Caoimhe Archibald
East Londonderry · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“Taken together, that points to a scheme that is operating effectively in its early stages, while, of course, remaining under review as further evidence becomes available. <BR /> <BR />I therefore commend to the Assembly the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (Employment and Earnings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026.”
“I seek the Assembly's approval for the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (Employment and Earnings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The statutory rule was made on 1 April and came into operation on 6 April. It is before the Assembly today under the confirmatory procedure.”
“The 2026 regulatory impact assessment estimates one-off employer familiarisation costs of up to £1·36 million, with wider HMRC implementation costs forecast at £1·5 million and annual systems maintenance costs of around £10,000. It may assist Members to note that early implementation has gone smoothly.”
“The amendment ensures the continued operation of those regulations and forms part of a wider package of legislative measures establishing statutory parental bereavement pay as an entitlement for bereaved parents.”
“The regulations before the Assembly today are a key part of that implementation and ensure the continued operation of the statutory parental bereavement pay framework. The policy objective is clear: to support bereaved working parents at a time of profound loss and provide a minimum standard of protection in law.”
“<BR /> <BR />The confirmatory procedure means that the regulations before the House today have come into operation before the Assembly debate has taken place and must then be approved by the Assembly within the relevant statutory period. In this case, the deadline for approval is 20 September 2026.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,774 lines we hold for Caoimhe Archibald, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 31 of 76.
“Its willingness to work with officials and politicians to find ways forward has been admirable. We need to record our gratitude for that willingness to work to find solutions. That does not mean that there are not challenges or that there will not be in the future, but the arrangements that are in place are better than the alternative of a land border and having checks on this island. That would have had a catastrophic impact on our integrated supply chains, not to mention our integrated economies and communities.”
“Speaking of trade, the impact of Brexit on trade has been nothing but negative. This year, up until June 2024, England, Scotland and Wales all experienced a decrease in the value of their exports. The North, however, where the protocol applies, experienced an increase in exports. Businesses here have applied creativity and innovation and have been stretched to achieve what, at times, seemed impossible. The outworkings of the implementation of the protocol have resulted in significant increases in all-island trade. Trade North to South and South to North has increased by billions over the past five years. The all-island economy is going from strength to strength, and that has continued over the first seven months of 2024. <BR /> <BR />It is, of course, important to acknowledge the resilience of our business community.”
“As Matthew said, we have had some protections as a result of the protocol.”
“Those were painstakingly negotiated over four years in the face of ardent Brexiteers in England who cared, and care, nothing for our people or our place. The result was the protocol and, ultimately, the Windsor framework. <BR /> <BR />It is worth reminding ourselves, as Mr Aiken did, that the democratic consent mechanism that we are debating applies only to articles 5 to 10 — the bit that refers mostly to trade — and has no impact on the rest. It is worth emphasising the important protections against diminution of rights that are contained in the protocol and Windsor framework. When it comes to trade, the vast majority of us recognise that we need to maintain both our North/South and east-west trade. That has not been easy to achieve. It has required difficult compromise and imaginative solutions.”
“We highlighted the lost opportunities for our people, including our young people; loss of funding through the various EU programmes, including for farmers and the community and voluntary sector — funding that has not been replaced, despite promises from the British Government that none of us believed in the first place; loss of trading relationships and creation of barriers where barriers did not exist, including on this island. <BR /> <BR />Others, however, were content to plough on regardless of all that on the basis of ideology and fantasies about the halcyon days of an empire that is long gone and will not return. After the referendum, those of us who wanted to protect the balance of relationships and our communities and economy understood the importance of negotiating arrangements that took account of our special status.”
“It is always worth reminding ourselves that the majority of people here in the North voted against Brexit and to remain part of the EU. The people whom we represent in the North did not consent to Brexit and certainly not to the hard Brexit that has transpired. People understood the threat that was posed by Brexit and its detrimental impact on our economy and communities, including our rural communities and farmers, and, most importantly, on our peace agreement and the delicate balance of relationships.”
“<BR /> <BR />The broad consensus from a lot of the engagement that I have had about industrial derating specifically is that it is an important strategic relief that has supported the creation of jobs and of a thriving manufacturing sector. Rates in and of themselves are, of course, a property tax, so they are representative of the size of the business. The larger the business, the more rates that are paid, so, in that way, it is a progressive taxation measure.”
“I thank the Member for his question. It is important to emphasise that, when considering industrial derating, 54% of properties have an NAV of £15,000 or under. That is the NAV that is used for small business rate relief. Some 81% of properties have an NAV of £50,000 or under, so they are by no means large businesses under the rating system. As the Member pointed out, industrial derating supports large manufacturers, but those that fall into that bracket employ some 94,000 people here. One per cent of manufacturers are deemed to be large concerns, and they alone account for almost half the employment and more than half the turnover here.”
