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 33 of 76.
“I have encouraged, and I continue to encourage, all project developers to check the fund's criteria and engage with the fund manager to see whether they are eligible for support. <BR /> <BR />On the distinct point about land acquisition, or vesting, I refer the Member to a previous report from Belfast City Council on the powers of vesting for the Tribeca Belfast development:”
“Although that was not outlined in the motion, I will elaborate on the points made. FTC can be deployed by the public sector only as a loan or an equity investment in a private-sector entity. The investment fund that is managed by CBRE is an innovative way of using FTC to invest in long-term transformation, thus supporting economic development and regeneration and tackling regional imbalance. I have met representatives of a number of projects that have benefited from the investment fund, including two hotels in Belfast. The fund has also supported the provision of prime office developments in Belfast city centre, as well as new, purpose-built student accommodation.”
“If a property qualifies in line with the statutory framework, it is entitled to that support. Of course, rates can be applied only to a property that is there. Occupiers of properties that are granted relief are awarded the support after a process of application, assessment and decision by the district valuer on the basis of the facts and evidence in each case. LPS will, however, update and backdate liability when changes in the area are identified. LPS is reviewing procedures to ensure that changes of occupier for properties benefiting from such rate reliefs are identified. Likewise, valuers in LPS continue to work with relevant stakeholders to provide professional valuation advice on proposals for the area. <BR /> <BR />The Member who proposed the motion spoke of using financial transactions capital coupled with land acquisition.”
“We need to ensure that, in increasing the liability, we do not simply increase the dereliction that often accompanies higher property tax levels in other jurisdictions. Despite that, I am attracted to the option of increasing liability in that area in a managed and coordinated way, and I have outlined to the Executive how I want to look at the area in the context of my strategic policy direction. That will, however, need to be coupled with work across the Executive on sequencing any increased liability in the area with our wider work to regenerate and decarbonise our built environment. <BR /> <BR />LPS assesses liability or grant relief in accordance with the statutory framework for the rating system, which, in turn, is set by the Assembly and the Executive.”
“As implied in the text of the motion, the fact that rates are due for the Tribeca site is the first key point. Earlier this year, my Department concluded a consultation that looked at non-domestic vacant rating and increasing the liability level to raise revenue. That work highlighted that the policy issue was not one of simply escalating the liability level. Over 70% of respondents raised issues with such an approach in the immediate term for valid reasons. There are particular concerns about the increase in stranded assets in the office and retail sectors due to wider market changes, many of which have been accelerated by the COVID pandemic.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, the rating system already imposes a liability on vacant commercial property. That brings me to the second element of the motion, which calls on me to:”
“That database would then need to incorporate the number and size of the individual sites that qualify, along with their ownership profile, location and other characteristics such as current zoning, the socio-economic context, the market context and previous use. What exemptions should apply in such a data set, and how do you distinguish between urban, rural and mixed areas? None of that detracts from the potential value of such a measure. However, the timescales for researching and establishing even the fundamental data to begin looking at the economic value of such a tax measure, let alone creating the administrative and IT infrastructure for developing and maintaining such a tax base, mean that that is not a short-term fix for the immediate situation pertaining to Tribeca.”
“The question, of course, is this: what is meant by "vacant land"? My Department holds no such data set. While I am happy to be corrected, I am not aware of a central registry of such land being held at either central or local government level. <BR /> <BR />On the DUP amendment, while I am not sure about the "chill factor" that it references, there is a clear requirement for an evidence-based approach to such a significant tax intervention. As with the motion, the amendment asks me to do many actions that sit outside my policy portfolio, although I support the wider Executive's work to facilitate regeneration alongside local government bodies. <BR /> <BR />In order to implement a new and novel tax, establishing a vacant land data set would be the first step required to assess feasibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />While those issues are outside my remit, I am willing to work collectively at an inter-agency level to resolve the issue. The question now, though, is how to address the issue that has arisen and how to manage future development work that could lead to a similar situation. Neither of those points is neatly contained in the central two elements of the motion, which have been addressed to my portfolio, as the Minister of Finance, but they have been touched on in the wider debate. <BR /> <BR />The first element in the motion refers to:”
“<BR /> <BR />The policy issues with Tribeca arose not because of the rating system, which already imposes a liability on vacant commercial property — I have written to Executive colleagues about my intentions on that policy — but because of a wider civic policy on regeneration strategy at central and local government level, planning policy and the general ability for a group or entity to control a major area of land in one city or town. It is important to highlight that any ownership or management of contiguous or associated properties will increase the potential for a management entity to make opportune use of the features of a property tax system. That risk is, perhaps, the fundamental factor in any future decisions on whether paramount oversight of a fixed area should be permitted within the planning and regeneration systems.”
