for workers applying for remote working jobs based in the South of Ireland and that it can leave them open to paying double taxation; welcomes the Minister of Finance's recent meeting with Chartered Accountants Ireland to discuss these issues, thereby ensuring that they remain on the political agenda; and calls on the Minister of Finance to write to the Governments in Dublin and London to request a bilateral agreement that would reinstate transborder workers' relief for cross-border workers and remove the barriers preventing workers from availing themselves of remote working opportunities.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.50 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

1. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Education for an assessment of the consequences of education sector staff salary increases not being paid due to current budget constraints. (AQO 4183/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I fully recognise the concern and uncertainty that are caused when agreed salary increases are not paid promptly, particularly for lower-paid support staff who are already managing significant cost-of-living pressures. The National Joint Council's 2026-27 pay award for support staff was agreed nationally on 24 August of this year and provides for a 3·3% uplift. However, in the absence of an agreed Executive Budget for 2026-27, that award remains part of wider Executive discussions on public-sector pay, and my Department is not currently in a position to approve its implementation.

A prolonged delay carries real consequences for those who are affected. It creates financial uncertainty for staff; risks damaging morale and confidence; and may add to existing recruitment and retention pressures across essential school support services. In recognition of the seriousness of that position, I have asked my permanent secretary to meet support staff trade unions in the first instance to discuss the implications. I have also ensured that the estimated cost of the pay award has been identified as an inescapable pressure in the Department's Budget submissions. Once the public-sector pay issues are resolved, we will seek to implement the pay award as quickly as possible, and the award will be backdated to April 2026 in accordance with the terms of the pay settlement.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. If that situation continues to be unresolved, do you foresee it having any impact in classrooms?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Undoubtedly. The trade unions have already indicated that should the situation continue to be unresolved, it will present difficulties. I do not want it to continue to be unresolved; I want it to be resolved. Those staff members rightly received that pay award as part of the National Joint Council's process. Giving effect to payment of that award is an outstanding matter because of the inadequate Budget and financial resources that are available to the Executive. We are collectively seeking to engage on that and work with the UK Government, because we need to work towards resolving the situation not only for that group of staff members but for all public-sector workers whose pay awards should rightly be made.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister detail to the House his Department's current budget position?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Department of Education remains significantly and persistently underfunded and faces unavoidable cost pressures and rising service demands. Those pressures and demands are driven by statutory obligations and policy commitments, yet the funding that has been provided has consistently failed to keep pace with them. The proposed allocations in the Finance Minister's draft Budget would have required the Department to make savings of £0·6 billion — that is £600 million — in this financial year, with those savings increasing to £900 million by 2028-29. The savings that would be required to address reductions of that scale are simply not achievable. It would harm the delivery of education and children's outcomes. Given the fact that approximately 82% of the Education budget is spent on staffing costs, there would be no reasonable prospect of living within the proposed allocations without mass compulsory teacher redundancies. Those would devastate educational outcomes, and I would not support them.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

2. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Education for an update on the uplift to the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. (AQO 4184/22-27)

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

12. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Education when he will publish the finalised early learning and childcare strategy. (AQO 4194/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 12 together.

The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme continues to provide important support to working families by reducing their childcare costs. However, I recognise that many parents continue to struggle with the cost of childcare and face difficult decisions in balancing work and caring responsibilities. That is why the draft early learning and childcare strategy sets out a range of actions to build on the support for families and improve the affordability, accessibility and sustainability of childcare provision over the coming years. A key action in the strategy proposes that we increase the subsidy scheme contributions from 15% to 20%, with further phased increases to 40% by 2032. Together with UK tax-free childcare, such measures could enable eligible families to access support for up to 52% of their childcare costs. However, the extent and pace of delivery of the proposals in the strategy are constrained by the challenging Budget position and remain dependent on Executive agreement to allocate the necessary resources. At this stage, the Executive have not agreed a ring-fenced budget to support the implementation of the actions set out in the draft strategy.

Despite the challenges, however, I recognise the importance of maintaining support for working families through the subsidy scheme. I have therefore maintained the scheme at the existing 15% rate and, in response to fee increases from April, I have increased the subsidy cap available per child by 10% to ensure that the vast majority of eligible working families continue to avail themselves of the full 15% subsidy.

The strategy is now being finalised, taking account of the feedback from the public consultation. I intend to bring it to my Executive colleagues shortly.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, there are growing concerns about the involvement of private equity firms in childcare and the impact of that on fees. Do you accept that increasing public subsidies without adequate safeguards risks directing taxpayers' money into private equity profits rather than reducing costs for parents? Since you took office, the cost of childcare has increased by 22%. Are there any actions in the childcare strategy that seek to address that?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A number of causes have contributed to the rising cost of childcare, not least inflation. Those who provide childcare have to be able to provide their service. We have also had the increase in National Insurance contributions that the UK Government introduced. That has had an impact. Cost-of-living pressures are being felt not only by hard-working families but by the businesses that provide those services. That is why we are seeing the cost of childcare rise.

Had Stormont not been in place, had I not been in the role and had the Executive not been committed to addressing childcare, there would not be the 15% reduction. While childcare costs have undoubtedly gone up, the situation would be much worse had we not put in place the subsidy scheme that I developed. The childcare strategy seeks to increase the subsidy rate. I outlined that in my response to the original question when I said that, by 2032, we would be providing a significant contribution. That requires choices to be made by all of us about how we prioritise public expenditure. We should support hard-working families, and that is what I want to see.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Minister, what progress is being made on the 0-6 early years framework, which was a recommendation of the curriculum review?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The wider curriculum review is being taken forward through the processes that we have in place for those matters. The early learning and childcare strategy also focuses clearly on the early years. That is why we have been able to provide funding to early years organisations that provide support to people. That is really important. It has also included support for Sure Start for families who require additional resources to help them. We have put funding into Sure Start to stabilise and expand that organisation. Many aspects of early years require more support. We have made a good start, but there is much more to do. The ambition of the final strategy will be contained in that document when it is presented, but it will be subject to finance, and that is incredibly challenging, given the current context.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister's consultation recognised that, when support goes up through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, the fees can also go up. It has an inflationary impact. Are there any safeguards to prevent that from happening so that working parents get the full benefit of any increase in support?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Members have raised that point. The model in the Republic of Ireland has a fee-capping process in place. We have been looking at how that works in order to better understand it. That, too, however, has challenges and difficulties in how it operates. Using the Republic of Ireland's core funding model as a broad comparator, initial estimates suggest that a comparable approach, in having that very heavily regulated system in place, would cost approximately £150 million in the first year alone and up to £600 million over the following four years. To put that in context, it is significantly higher than the approximate £500 million that is currently estimated for the entire draft strategy over the same period, and we will be covering a much broader range of reforms beyond affordability.