“<BR /> <BR />The UUEPC is also currently undertaking research into business rate poundage differentials across council areas. The findings of the most recent consultation have been used to inform the further work that I have outlined on how best to align the rates system with the Executive's strategic priorities. The strategic review cycle that I have announced today is more appropriate than a external review, which would not be the best use of the limited resources that are available to the Executive at this time.”
“The rates system and rate reliefs here were subject to public consultation, review, reform and revision in 2007, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2019 and, most recently, this year. A number of changes have already been implemented as a result of those reviews. For example, more frequent revaluations have been introduced; the Back in Business rate support scheme and the rural ATM scheme were reintroduced; and new legislation was made to enable councils to strike different levels of household and business rates. In addition, the Department previously availed itself of impartial advice from the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC), including on the targeting of COVID-19 rates support, and commissioned a comparative study of domestic rates against council tax.”
“Of course, a number of properties will fall between £400,000 and £485,000 of rateable value. Somewhere in the region of half of properties will be in that space, so rates bills for them will not increase by the maximum amount.”
“That issue is raised with us a lot when we start to talk about the max cap. As I set out in the statement, it is really important to emphasise that means-tested rate reliefs for those on lower incomes or those in receipt of the lone pensioner allowance or disability allowance will remain in place and will increase proportionate to the raising of the cap. <BR /> <BR />We have a breakdown, but I do not have the monthly figure. The Member looks confused. Rate reliefs are means-tested, and a percentage is applied to, for example, the lone pensioner allowance or some other allowance, and a proportionate increase will then be applied. I do not have the monthly figure, but I think that the weekly figure, at the absolute max end, is between £14 and £18, depending on council area.”
“For me, it is about taking a holistic look at the system to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that the rate reliefs that are in place align with our Executive priorities.”
“I do not agree with the Member. I was very clear in my statement in setting out that "review" does not mean removal. It means looking at each of the rate reliefs that is in place and ensuring that it still meets its policy objective. We are consulting on some of the measures to determine whether they still meet their policy objective. Some consultation has already been done in that respect. There is a case for reducing the early payment discount, which is, I believe, the particular measure that he is referring to. Of course, if money were freed up by changing some of the specific reliefs or measures that are in place, that could be redirected to other rate reliefs, for example. I am lobbied on a regular basis about a whole range of rate reliefs. At this point, however, we do not have the funds to put towards any such reliefs.”
“I thank the Member for his question. He is quite right: it is not for the incoming financial year; we are looking beyond 2025-26 to potentially 2026-27. Obviously, we have to go out and consult on the measure and then take a policy decision based on the findings of the consultation. That will have to return to the Executive to be agreed before it can be taken forward. <BR /> <BR />On the point about engaging with councils, I completely agree. This morning, I met the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) to discuss the proposals that I brought forward today. I am committed to continuing to engage with it in the months ahead on all this work.”
“I thank the Member for his question, and I take his point. We are in the process of engaging with potential researchers to be able to conduct that research and scope the terms of reference. I would like to see that commissioned and reported on very quickly. We will have to confirm time frames with whoever is going to take it forward for us.”
“As I said to Diane in a previous answer, that is something about which I have had significant correspondence. I have listened to the business community about the challenges posed by the autumn Budget in recent weeks. As I announced in my statement, I plan to commission research into the cost of doing business here, with a particular focus on the impact on our sectors of the announcements of planned additional employer National Insurance contributions, as well as other announcements that will, obviously, impact on some sectors more than others. The sectors most impacted on will be engaged in that work, and the findings will help inform Executive decision-making. It is important to be clear: an Executive of a devolved region cannot fully offset all the fluctuations that are the result of decisions taken on reserved taxation matters.”
“At the moment, exclusions from liability apply where the occupation of a property is prohibited by law, where a property is a listed building or where a property is a historic monument, for example. All those things will have to be looked at in the context of wider regeneration matters. That is why it, alongside small business rate relief, will form part of those two planned reviews in the incoming financial year.”
“However, some consultees expressed a genuine concern about their ability to let older retail or office properties that have ongoing issues due to general economic factors, including the demand for high-grade, energy-efficient stock. <BR /> <BR />As I said in my statement, I am attracted to the idea of increasing liability in that area, but it has to be done in a managed and coordinated way. Any increase in liability would need to be explored alongside the existing or potential capital grant-funding powers to help the wider regeneration and decarbonisation work that would have to precede any implementation of a higher level of additional non-domestic vacant rating liability. <BR /> <BR />The second issue is the suite of exclusions that apply within non-domestic vacant rating.”