“The motion partly concedes that by recognising that there are fundamental responsibilities across the portfolios of the Communities Minister and the Economy Minister, as well as for Belfast City Council. There is also a key role not mentioned in the motion for the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Agency, which is a key arm's-length body pertaining to the issue and holds records dating back to 1834 on around 14,000 brownfield sites.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. We all want to see our town centres and shopping areas thrive. The difference that a bustling business, new homes or a vibrant community can make to once empty properties is striking. Regeneration, however, must be carried out in consultation with communities and done with communities and not to them. Local communities must benefit socially and economically from such regeneration. As Deirdre set out, redevelopment cannot exclude the communities that are already there. Regeneration must be done in a way that maximises the potential for all. <BR /> <BR />The motion is cross-cutting and spans a number of ministerial portfolios.”
“We have given a general allocation to try to give Ministers flexibility in how they manage their budgets for the rest of the financial year. Clearly, there is an onus on every Minister around the Executive table to take any action that they can that might create savings or provide additional funding to the centre that could then be reallocated to other Departments, as we try to manage our way through the rest of the financial year as best as possible.”
“I do not agree with the Member's assertions on how the Executive have dealt with their Budget. We have challenging but constructive discussions on that, and we have taken a collective approach to the Budget and subsequent monitoring rounds. I have recognised clearly today and in all my comments on the matter that all Ministers face significant challenges with how they move forward on their budget and how they prioritise and try to deliver on all the things that we, collectively, demand of them. <BR /> <BR />On the allocation to the Department of Health, I am not sure that the Minister of Health would have welcomed ring-fencing of the money. That is not an approach that we have taken with any Department.”
“It was not the Executive who cut winter fuel payments. It was the British Government who took that decision, and we are left to pick up the pieces and live with the consequences. We, as an Executive, have decided to allocate that money, which is much needed. It does not go as far as any of us would want it to in replacing the money that has been lost, but, hopefully, it will go some way to mitigating the bad decision taken in London and give some support to our more vulnerable older people this winter. The Communities Minister will bring forward proposals on that, and I will wait to see what his proposals are before I comment further on the recurrent nature of it.”
“I will have to write to the Member on that, because I am not sure what figure he refers to. Our capital budget is significantly oversubscribed. If the Member wants to highlight the specific figure to my officials, we will pick that up with him.”
“As the Member will be well aware, Casement Park is an Executive flagship priority that the Executive are committed to delivering on. There would not be funding for Casement in the monitoring round statement, because we need to see proposals coming from the Communities Minister. We also need to know the amount of money that the British Government will put on the table for the delivery of Casement Park, as they have committed to doing. We will all be working towards delivering that.”
“The specifics of the Department of Education are more appropriate for the Education Minister to comment on, but I recognise, as with other Departments, that the Education Minister will still face a shortfall in his departmental budget and, as in other Departments, will seek to go as far as possible on pay. I know that that is something that he is committed to. However, we have all to live within our budgets and prioritise within our Departments. How we do that will be important.”
“The application of the 124% needs-based factor in the interim fiscal framework has resulted in £431·4 million of additional funding through the Barnett formula for the Executive. That is made up of £59·95 million already received in the uplift for 2024-25 at June monitoring; £123·81 million announced in the autumn Budget for 2024-25; and £247·6 million announced in Barnett consequentials in the autumn Budget for 2025-26.”
“It is not for me to advise the Executive in relation to Health's capacity to make savings; that is for the Minister of Health. I recognise the challenges that the Health Minister, like every other Minister around the Executive table, has. Action has been taken in Departments already to make savings and to try to live within budget, but, clearly, with the level of overcommitment that we have, further action is needed.”