The Member is right to raise the question, but there are trade-offs in whatever process you follow. We want to make sure that as much of the funding as possible goes directly to benefiting those hard-working families. We have asked for greater transparency in the fees being charged so that we have greater visibility. Through the collection of data, we now know how much is being charged by different settings, and all that can help the consumer — families — to make informed choices. Market forces can also help. A regulatory process has costs because of the administrative side of it, but we continue to look at that.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

The Minister touched on this, so it may be a little bit repetitive, but, specifically, rather than provision of a subsidy, has there been any assessment of direct fee-capping measures?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Eighty per cent of day care is provided through private provision, and there is currently no legislative framework for direct government control over childcare fees. Experience from other jurisdictions suggests that fee capping is typically supported through significant public investment, and then you get into contractual arrangements with the public sector. Any comparable approach in Northern Ireland would therefore require us to carefully consider not just the legislation that would be necessary but the operational and financial implications.

Faced with having to set up immediate support and get that to those hard-working families, we have gone down the route of providing the childcare subsidy fee. The uptake of that has been hugely successful. It has exceeded all the original estimates as to how many people would access it. My constituency of Lagan Valley is one of the highest recipients of the childcare subsidy scheme, and families often say to me that it makes an impact and ask when it is going to increase. Families are not asking me about a different way to regulate the industry; they are asking how we can increase the level of subsidy that they will benefit from. That is where our focus, in my view, ought to be.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

3. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister of Education to outline the plans in place to facilitate the appropriate placement of children in September 2027 transitioning from both Oakwood School and Assessment Centre sites. (AQO 4185/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department works closely with the Education Authority (EA) to plan and develop specialist educational provision across Northern Ireland in line with assessed need and demographic trends. The EA has advised that a dedicated working group has been established that brings together the relevant expertise and services to review the full range of options available for securing appropriate placement, through a clear and considered approach, for the pupils who are transitioning from Oakwood in September 2027. The group is working with the educational psychology service to ensure that the individual needs of each child are properly assessed and that the right support is identified and recommended. Building on that assessment, the EA will examine local special educational needs provision in detail, including the capacity available, to ascertain the most appropriate place to accommodate each pupil. Additionally, the working group is exploring options to secure whole-class provision to ease transition. The EA remains committed to securing the right outcomes for the pupils of Oakwood and will continue to work closely with the educational psychology service, the schools and families to ensure that there is a smooth and well-supported transition in September 2027.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his comments. With Oakwood children always transitioning in P4, it is a clear example of where early planning is essential to ensure appropriate placement. Minister, can you provide an assurance that Oakwood pupils will not be left again with no placement at the end of an academic year?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On the broader point, the Member is absolutely right about better planning and having much greater visibility of the number of children who will require their needs to be met, whether that is in special schools or through specialist provision or, indeed, in mainstream settings with enhanced support models being in place to help those children.

That has been a weakness in the education system, but there is now greater visibility. We mapped out all special schools on an estate plan to look at how we can increase the school estate and create space to accommodate more children. Every special school has identified capacity issues: 100% of our stand-alone special schools face real difficulties because of their capacity.

We need to have a planned programme of works not just for the school that the Member has referenced but for all schools. That is why I have a paper before the Executive seeking ring-fenced special education funding of £70 million a year that would be dedicated to implementing the 10-year investment plan that I have put in place. We know how to address the issue in the long term, and we need to align our financial resources to do that and to have much greater visibility of the number of children who require support so that they get the right placement at the right time.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

What support is available to mainstream schools to establish and operate specialist provision?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are a number of measures available for mainstream settings. I thank the schools that have come forward to open specialist provision in their facilities. That is important. I have always said that our young people with additional needs should have their needs met in their community. Where at all possible, they should not be separated from their siblings. We need more mainstream school settings to make provision available to those young people. That requires the Education Authority to provide support, which it does through the Specialist Provisions Service team, which can assist in professional learning opportunities and provide advice on the ground to support leaders, teachers and classroom assistants. That ensures a connected approach with the Education Authority to streamline support for settings. We also provide increased central financial support for teaching and non-teaching costs. Schools get an initial equipment budget of around £20,000 and £3,000 per class to purchase resources for any required set-up work.

A number of measures are provided by way of support. That is why principals are increasingly saying that they are getting better support. That gives confidence to other schools to come forward and assist us by making the provision more widely available.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

4. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Education, given that the project was not eligible for consideration for funding from the curriculum-led capital investment programme, to outline the funding mechanism identified to provide £30,000 to Richhill AFC. (AQO 4186/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

No funding was provided to Richhill Football Club for its synthetic football pitch by my Department or the Education Authority.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, Richard Pengelly confirmed that your Department explored the possibility of raiding local management of schools funding, which is intended for the day-to-day running of our schools, to help to fund the £30,000 football pitch. At a time when children are being told to wear extra layers to save money on school heating, how can you justify looking at our school budget to fund football clubs? What are your priorities?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member's party wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on the GAA, which would take money away from the education system. It is interesting that Sinn Féin does not want to support sports facilities. It had better let the GAA know that it no longer supports sports facilities.

I have answered the question that the Member posed. If Members want to take the matter seriously and responsibly, I will say this. I visit many schools, including Hardy Memorial in Richhill, whose principal rightly pointed out the lack of physical education facilities. I commend Richhill Football Club — a group of volunteers — for putting forward a proposal that was supported by the Department in England and for getting significant funding that it has made available to the wider Richhill community. We should pay tribute to Richhill Football Club for that example and thank it for the excellent work that it has done to make that provision available not just to Hardy Memorial but to other schools. Shared education takes place in those facilities. However, some Members again want to judge others on the basis of their own sectarian standards and to make false accusations.

I say this to Richhill Football Club: congratulations on the superb work that you have done and the facilities that you have provided. As Education Minister, I thank you for making those facilities available free of charge to schools in the vicinity.