“I am happy to provide further detail on that. The issue is twofold. The first issue is the overall level of liability that should be charged in relation to vacant commercial units. One of my key aims is to align rating policy to help tackle the blight of vacant properties in our towns and cities; an issue that all Members will be conscious of. Increasing non-domestic vacant rating liability from 50% of the occupied liability to a higher level of liability was consulted upon as part of the revenue-raising process. It has the capacity to raise £1 million in revenue for the Executive for every 5% increase in liability.”
“As I have announced today, I have commissioned research into the cost of doing business. Obviously, I will work with Executive colleagues on that. That will inform Executive decision-making, going forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />Rates cannot be reduced or removed easily through additional support, as the system remains our only substantive income-generating lever for public spending. Every pound that we provide in new rate relief will be paid for by other ratepayers in the system paying more or by a reduction in public spending.”
“Around 70% of non-domestic ratepayers here get some form of rate support. That proportion rises to 75% when non-domestic vacant rating is taken into account. Almost 57% of all pubs get some form of rate support; 65% of the hospitality sector, as a whole, is in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme; over 63% of retailers get some form of support, 80% of which is provided to small retail properties with a net added value (NAV) of less than £15,000; around 30,000 businesses from a tax base of just under 75,000 get small business rate relief; and over 4,400 manufacturers get 70% off their rates by virtue of industrial derating, which is a tax relief that is unique to here.”
“My Department and LPS have only just begun the preparatory work on that. I understand that they will brief the Finance Committee this week on that specifically. They will be able to set out more details. Significant preparatory work will have to be done. Then, I will have to take it back to the Executive to seek agreement to take it forward.”
“It is inevitable that some ratepayers will end up paying relatively more and others relatively less than they currently do as a result.”
“It is important to emphasise that the purpose of the revaluation is to restore fairness; it is not about raising more rates. It is vital that our rates system reflects the economic environment. That is why I have asked Land and Property Services to commence the immediate preparatory work on the revaluation of domestic property. That will see the current domestic tax base of over 800,000 domestic properties assessed and revalued to ensure that distribution reflects the current market. <BR /> <BR />Members will appreciate that that is a significant piece of work, but it is the right thing to do to enhance fairness in the domestic rating system. By definition, a revaluation will reset all the values to a new rate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Like everybody in the Chamber, the Member will be well aware of the challenges that we face with the Executive's budget, so it is important that we have the evidence and an understanding of what the issues are and that any rates supports that we put in place target the right issues. That is why I have taken the approach that I have in relation to the strategic review that I announced today of all rate reliefs to ensure that they are still fit for purpose and still delivering on their policy objectives. We should take that considered look, and, if something is not working or is not still achieving its objective, we could release funds that could be redirected to other supports, as the Member has outlined, where there could be demand.”
“I thank the Member for her question. I met representatives of the business sector this morning. I have listened to the business sector. Probably like many Members in the Chamber, I have had significant correspondence from businesses and business representatives who face significant challenges as regards the cost of doing business and in relation to the impact, as she has outlined, of the British Chancellor's autumn statement. One of the things that I have announced in today's statement is that I will commission research into the cost of doing business. It is important that we have an evidence base and that we understand the issues. Obviously, businesses and business organisations will have the opportunity to feed into that research.”
“I thank the Member for his question, and I disagree with him. What we are announcing today is ambitious. It is probably the most radical look at rates in a couple of decades at least, and it sets the direction of travel with regard to us having a progressive rating system, as I outlined. The specific measures that we will consult on next year will obviously be subject to Executive agreement at a later time. I must emphasise that the reason for taking forward those consultations is not just about income generation, although that is important because our challenges in public-service funding are well documented. Reducing the early payment discount by 2% would raise £4 million. The max cap elevation would raise £2 million for the Executive, because that is split between Executives and councils.”
“Once that preliminary work is complete and its findings considered, I will go to the Executive to seek a decision on that work proceeding for 2030. <BR /> <BR />Councils, businesses and trade bodies, as well as household ratepayers, have been telling me that they want a system that is fairer and more equitable and that utilises the strengths of our devolved system design. Today's statement outlines my initial plans for securing those objectives. I am determined to build a fair and progressive rates system that stimulates our economy, grows our tax base and provides appropriate support for those who need it. The statement outlines the building blocks to achieving that.”