“My Department has also agreed with Treasury that any underspends can be used to offset the required repayment of 80% of FTC allocations and, therefore, the underspend, as I mentioned to Mr Tennyson, which cannot be carried forward, is not lost but rather used to reduce future liabilities. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, we would much rather it is used for projects that the Executive want to deliver and that we can deliver in partnership. Of course, I encourage Departments to look as imaginatively as possible at how they can use FTC in the future.”
“As I set out to Mr Tennyson, the Executive are limited in how they can utilise financial transactions capital, because it has to be deployed by the public sector to the private sector either as loan or equity investment. I have continued to encourage all Departments to consider how available financial transactions capital can be used. I have written to the Communities Minister to encourage him to consider whether greater use can be made of the available financial transactions capital to increase the supply of social housing building on the schemes that the Department currently has in place.”
“I concur with the Member on the allocation of funding for housing. We all recognise that it is very necessary. The figures that I quoted were provided to me by the Department for Communities, so I hope that they are accurate from that Department's end. The 1,400 figure reflects the total number of new builds this year and the priority that the Executive attached to it in this monitoring round, from which £24 million has been allocated, and also in the June monitoring round, when another £20 million was allocated.”
“I thank the Member for that question, because it is an issue that I have raised with Treasury in every engagement that I have had with it to date. It is also something that I would expect other Ministers to raise with me, not least the Minister of Justice on issues that impact on her Department. Of course, issues that may be the subject of a reserve claim impact on all other Departments and would represent a significant cost to the Executive. That is why I have raised them in every single engagement that I have had with Treasury and why it is my clear view that meeting them would be unaffordable and that I would therefore need to seek a reserve claim. I would need to negotiate that with Treasury.”
“I have the figure at 58%, but we will not quibble over that too much. The allocation is a very significant one, and it reflects that, in the amount of money that has allocated, the Department of Health is the Executive's priority, alongside the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. I think that, collectively, we share the view that Health needs the funding that it has got, particularly when one looks at the number of people on waiting lists and the other challenges across our health system. As I said to Dr Aiken in a previous answer, the allocation means that the Department of Health's budget has now received a 4·9% increase on its out-turn budget for 2023-24.”
“Yes, of course. As I set out in my statement, bids submitted by Departments totalled £346 million, which, unfortunately, was about five times as much money — £68 million — as we had available for allocation. It was therefore simply not possible to fund all, or even the majority of, bids. I know that some Departments will be disappointed that they did not get a capital allocation, but, as I just said to Mr Crawford, the allocations that the Executive agreed reflect the importance of social housing and recognise the pressures faced by our largest capital spending Department, which is the Department for Infrastructure. Those pressures include waste water infrastructure constraints. Both are priorities for the Executive and are reflected in the draft Programme for Government.”
“It is therefore a process that is guided by the Executive's priorities and based on Departments' needs.”
“The practices around the October monitoring round are, like any monitoring round, well established. Departments make bids and provide equality impact information on those bids, and I meet Ministers and have conversations about those bids. It became apparent over the summer that we were on a trajectory for a significant overspend. I conducted an urgent in-year exercise, which provided the Department of Finance in the first instance, and then the Executive, with a considerable amount of information that was considered when making the allocations. Of course, we are guided by the Executive's priorities, which are now articulated in the draft Programme for Government, including things like health, tackling waiting lists, special educational needs, childcare and social housing.”
“That will be really important work as we seek to manage our public finances and put them on a more sustainable basis and as we plan to deliver high-quality public services in the future to meet our citizens' needs.”
“Part of the work on the Budget sustainability plan involves Departments bringing forward five-year plans on how they are going to meet their budgets in the years to come and how the various elements that make up the spend in each Department are going to be controlled, whether that relates to resource spend, the type of projects that they want to prioritise or how to utilise technology or workforce planning. Departments will need to work through those things and bring that work forward. Reform and transformation is a pillar of the Programme for Government. The aim is to set up a unit in the Executive Office to coordinate that work.”