It is notable that Sinn Féin no longer wants any public funding to go to sports organisations. The GAA will be delighted to hear that.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Minister, has your Department funded any other sports facilities that are not on school grounds?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is a very interesting question, and it is a question that I have already been asked. Pat Sheehan asked me that question. He asked the very same question as my colleague has just asked, and I provided the response. It is interesting that he is not concerned that "Yes" is the answer. Funding has been provided to a school to provide sporting facilities not on school grounds but on land owned by a local authority, and that school was Shimna Integrated College. It was £600,000 that was provided, yet there was not a word from Sinn Féin about that allocation of funding. Mr Bradley is right to raise that question, but it appears that certain sectors are immune from Sinn Féin's scrutiny while the controlled sector is very much always under its scrutiny.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Minister, whatever about the back and forth that has just happened, I am afraid that this is not the first time that you have conflated accountability and scrutiny with sectarianism, nor is it the first time that questions have been raised about the allocation of money to pitches or the first time that questions have been raised about record-keeping by civil servants in your Department. One need only think of the issue in relation to your visit to Israel and the occupied territories.

In the context of the records being apparently lost, with real concern about the way that money is being allocated, and in the context of you blocking your senior official from appearing at a scrutiny Committee, will you acknowledge that there are real concerns about your Department, its attitude to record-keeping and your attitude —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK, Mr O'Toole.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

— to legitimate scrutiny?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole, most of that does not apply to the original question. I will leave it to the Minister.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to respond, because the Member took me on a tour from Richhill to Jerusalem, where I visited an integrated school in east Jerusalem. Members can weigh the way that I acted very appropriately regarding that visit.

In response to Mr O'Toole, I say that no records were lost. Nothing has been lost. He has just said in this place that records have been lost, but that is not the case; indeed, all the record-keeping has been carried out appropriately and in accordance with Civil Service policies. The Chairman of the Finance Committee, which has responsibility for scrutiny of the Civil Service, should know that rather than making false allegations in the Chamber and not for the first time. There has been no misappropriation of funding in any respect with regard to that project or any other project that I have been involved in.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

5. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Education for an update on the anticipated timescale for completing roof repairs at Central Integrated Primary School, Carrickfergus. (AQO 4187/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I recognise the frustration and disruption experienced by parents, children and staff following the closure of Central Integrated Primary School and Greengables Preschool. However, the safety of pupils and staff must be a paramount consideration. The Education Authority has informed me that the structural engineers are continuing their detailed investigations at the school to determine the full extent of the structural works required. Until those investigations are complete, the Education Authority is unable to clarify the extent of the remedial works required or the timescales associated with the works. The Education Authority's maintenance service will continue to engage closely with the school authority and will keep it updated on progress. While the investigations and the subsequent remedial works are ongoing, I am grateful to Victoria Primary School and Ballycarry Primary School for making their premises available to ensure that pupils' learning is not adversely impacted on.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, thank you for your answer. I recognise your acknowledgement of the distress and disturbance that has been caused to the school since the beginning of the autumn term, when children returned to school. You must appreciate that a split site between Victoria and Ballycarry, requiring a bus journey to Ballycarry, is distressing to parents and disrupting to children. I appreciate that work has to be done to repair the roof of the school, but we really need a clear timeline for that work to be done. It seems that a lot of time has been spent in getting contractors available to do the work. When can we get a proper timeline for the work to be done?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for making representations on behalf of the school. He has raised the matter with me, as have other colleagues. This is far from the optimal way in which to deal with things. In fact, the preferred way would be to have a planned maintenance programme that identifies works required and carries out routine maintenance rather than what is happening currently, whereby we have to operate on the basis of health and safety assessments in order to keep schools open and safe. That would have been a more effective way and would have prevented the situation in the first place. We are where we are, however, and we are working with the school to move the work forward at pace. The Education Authority is very much engaged in that process. I hear what the Member says about the timeline and the process, and I undertake to look into those specific issues and reply to him in writing.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Has the Minister secured Executive funding for the SEN capital investment programme?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In short, no. Sinn Féin continues to block the paper that I submitted back in September 2025. I engaged with the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, and we worked through the issues in order to identify a way forward, but the party that claims to support and defend children with special educational needs is doing everything that it can to block funding that would support them.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

6. Ms Ennis asked the Minister of Education to outline any safeguards in place to ensure that health and safety grounds are not misused to prioritise minor works projects that would otherwise rank significantly lower on his Department's funding priorities. (AQO 4188/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Significant financial pressures in recent years have meant that the capital minor works budget has been prioritised towards progressing applications that address statutory obligations and mitigate significant health and safety risks to ensure that schools remain open and pupils are safe. The progression of a minor works project to delivery requires an evidence-based assessment of need that could include a structural survey, a health and safety report, an occupational therapist's report or an accommodation analysis, for example.

When the unavoidable need has been confirmed, the project progresses to a technical feasibility study and then to a proportionate business case. The business case will again test the need for work to be completed, as well as providing a value-for-money assessment of the preferred option. Projects will progress to detailed design and planning following approval of the business case. Before a project is approved to go to tender, officials will undertake a further assessment to ensure that the project is affordable within the available budget and that there is a continued need for the work.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, some highly questionable decisions have been justified on health and safety grounds. DUP pet projects such as football pitches and other sports facilities have been prioritised ahead of genuine health and safety needs, including leaking roofs, broken windows and damp. In the interests of transparency, will you publish a full breakdown of the projects on the original 2017 minor works priority list that have been delivered, the projects that remain outstanding and the projects that have been funded outside that list?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On numerous occasions when I have visited schools, the Member's party has asked me to fund projects that, given the issues that she has just raised, one could determine to be highly dubious and questionable. I support the right of every elected representative to champion causes in their constituency and to make the case for them. I can say to the Member that, if the detail on minor works schemes is not available, a huge amount of information has, I believe, been placed in the Assembly Library on all the programmes of work. Indeed, I encourage her to speak to Mr Sheehan, because he has tabled numerous questions for written answer on those very issues, all of which, I trust, have been answered.