“Just as my Department is now operating non-domestic revaluations on a three-year cycle as part of business as usual, it now needs to be able to take forward more regular domestic revaluations. Whilst that does not need to be done at the same frequency as for the business sector, it is right that it be integrated into our business as usual planning. That will see the current domestic tax base of over 800,000 domestic properties assessed and revalued to ensure that distribution is reflective of the current market. That is a significant piece of work, but it will enhance fairness in the domestic rating system. I am today announcing that I have asked Land and Property Services (LPS) to commence immediate preparatory work on the revaluation of domestic property.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also intend to explore options in the system for expanding the parameters of the Back in Business scheme or to provide other forms of similar rate support to help to mitigate the risks of development through allowing a developer a period of vacant rating exclusion after a development has been completed but before it is let and first-occupier discounts such as that deployed in the Back in Business model. My aim is to work in a concerted and coordinated way to get property stock back into use or properly redeveloped or repurposed. <BR /> <BR />The last revaluation of domestic property for rating purposes came into effect in April 2007. Therefore, 2027 will see our current domestic valuation list operative for a 20-year period.”
“Just before Question Time, I started to speak about my plans to review non-domestic vacant rating. I am attracted to the option of increasing the liability in that area, but it must be done in a managed and coordinated way. Ahead of any increase in NDVR liability, I call on Executive and council colleagues to work with my Department to explore the use of existing and potential capital grant funding powers to help wider regeneration and decarbonisation work. That work would precede any implementation of a higher level of additional non-domestic vacant rating liability.”
“Some consultees expressed concerns about their ability to let older retail and office properties that have had ongoing issues due to general economic factors, including demand for high-grade energy-efficient stock.”
“Initial preparation for that work will start now, and I met the business community this morning to outline to it that this will be one of the priority areas of focus in the strategic review cycle for 2025-26. <BR /> <BR />The other area will be to address the second main issue raised by the business sector in my engagement with it to date. Vacant commercial units are a bigger issue than they have ever been, and that trend is unlikely to reverse any time soon. One of my key aims is to align rating policy to help tackle the blight of vacant properties in our towns and cities. Increasing liability for non-domestic vacant rating properties from 50% of the occupied liability to a higher level of liability was consulted on as part of the revenue-raising process.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although the rating system might not be the ideal vehicle for the immediate and emergency intervention being requested by some in the business sector, it is clear that there is a need to prioritise a review of the support provided through the small business rate relief scheme and to see whether that support could be adjusted to react to the challenges of the current economy, post COVID, after the cost of doing business pressures and in light of the challenges facing businesses at present. That work can also look at the plans announced in England at the end of October but will have to take account of two key matters: the fact that our tax base is distinct and our economy is heavily weighted towards small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); and the fact that we collect two taxes within one poundage multiplier here.”
“In that regard, I plan to commission research into the cost of doing business in the North, with a particular focus on the impacts on our sectors of the announcements such as the planned additional employer National Insurance contributions. The sectors most impacted will be engaged in that work, and the findings will help to inform Executive decision-making.”
“That consultation process is aimed at refining the progressivity of the tax, a key element of preparing the groundwork for a future domestic revaluation, which I will cover in more detail later. <BR /> <BR />Year 2 of the process, in 2025-26, will see a comprehensive review of small business rate relief and the scope for enhanced sectoral targeting and application. The second measure to be looked at is the policy of non-domestic vacant rating (NDVR). Both of those policy areas have an urgent strategic importance, and the results of the review will allow decisions to be brought to the Executive in time for the commencement of Reval 2026. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to the business community about the challenges posed by the autumn Budget in recent weeks.”
“After each review point, strategic decisions can be taken by the Executive to see whether the support is working well in its current form; whether any changes are necessary to the support; whether support should be redirected within the system; whether support should be adjusted and the savings used to lower or moderate the rate poundage; or whether any resource saving could be deployed elsewhere in the Executive’s spending requirements. <BR /> <BR />My Department has already commenced the strategic review cycle. Year 1 of the process, 2024-25, was focused on the tax base analysis and policy proposals underpinning the supplementary consultation on options for the maximum capital value and early payment discount.”
“That work will look at six key questions in the context of every rates support measure, namely who gets support; what support is provided; how the support is distributed through our councils; why the support is provided; how it is provided; and what the support's impact or intended impact is. <BR /> <BR />Every rating support measure will be reviewed over the remainder of a 10-year cycle in clusters of policies selected and grouped for each year by either theme or urgency. Critically, the review cycle schedule will be published well in advance to allow councils and stakeholders time to prepare and gather evidence to inform the process. I stress in that context that "review" does not mean "removal".”