“My colleagues around the Executive table are well aware of the consequences. I do not think that any of us want to be in the situation where we lose funding in the next financial year. I hope that all my Executive colleagues are committed to ensuring that they live within their budgets. I am reassured that they are. It is important to outline the consequences. There is the potential that we could lose money from next year's Budget and that the £559 million reserve claim write-off could become repayable. Of course, we as an Executive did not accept that strings should be attached to the reserve claim, because it was accrued while the Executive were underfunded and the institutions were down. However, Treasury takes a different view on that, and it will have to be a matter for negotiation.”
“An overspend in Departments this year is one of my current concerns. The financial implications are significant; it would come off next year's Budget and put at risk the £559 million reserve claim. We are also still in the process of negotiating a fair funding model. We made significant progress with the interim fiscal framework, but there is a further way to go on that, because we need to negotiate beyond the 2026-27 financial year, get that commitment to funding based on our level of relative need tied down and ensure that our funding settlement enables us to deliver public services to the level that people rightly expect and deserve.”
“The approach that was taken to how we would allocate the money that was available to us involved Departments that had a overcommitment and unfunded public-sector pay costs. All Departments had overcommitments except the Department of Finance and the Executive Office, so those Departments received no allocations from the general allocations. <BR /> <BR />When we set the Budget, there was an assumption that Civil Service pay would increase by 3% this financial year. Trade unions have made it clear to me that that is not acceptable to them, so I will have to have conversations with the trade unions, as will all the other Ministers when they make representations about their departmental budgets. It will be difficult for all of us to navigate a way forward in that regard, but I am committed to trying to do my very best.”
“I have been clear in my view — I have expressed it to the House already — that I consider those items to be unaffordable if they were to crystallise this year, given the existing pressures facing Departments. Therefore, it is my intention to seek to negotiate a reserve claim if any of those were to crystallise.”
“The 2024-25 overcommitment figure that I quoted — £180 million after the October monitoring round allocations have been made — does not include the cost of a number of exceptional items, such as the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and the McCloud injury to feelings judgement. It was anticipated that, if those costs were to crystallise in 2024-25, they might be funded by a reserve claim. However, given the level of in-year funding that was provided to the Executive in the autumn Budget, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that, although further conversations are possible, the Treasury position in the first instance is that those items should be funded from the settlements that have been announced.”
“The Member will be interested — he has commented on it a number of times — to know that that brings the total allocation to the Department of Health for this year to £472 million, which is a 4·9% increase on the Department of Health's final budget for 2023-24.”
“As I have done already in the Chamber today, I recognise that the October monitoring round outcome is challenging for all Departments. As I have said on a number of occasions, the funding that was available simply did not go far enough, given the pressure that all Departments face. That means that there will be difficult decisions for all of us to take in relation to balancing our desire to provide public-sector pay awards against those other pressures. It is disappointing that the Health Minister felt that he could not support the paper today, given that his Department was provided with an additional £350 million, which was over 58% of the resource funding that was available for general allocation.”
“I have done so particularly in engagements that I have had with the Communities Minister given that there is a significant pressure on the supply of social housing. The Department for Communities has brought forward some proposals on the use of financial transactions capital, but it is important that all Departments try to think imaginatively about how they could utilise that funding. FTC is not necessarily returned if it is not spent; it can be utilised to pay off other FTC loans, so it is not lost to us, as an Executive. However, it would be much better if we used it to deliver on projects and priorities.”
“As I know the Member will be well aware, the distinguishing feature of FTC is that the funds can be deployed by the public sector only as a loan or as equity investment in a private-sector entity, so that limits what the Executive are able to spend the financial transactions capital on. Any private-sector entity will then go on to use the funding to invest in related infrastructure. That investment has to be in line with the Executive's aims and objectives. It is challenging for Departments to identify suitable projects. Clearly, we want to ensure that those projects that Departments bring forward align with the Executive's policy aspirations. At every opportunity that I have had to engage with them on budgetary matters, I have encouraged all Departments to bring forward proposals on financial transactions capital.”