If there are specific questions that Members wish to raise instead of making spurious accusations and allegations without any evidence to sustain them, let them do so. I will be able to answer them, just as I am always able to answer any question from Sinn Féin.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for what he is trying to do for our schools. A vast number of schools need support, and I know that the Minister is trying to do the best that he can with the budget that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has provided him with. How are minor works prioritised across the school estate?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member is absolutely right. The irony will not be lost on the public that the party that is responsible for allocating finance is Sinn Féin. The needs of our school estate across every sector that require finance could be resolved if Sinn Féin were to provide more funding to my Department to do so. It would rather take the approach of having a go. That is common practice.

On the question about how minor works are prioritised, due to current capital budget constraints, the minor works budget is directed largely towards keeping schools open and pupils safe. Therefore, statutory requirements and health and safety issues receive priority. Projects are progressed on an evidence-based assessment of need. Whilst projects that meet those inescapable requirements are prioritised for delivery, timescales for the works will vary depending on issues such as the need for planning approval and the logistics of delivering a project on a live school site. Minor works projects are initiated almost daily to address inescapable concerns. The minor works programme, therefore, needs to include a degree of flexibility to be able to respond to emerging priorities.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will move to topical questions.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

T1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education, having referred to the advocate Katie Watson, who speaks so proudly about her work on premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and who has said that girls across Northern Ireland, including her, have been let down when it comes to education on polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, perimenopause and other women's health issues, whether, given that the curriculum review is an opportunity for change, he will make a clear commitment that every child in every school will learn about women's health. (AQT 2761/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that the Member sent me a question for written answer on something similar, and I provided a response to that. The curriculum was out for consultation, and that has concluded. Areas that the Member highlighted are in the curriculum framework. If there are specific areas on which she wants to respond, she can still do so. Departmental officials are going through the more than 4,000 responses, which is one of the most significant responses to a consultation, and they will review and refine those responses before a final curriculum is presented and taken forward.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Minister. Will you make a clear commitment on those issues, particularly regarding additional teacher training on women's health so that every teacher feels comfortable in delivering that area of the curriculum? Will you also make a commitment to engage with your officials to ensure that boys get to learn about women's health so that the next generation of fathers, employers and sons help to beat the stigma that is out there about being a woman and having a menstrual cycle?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Those are hugely important issues. We touched on some of them in response to the Committee's report on relationships and sexuality education. The personal, social, civic and careers area of the new curriculum will address some of those matters. Those issues will be addressed in our schools. However, if, when I am invited to give a commitment and guarantee, as the Minister, that they will be addressed, I did so, that would be to say that I, as the Education Minister, will direct what goes into the curriculum and what gets taught in our schools. I have been very careful to make sure that the process of reforming our entire curriculum has been led by the teaching professions, selected from across Northern Ireland. It is their curriculum, which they have developed. The Minister of Education, and any future Ministers of Education, ought to resist the temptation to dictate what should be taught in our schools. A Minister of Education should set up a process and framework to allow teaching professionals to identify what should be included and how they teach it. I am seeking to enable that process.

Those are important issues, it is important that they are addressed, and they are being taken forward through the framework that we have identified as part of the TransformED curriculum review.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

T2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Education to provide more detail on the curriculum consultation. (AQT 2762/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The curriculum went out to consultation. There were over 4,000 responses, and they show significant support for what we are trying to do. I thank all the teachers, school leaders and children and young people who took the time to respond. Overall, the findings demonstrate that there is broad support for the strategic direction of curriculum 2028 — for the ambition to deliver a clearer, more coherent and progressive curriculum for all our learners. The Chairman of the Committee highlighted responses on specific areas and subject matters, and we are reviewing those. Officials are working through all that, and I trust that Members will see that work reflected in the final curriculum that comes forward. This is a huge opportunity for us, and it is one that I trust Members will grasp.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer and his response on issues that some of the respondents may have raised. Will he outline the next steps and a timeline for them?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes. Thank you for the question. The consultation findings have provided a strong evidence base for the next phase of curriculum development. Our immediate priority is to refine the curriculum frameworks in light of the feedback received, drawing on further engagement with teachers, school leaders and subject specialists, including practitioner focus groups.

The clear message from respondents was that successful reform will depend not only on the curriculum itself but on the support provided to schools during its implementation. In response, my Department is developing a comprehensive implementation plan focused on how we manage workload; providing high-quality guidance and resources; supporting teacher professional learning; and strengthening curriculum leadership in schools. We will take a phased approach to implementation, including piloting and early adoption activity, to ensure that schools are fully prepared and to inform further refinement.

All the work on curriculum must closely align with the reforms that we are taking forward in assessment and qualifications and must be supported through ongoing investment in teacher professional learning. We will continue to work closely with teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders as we progress that work. Subject to completion of the final phase of development, I expect to publish the final 2028 curriculum framework in January 2027.

My focus will remain on ensuring that every child and young person will benefit from a high-quality, ambitious and relevant curriculum that equips them with the knowledge, skills and capabilities that they need in order to thrive.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 3 and 4 have been withdrawn.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T5. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Education, following the recent bomb threats against hundreds of schools, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that a clear and consistent approach will be taken should such an incident reoccur. (AQT 2765/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We know that the threat, which was signed off with "Allahu Akbar" and threatened to put in place sharia law in Northern Ireland, originated from outside the United Kingdom. It caused alarm to the recipients of the correspondence, however, and a number of schools took steps to close; others were able to engage and get advice on the matter.

The Member is right to raise consistency of approach. The Education Authority (EA) has outlined how it dealt with the issues, but I have commissioned a lessons-learned review so that, as always, we look at how things were handled. Where improvements can be made, they should be made.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. The recent threats caused widespread disruption and confusion. Some schools stayed open; some closed. Parents, pupils and staff were frightened and confused. Minister, when that happens to hundreds of schools, surely there should be a coordinated approach. When will clear protocols be in place so that schools will know what to do should it happen again?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is a coordinated approach. When the communication was shared with the Education Authority, it was escalated to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The PSNI had to go through its process in order to declare the threat a hoax. It was not only a matter of the Education Authority then being able to provide advice — it had been engaging in a multi-agency approach — but it was only when the PSNI had provided the assurance that it was a hoax that the Education Authority was able to provide more definitive advice to the schools.