“With that in mind, the principles of fairness and equity will guide my approach to policy development, operational implementation and decision-making. Three key levers will support my approach to income generation. First, I will broaden the overall distribution of rate collection by extending the tax base. Secondly, I will ensure that rating policy aligns with and underpins Executive priorities. Finally, I will ensure that the administration of the rates system is delivered efficiently and effectively. <BR /> <BR />The focus of today's statement will be on the second lever: work to ensure that rates support aligns with Executive priorities. That will be undertaken through a comprehensive, 10-year strategic review cycle of all rates support provided by the Executive.”
“The rating system is the Executive's main lever to generate revenue and is therefore critical for the funding of our public services, raising in the region of £1·5 billion annually. It is therefore important to ensure that supports are targeted towards those who need it most or who are vulnerable and that any rate reliefs meet their policy objective. The more revenue spent on rate support, the less there is for vital public services. We have committed to budget sustainability, and that remains a key deliverable that we cannot lose sight of. As the Minister responsible for rating, I am clear that I must play a leading role in generating income for the purposes of providing much-needed public services. I must be clear, however, that it is not always possible to meet the expectations and demands put on our rating system.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second short-term measure that I wish to consult on is reducing the early payment discount from 4% to 2%. An increasing number of customers now pay their bills by direct debit, which is the most efficient way for my Department to collect rates. The proposed reduction in the early payment discount serves to take account of the shift in customer preference. <BR /> <BR />I will launch a supplementary public consultation process in January seeking views on both measures. The consultation will last 10 weeks and will help determine the final shape of any policy change, with the results of the process coming back to the Executive for final decisions in that area. <BR /> <BR />I turn to my approach to rating policy for the medium and long term.”
“I do not propose to take forward the policy consulted on by the then Secretary of State to simply remove the cap. That would have seen annually recurring bills to some ratepayers of over £25,000, which could be considered excessive. Altering the current maximum capital value will generate additional revenue at the top end of the tax base, a more progressive step than increasing the poundage element for the whole tax base to realise the same amount of revenue. I believe that that is a proportionate and measured approach. <BR /> <BR />It is important to highlight the fact that means-tested and other forms of support are in place for those on low incomes, regardless of a property's capital value. That measure and others in the rating system, such as lone pensioner allowance, would be adjusted in proportion to any change in liability.”
“I wish to provide Members with a statement on my strategic approach to rating policy over the remainder of the mandate. <BR /> <BR />I am determined to build a progressive rates system based on the principles of fairness and equity and to ensure that it aligns with the Executive's policy objectives, stimulates our economy and supports the growth of our tax base by creating the conditions for businesses to thrive. The proposals that I set out today are the first step in that journey. The measures that I will outline are built on analysis of the most recent consultation findings, along with supplementary engagement undertaken by my Department. <BR /> <BR />The first short-term measure that I propose to consult on is elevating the current level of the maximum capital value on domestic properties from £400,000 to £485,000.”
“We are scoping future plans to understand what those costs will be, for the public sector and more widely. We are continuing our engagement with Treasury, as I have articulated. Given the budgetary pressures that we face and the fact that we do not believe that the Barnett consequentials will be enough to cover the increased National Insurance contributions for public-sector employers, we are very concerned about what the shortfall in respect of that will be. That is what we are engaging the Treasury about.”
“As I said to the Member's colleague, we are concerned that the Barnett consequentials that we got on employer National Insurance contributions for the public sector will not cover the additional cost. As the Member will be well aware, we face significant budgetary pressures in our general Budget. Therefore, we are concerned about the impact that it will have on public sector employers. <BR /> <BR />It is difficult at this point to answer the specific question of whom we will be able to support on National Insurance contribution costs, because we have not yet had the figure clarified by Treasury. We continue our engagement with Treasury to try to understand that and to communicate the impact that the changes will have on the public sector; the community, voluntary and third sectors that work in partnership with us; and the private sector.”
“The short answer is, "No, I haven't". That issue has not been specifically brought to my attention. In some respects, it would be within the remit of the responsibilities of the Education and Communities Ministers. I am happy for the Member to communicate with officials on the issue to understand what the implications might be.”
“Work has been undertaken on behalf of the Executive on new EU laws. There is obviously the work under the Windsor framework. On specific laws, departmental officials keep abreast of what is developing in Britain and in the EU to ensure that we are kept apprised.”
“On 19 November, I attended a meeting of the inter-ministerial group for transport to discuss the work of the new task force on motor insurance, led by the then Transport Secretary, and I look forward to engaging further. I took the opportunity at that meeting to call for British Government Ministers to investigate high home insurance prices, which are also a particular issue here.”