Undoubtedly, the incident was disruptive. I understand why some school principals felt the need to escalate their response and close their school. Given the circumstances and the engagement on the matter, there are lessons to be learned. With hindsight, however, we can always take the view that something should have been carried out differently. Ultimately, we have to allow those who are professionally tasked with making determinations to do so, and we had to wait for the PSNI to carry out its processes before the EA could provide final advice.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

T6. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister of Education, after noting that 60% of respondents to the curriculum review consultation expressed a negative view of the proposed history content, with only 14·5% expressing a positive view of it, what his next steps will be and what major changes will be made to reassure teachers. (AQT 2766/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

This is where we can pull out individual subjects, and the Member has pulled out one of them. What I can say to the Member is that that area will be reviewed by officials. Given that the process is being led by teaching professionals through the subject working groups, I anticipate that they will be engaged and will look at the feedback from the consultation exercise. I anticipate that that will be the case across all the subjects that have been consulted on. We take the feedback.

The level of response to the consultation — this should provide some assurance to Members — was one of the most significant of any consultation that the Department has carried out. We engaged with the teaching profession. We had dedicated days, which I know some have been critical of, to facilitate schoolteachers coming together to look at the relevant subject area and provide responses. All of that is shaping the curriculum. There will be a process of consideration that will lead, undoubtedly, to changes to and refinement of the curriculum that was published. As I outlined, I anticipate that we will come forward in January next year with a final curriculum that I believe will reflect broadly what the teaching profession wants.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, it is really important to have the confidence of teachers, because they are the ones who will be implementing the changes. Who will take forward the review that you mentioned?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

From the start, we have been very careful to enable and empower the subject working groups and the teachers who were selected. There was an overarching framework that involved school principals. I have outlined the various measures that are in place where we have practitioners engaged. This is a Northern Ireland curriculum made by those who are involved in education in Northern Ireland. The process of responding to the consultation and providing the final curriculum will be carried through the existing processes.

I assure the Member that some school leaders, not just in his constituency but in other constituencies, will be fully engaged across every subject area. Members should have confidence in their ability to make sure that we come forward with a curriculum that is worthy of support. As I said yesterday, the current curriculum is 20 years old. It is vague. The independent review of education found that it was failing the most disadvantaged in our society. If the Member is a believer in helping the most disadvantaged, as I am, we need to make sure that they have a curriculum that is accessible and that empowers them with the knowledge and skills required to advance in life. That is what we all should want. I believe that that is what the Member wants. The new curriculum will give us the opportunity to do that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T7. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister of Education, in light of the fact that the Education Authority (EA) has advised children to wear extra layers in school to keep warm during the cold weather, why he encouraged some schools to spend thousands of pounds on phone pouches and made that a priority. (AQT 2767/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am aware of the Education Authority's advice. I believe that there was a link to an existing document on a website. The EA was signposting schools to that. I say to the Member that Sinn Féin is the political party with the largest number of representatives on the Education Authority board. The board is made up of political representatives. If there is a concern about Education Authority advice, that advice will go to the board, on which all political parties have representation. I can provide the contact details for all your Sinn Féin members, if you are not able to speak to them, and they will be able to advise you on how those things can be corrected.

She makes a serious point, however, about the lack of financial resources for our schools and their needs. I support the Member's point about the need for more financial support. That is why we are actively engaged. It is why we will again meet the Secretary of State this Thursday for party political talks, and it is why the Executive met this morning. We are fighting to get the financial resources that we need to provide more support to public services, including schools.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for partially answering the question. On this occasion, he did not blame the Finance Minister for not giving him money; he laid the blame at the door of the British Government.

Minister, you have set your face against holiday hunger. Kids are being asked to layer up in the winter when money has been spent on what could be seen as less important projects. Seriously, Minister: is that your priority?

Vulnerable children need to be warm and fed. Phone pouches are low in the list of things that are important going into the winter.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Again, let me set out the context. There was £200,000 of capital expenditure to enable schools to pilot test the mobile phone pouches, and over 50 schools wanted to be part of that. The schools that were selected included controlled schools, integrated schools, Catholic maintained schools and voluntary schools. The pilot was set up in response to what school leaders were asking for, which was a more effective way of managing what is a harmful interruption — we all agree on that — to, amongst other things, school life. Social media and iPhones are hugely damaging; they are damaging in our school settings. School leaders were asking, "How can you be more effective in supporting us to address these challenges?" I was responding to the need that they were presenting.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

The Final Stage of the holiday hunger Bill is next week. The issue with that is nothing to do with wanting to stop children being fed. The Member who proposed the private Member's Bill could not show that that is what the Bill would be used for. There was no guarantee that funding would be used for that purpose. It is, in effect, a welfare payment. If we wanted to provide funding to increase welfare support, why would we take funding away from the classroom to do that? That is the problem with the private Member's Bill: it does not provide any new money; it takes money off other existing educational services. I acknowledge the need to provide more support for our children and young people, but it should not be to the detriment of the Education budget, and that is what the private Member's Bill does.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, that concludes Question Time. Take your ease while we change the top Table.

Private Members' Business

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes the removal of foreign national offenders can reduce pressure on the local prison estate and ensure that public money is not unnecessarily spent on individuals who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom; further believes that the current operation of the early removal scheme does not sufficiently prioritise the public interest in that participation is voluntary and only permits removal up to a maximum of 135 days before a determinate custodial sentence expires; expresses concern at the unwillingness of the Minister of Justice to countenance strengthening the scheme despite having the requisite powers to do so; stresses that the current number of applications under the existing arrangements should prompt the Minister to examine how the scheme can be made more effective, rather than constitute a reason for retaining the status quo; calls on the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Home Office, to bring forward legislation to make early removal compulsory for fixed-term foreign prisoners; and further calls on the Minister to reconsider her rejection of proposals to allow these offenders to be removed at a substantially earlier point in their custodial sentence.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Wilson, please open the debate on the motion.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The following are not my words, nor are they words from a DUP or Reform manifesto; rather they are the words of the then Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood:

"Our message is clear: if you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing."

The quote is taken from the UK Government's press release in August 2025. It announced that changes would allow foreign prisoners to be deported after serving 30% of their sentence. It also introduced new powers for immediate deportation from prison and barring offenders from re-entering the UK.

I have quoted the press release for two reasons: first, to highlight the disparity with the systems for removal in England, and, secondly, to rubbish from the outset of the debate the idea that the motion is motivated by so-called far-right political views. The motion is about criminals and common sense. It is common sense that, if someone comes to this country and subsequently flouts our laws and ends up in prison, they should lose the privilege of residing in this country. That is a reasonable position to hold, and it should not be a controversial opinion. It is one that is clearly recognised by the left-wing Labour Government. If we look at other modern Western countries, such as Australia and America, we can see that they will often not even admit someone with a criminal record. Therefore, the debate is about whether the current arrangements in Northern Ireland are fit for purpose and whether there is a public interest in making them more effective.

Over recent months, I have undertaken a detailed examination of the operation of the early removal scheme through a series of questions for written and oral answer, and that work has revealed a number of concerning facts. The Department of Justice confirmed that 765 prisoners may have met the eligibility criteria for removal under section 55 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, yet the figures supplied by the Department show that only 77 prisoners were actually removed under the scheme between 2016 and the date of the answer that I received. The Justice Minister recently disclosed that there are 249 foreign national prisoners in the prison estate, with 45 currently eligible for consideration under the scheme, yet only 16 had applied, which means that the majority of those currently eligible are not even engaging in the process. That simply does not demonstrate that the scheme is working effectively; it demonstrates precisely why the current arrangements require review. Indeed, one of the most puzzling aspects of the Minister's position is that she has used the relatively low number of applicants and eligible prisoners as justification for not pursuing reform, but that logic simply does not stand up.

If relatively few prisoners are currently progressing through the scheme, surely the appropriate response is to ask whether the scheme contains barriers that prevent greater participation and effectiveness. We should ensure that the scheme works to its maximum potential for a variety of reasons, some of which I outlined at the beginning of my contribution. However, it is important that we reflect on the current pressures on our prison service. In September, I asked the Minister via a question for written answer to detail the current and maximum occupation of each prison site. Her response stated that the maximum operational capacity for Maghaberry prison was 1,554 and that the current population at that time was 1,552, which is just two below the total capacity. I am aware that arrangements could be made to increase capacity, but that is through less-than-ideal measures that risk prisoner and prison staff safety.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Of course, that also relays that accommodation will be used on that prison site that is not fit for purpose, suitable or what would be expected from a modern prison.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his contribution, and it is one that I agree with.

As of 1 September, 52·6% of the prison population was made up of those being held on remand. We clearly have a prison system that is under severe strain. It seems to me that the Justice Minister should embrace any opportunity to reduce the prison population. Instead, the response from the Minister has largely been one of complacency.

One of the fundamental weaknesses of the current scheme is that it is voluntary. Section 55 requires the prisoner's agreement before removal can take place. In practice, participation depends on an individual's choosing to engage with a process that may ultimately result in their removal from the United Kingdom. The ordinary man or woman on the street would find it quite incredible that someone who has been convicted of a crime can simply opt out of the process and continue to be held in one of our prisons at, let us face it, everyone's expense.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I will.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I presume that the Member is also aware that it is not a prisoner transfer scheme, nor is it a repatriation scheme. Under the early removal scheme, an individual simply has the right to apply to be released early from prison if they agree to be repatriated. Has the Member considered the impact on victims who could find foreign nationals who committed offences against them being released earlier than a local person who committed the same offence, with no further sentence to serve?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have indeed considered that. I have also considered the fact that Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

The absurdity of the current position was taken to new levels by the Minister's response to my question about the scheme during a previous Question Time. The Minister outlined a number of reasons why a foreign offender may choose to opt out of the scheme, one of which is that the prisoner may wish to pursue an asylum claim. To me, that exemplifies just how much of a soft touch the system has been allowed to become. I am shocked that the Minister was able to say that with a straight face. The idea that an individual who has come to this country and broken our laws can continue to be held at taxpayers' expense because they wish to pursue an asylum claim should be anathema to any right-thinking person.

The Minister has said that there is no compelling case for reviewing the system. That could not be further from the truth. The pressures on our prisons, the tougher rules in other parts of the UK and the fundamental injustice of foreign prisoners simply being allowed to opt out of deportation are just some of the reasons why the system needs to be reviewed urgently. The direction of travel elsewhere in the United Kingdom could not be clearer. England and Wales has repeatedly expanded its early removal scheme. The removal window was increased from 135 days to 270 days, then to 12 months, then to 18 months and then for up to four years in certain cases. The UK Government have described the removal of foreign national offenders as a cross-government priority, yet, here in Northern Ireland, we are being told that there is no compelling case even to review the 135-day limit.

If Members look at the research pack, they will note that, as early as 2012, Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) staff stated that the day limit could be adjusted. The Department has massively dropped the ball by not reviewing that. The motion therefore asks the Assembly to recognise the public interest in having a more effective scheme, to acknowledge the pressures facing our prison estate and to support further action aimed at ensuring that, where foreign national offenders can lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom, every reasonable effort is made to facilitate that outcome. I commend the motion to the House.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you. I call Emma Sheerin to move the amendment.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You need to move it.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Tá brón orm. Molaim an rún

[Translation: I am sorry. I beg to move]

the following amendment:

Leave out all after "status quo;" and insert: "notes that the powers to remove individuals from this jurisdiction are reserved to the British Government; and calls on the Minister of Justice to carry out a review of the early removal scheme and consider options to ensure that it is effective."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you. The Member has 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

This afternoon's debate is on a pretty nuanced topic. To be honest, when I first saw the detail of the motion, I was perplexed about what it involved and therefore had to do a bit of research on the early removal scheme. We then tabled the amendment to try to ensure that there is the most efficient use of resources that there can be and to encourage consideration that leads to meaningful, positive change.

As others will be aware, the scheme affects only a small proportion of prisoners in the North. As the Minister set out, a very small number of people are eligible for the scheme, both as it is for us in the North and as it is in England and Wales.

Currently, only 249 prisoners in the North of Ireland are foreign nationals. Of that number, nearly 190 are on remand. Therefore, the scheme, even as it is in England and Wales, would not apply to those people.

It is a nuanced conversation.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way.

The proposer alleged that we are falling behind England and Wales. Is the Member aware that, in England and Wales, they also release convicted people from prison to make space for other prisoners, which we have opted not to do? The four-year removal window has been mentioned. In that case, somebody will, essentially, get four years lifted from the sentence that is given to them in court. Deportation will not be optional at the end of the sentence, but they will spend four years fewer in prison than their counterparts in GB.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for that intervention. You have raised an important point. We are having conversations in the Justice Committee about the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, and the feedback that we are getting from victims and witnesses of crime, and those who represent victims of crime, is, very clearly, that they have concerns around sentencing levels in the North and their understanding of how and why sentences are handed down. There is an argument or debate to be had around the importance of a particular sentence in preventing further harm and further crime, and how integral that is in the decision-making process.

The point that I was trying to make was that it is standard practice in many jurisdictions across the world that, if someone is convicted of a crime, they may have their citizenship or some of the rights that they have enjoyed as a visitor to that country revoked. That is often considered reasonable. From a compassionate perspective, there are lots of instances where somebody gets themselves into, or gets involved in, a situation in another country and wants to be at home. The fact that it is currently a voluntary scheme points to the fact that, often, people want to leave the country where they committed a crime and to be at home.

That is why my party has called for the review; there is a balance to be struck here. You are talking about a tiny proportion of people. It is also very important to remember that, obviously, the Home Office decides who is deported from the North of Ireland. Immigration is a reserved matter: the British Government have oversight and control of that. Therefore, the changes that can be made locally by the Minister and Department of Justice are very limited when it comes to implementation of the scheme.

We have asked for a review to ensure that the scheme is effective and that any changes that are required to ensure that it works more smoothly can be made.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

The text of the motion begins with a recognition that there is currently incredible pressure on our prison infrastructure. Following in that vein, our ability to keep pace with public appetite for custodial sentences with safe and rights-compliant prison spaces is waning.

Before I get into the rest of the contents of the motion, I want to be clear that this is an issue that everyone across the Chamber should be concerned about and work together on. On one side, we must work together for a better financial settlement to invest in our justice infrastructure, including capital expansion. On the other side, we must ensure the most effective use of our current prison estate.

In preparation for the debate, I, like, I am sure, many Members, went back over the weekly situation report that is helpfully provided by the Northern Ireland Prison Service. As of last Friday, 30 October 2026, our total prison population sits at 2,283. Take away the abstract and look at what that actually means. There are 1,584 prisoners in Maghaberry. In September, the Justice Minister confirmed that the operational capacity at Maghaberry is 1,554 prisoners. That means that we are already approximately 30 prisoners over capacity in that one prison, and there is a potential for that to snowball.

Also, to be clear, the early removal scheme for foreign national offenders does not relocate prisoners to serve their custodial sentences abroad. It is, effectively, release. Whilst the original motion puts across the fact that the current scheme does not sufficiently prioritise public interest due to its 130-day time limitation, I disagree. At this stage, there is no credible evidence that the public, including victims and victims' families who were promised justice and accountability, support earlier release, even if it is to a different nation. Alliance would not feel comfortable supporting a commitment to expansion where there has been little to no policy consultation with those groups.

More than that, as mentioned by the previous Member to speak, immigration, including deportation, is a reserved matter for the Home Office, as the amendment provided recognises. The Home Office is notified of all foreign national offenders who receive a custodial sentence within 10 days of sentencing. Following that notification, responsibility for determining deportation or assessing immigration status rests with the Home Office. It is up to the Home Office to confirm whether any applications to the early removal scheme are viable.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I will, yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Wilson also poured scorn on the idea that an individual who is in the prison system might have the right to apply for asylum. Does the Member acknowledge that the right to seek asylum is also governed by Home Office rules and has nothing to do with the Department of Justice, but nevertheless, the Department is bound by those rules?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I absolutely agree, and it is something that we really need to make clear in the debate: asylum applications, the early release scheme and deportations are matters for the Home Office. All that being said, we must do everything within our devolved competency to alleviate pressures on the prison estate, so keeping schemes such as the early removal scheme of foreign nationals under review should be standard practice.

There are also other elements to consider, such as how there are over 1,000 prison inmates in Northern Ireland who have not yet been sentenced but remain in custody on remand. Having remand as an available option is essential for public protection, but I know that the Department has led a working group to develop a programme of actions to address remand levels, including a review of remand cases, the expansion of electronic monitoring and consideration of legislative changes. I am conscious that the Criminal Justice Board has also established a task and finish group to identify any further measures that could lower remand levels across our prison population. The proposals coming from those forums deserve just consideration with regard to the concern posed by the motion. We should all take most heed of how we alleviate that pressure on the prison estate and ensure that there is no overcrowding and that we have safe and rights-compliant custodial facilities.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank colleagues in the DUP for tabling the motion. It brings into the spotlight an issue that merits discussion and is certainly in the public interest.

Public confidence in the justice system is stretched. The justice system is seen as being slow, soft and, too often, focused on the needs of the perpetrator over the needs of the victim. There are significant pressures on capacity right across the Northern Ireland prison estate. One of the reasons for that is the length of time that trials take in Northern Ireland: you have a significant number of prisoners on remand because the justice system is far too slow. We would also have easy ways to free up prison capacity if we did not have the segregated schemes that still exist for loyalist paramilitaries and republican paramilitaries. There are free cells in the Northern Ireland prison estate.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will give way to the Minister.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member would also acknowledge that the issue around separation and who is committed to the separated regime rests with the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State, not with the Northern Ireland Prison Service or with me, as Minister of Justice. However, we are required to house people in those separated regimes.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes, but I am giving you a view on what could alleviate the pressure. There is special treatment for dissident republicans and loyalist paramilitaries that is not extended to those who used to be called "ordinary, decent criminals" — of course, they are far from decent. Why is it that someone who commits murder or any other violent offence or a firearms offence is in the normal prison population, but still, in 2026, we have segregated prison populations for loyalist and republican prisoners? There are spare, unoccupied cells in Roe House and Bush House. That is a scandal in 2026. Judges do not admit to this, but I know that the inexplicable bail decisions that are being made day in, day out in our courts are often because there is simply not enough room in our prisons, though that reason is often not given. And yet we indulge —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will in one second. However, we indulge loyalist and republican prisoners with their segregated wings. I give way to Ms Long.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In deciding between bail and remand, no consideration is given to the capacity in prisons. Indeed, I argue that more people are being committed on remand because of the lack of proper social housing, the lack of a safe bail address and the need to fill the gaps that are left by the health service, which is drastically failing those with mental health and addiction issues. People are being committed to prison on remand in larger numbers than ever before, simply because they cannot seek those services anywhere else.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

It is never the Minister's responsibility, even when it is her Department: the Minister for operational independence. It is my view, and I am entitled to give it, that whilst judges do not list the lack of prison capacity as a reason, I believe that, at times, it is a factor in their minds when bail is granted.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is not.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Well, I believe that it is.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Can we go back to the motion —

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

— which is on the early removal scheme —.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I support the motion —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Burrows, can we return to the motion, which is on the early removal scheme for foreign national offenders?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes. I was just addressing some of the wider pressures on capacity.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have given you some latitude, but you have taken the mickey with

[Inaudible.]

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I support the "strengthening" of the early removal scheme. The reality is that, if it were made compulsory or more robust, more people would leave our cells and go back to the country that —. They have no right to be in this country, and they have been properly convicted. That would create capacity for the people who should be in our cells: those who are a risk to our citizens, particularly when it comes to violence against women and girls and all sorts of things.

Ms Egan, I think, said that it would be an anathema to justice to let those people out early and go back home, but is it really? We have to wonder why so many of them decline the option to go back home. They prefer to stay in a prison cell in Northern Ireland, rather than go back home to the country that they legally should be in.

I support the motion. I will make this brief. We need to have common sense. Someone who has no right to be in this country and who faces deportation after they finish their prison sentence should be swiftly deported in order to create prison capacity —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

No, I have given way enough.

They should leave the country swiftly, so that we can create the prison cell capacity that we need for those who inflict crimes against the people of Northern Ireland. I make no apology for repeating this: it is 2026, yet we still give special treatment in our prisons to those who call themselves "paramilitaries". That is part of the problem, and it needs to be part of the solution.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. For clarity, I will not speak as a mind reader of judges, psychologists or anyone like that; I will just speak to the motion. The SDLP pays tribute to the professionalism and commitment of the prison staff. I wish for the Minister to pass that along, please. They continue their vital work every day to maintain safe and secure prisons in difficult circumstances.

The SDLP is not opposed to a review of the early removal scheme "to ensure that it is effective", and we support the amendment, which calls on the Minister to do such a review, but we are also mindful that immigration policy and the power to remove individuals from this jurisdiction remain matters reserved solely for the British Government. However, we have concerns about the motion. It implies that the acute pressures faced by the prison estate are due to the number of foreign national prisoners who are held there.

It also suggests that those pressures can be relieved by making early removal compulsory for fixed-term foreign prisoners, which, as the Minister clearly outlined, would mean early releases back into the community.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. The scale of the problem is one of the issues. It was mentioned earlier that the removal window in England and Wales has moved to four years, such is the overcrowding in the prisons there. England and Wales operate a prison estate with over 10,000 foreign national prisoners — 10,000 — compared with the cohort that we are dealing with.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

That is something else.

I will get back to the motion: the figures do not support the argument for making early removal compulsory. The Minister clearly outlined the problems with the concept of compulsory early removal for fixed-term foreign prisoners, and the figures do not support the argument for it.

The pressure on the prison estate is due primarily to the increase in the overall number of prisoners being held, and the vast majority of those prisoners are British, Irish or both. The latest reported figures on the prison population, which may have been subject to amendment in recent days, show that there are currently 2,304 prisoners held across Maghaberry, Hydebank Wood and Magilligan. That is an increase of 150 in the past year and is over 750 more than the 1,552 prisoners being held in 2022: a 50% increase in five years. I would say that that is probably down to what the judges think too.

Over the past year, the proportion of prisoners who were being held on remand or awaiting trial was consistently over 40%, and it was over 50% in September. In September, more than 700 prisoners at Maghaberry were sharing cells. To help to address those pressures, the Prison Service has had to bring back into service accommodation that had been earmarked for closure.

I picked up from Connie that the number of prisoners currently being held is 2,383. The figures that I have been given show that around 249 individuals have been identified as foreign nationals. That includes prisoners held on remand, who are by far the largest group, and 16 individuals who were being detained pending a deportation decision or removal on the authority of the British Government after completing their sentences. According to the Justice Minister, of the 70 prisoners who are serving custodial sentences, only 45 determinate-sentence prisoners would be eligible for the early removal scheme here or in Britain. If the Members who tabled the motion are serious about reducing pressures on the local prison estate, they need to stop listening and pandering to right-wing extremists. Attempting to blame foreign national prisoners for those pressures may temporarily deflect attention from some internal party strife, but that is a different story altogether.

As I understand it, the Justice Minister has submitted a draft paper — she may be able to update the Assembly — on the prison population pressures to the Executive for discussion. Of course, Executive parties are speaking to this motion, so it may be helpful to hear whether they are prepared to commit their support to whatever measures there are to alleviate those pressures. The high level of prisoners on remand or serving short sentences is among the identified drivers of increases in the prison population. Addressing those drivers is the way to relieve the pressure on the estate. Agreeing a Budget at the Executive and committing multiyear funding to deliver emergency prison accommodation are measures that would also have an impact.

The solution to the problem in our prisons lies in the hands of the Executive of which the parties opposite remain members, at least until the May election. In the meantime, we support the call for a review of the early removal scheme to ensure that it is effective.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank my colleague Gareth Wilson for proposing the motion. It is but another symptom of a country that has been destroyed by a weak immigration system. The immigration system is broken, and I make no apology for saying that.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will come back to the Member in a moment.

I make no apology for saying that, because the symptoms are clear. I am not surprised to see yet again the weak, open-border brigade of the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance coming straight —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has already been established that immigration is not within the purview of the Assembly and is a matter for Westminster. Is it in order for the Member to suggest that anything that any of the parties sitting in the Chamber have done has affected the immigration policy of the UK Government?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

There can be an enquiry about whether that is a point of order and about that substantive issue. However, I was giving some latitude to set context, and I am sure that Mr Buckley is aware of the wording of the motion and will address that.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Again, more deflection from the Justice Minister. She does not want to talk about the facts. Her party continues to be weak on law and order and on open borders.

The motion goes to one of the symptoms. The Sinn Féin Member talked about it being quite a nuanced debate — a small number of foreign national prisoners who, my party says, should be deported. They come to this country to abuse our laws, and, therefore, they should not have the right to stay in this country. That is basic common sense. However, I am told that it is nuanced because there are only 249 foreign prisoners in our estate.

Let us look at the facts: if it is only nuance, what does it cost? For the average prisoner housed in this country it costs £57,180 a year. If you apply that to the 249 prisoners, Minister — the people whom you want to ignore because this is only a nuanced subject — the cost is over £14 million a year, so it is not a nuanced debate. It is important that we set the context.