“The allocations reduce the departmental overcommitments from £791 million to £180 million. That reflects the significant challenges that are facing the Executive, which I have just outlined to Ms Forsythe. While I would have liked to be in a position to fund all the pressures in Departments, it simply was not possible, because providing more for one Department would simply increase the pressures on all the other Departments.”
“Clearly, and I have articulated this on many occasions, the Executive need to balance their Budget for 2024-25 or there will be significant financial penalties that will impact on us all in the next financial year and will limit our ability to deliver on public services and public-sector pay awards. Each Minister has been given an allocation, and they will all go off now to look at the pressures that remain in their Department. Some Departments have considerable pressures to try to manage. As an Executive, we have prioritised public-sector pay since we returned in February. I know that all Ministers will want to seek to do that. It is about how we can best take action to try to go as far as possible on public-sector pay, because I think that we collectively have that commitment.”
“One of the commitments in it that the Executive agreed was to have regular strategic consideration of income generation. Last week, my officials briefed the Committee on that. The work on how we take an Executive-wide approach to that matter is ongoing. I have also submitted to the Executive a set of proposals on the short-, medium- and long-term consideration of our rating system. I hope that the Executive will consider that in the near future. I had hoped to make some progress on the rating system in the next financial year, but, if that is to be possible, we have a very tight time frame in which to do it. I still hope that the Executive will consider that.”
“I am sure that the Member will acknowledge that it has been a rather busy nine months. The Budget sustainability plan was published at the beginning of October.”
“I intend to bring it to the Executive for consideration later this month for what, I hope, will be the last single-year Budget. <BR /> <BR />I commend the outcome of the October monitoring exercise to the Assembly.”
“The continued pay and inflationary pressures and growing demands on our services highlight the need for the transformation of our public services. The level of in-year funding reflects the reality of the underfunding of public services following 14 years of austerity. The autumn statement signalled a step in the right direction, but we need to see continued investment over the coming years to help to transform public services. With the substantive funding from the financial package ending prior to 2026-27, I am determined to continue to build on the progress made and negotiate a fair funding model, going forward, that ensures that our Budget reflects our level of need and not just the uplift provided through Barnett consequentials. <BR /> <BR />My focus will now turn quickly to the 2025-26 Budget.”
“The British Treasury has been clear that it is unlikely that significant further funding will be made available this year. It is therefore imperative that every Minister and all Departments take the action necessary to live within their budgets following the allocations. Given the significant impact of an overspend at block level, failure by one Department to do so will have consequences for all Departments. Overspending is not an option. Doing so would run the risk of having to repay the £559 million from the financial package and of a reduction in next year’s allocation by any amount that we overspend. That would serve only to make 2025-26 even more difficult, given the constrained financial context. <BR /> <BR />We must work together to deliver a balanced Budget.”
“Some £2 million is being given to DAERA for tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) and £1·4 million to TEO for North/South Ministerial Council accommodation costs. <BR /> <BR />I propose a small allocation of £0·2 million of financial transactions capital to DFE to reflect a reduction in receipts. With over £20 million of financial transactions capital remaining unallocated and a further £27·7 million expected from a Budget cover transfer later this year, I have asked all Departments to consider how that can be utilised. <BR /> <BR />While the Executive do not have the funding to meet the overcommitments in full, today’s allocations of over £631 million across resource and £68·1 million capital DEL will help to alleviate some of the pressures facing Departments. The allocation reflects the total funding available this year.”
“Departments submitted bids totalling £346·1 million against available funding of £68 million. Given that there are clearly considerable capital pressures across the system, I have urged any Departments with reduced requirements to bring those forward as early as possible. The Executive today agreed allocations totalling £68 million, including £24 million to be allocated to the Department for Communities for new-build social housing, which will enable delivery of up to 1,400 houses in this financial year, and a further £1 million as a general allocation. <BR /> <BR />The Department for Infrastructure has been allocated £39·6 million towards its capital pressures, including the ongoing issues arising due to constraints in the waste water infrastructure and the resultant impact on construction and the environment.”
“While that funding cannot mitigate fully the bad decision taken at Westminster, it shows our determination to do what we can with the constrained funding available to us to provide a level of mitigation of the detrimental impacts of winter fuel payment changes on older, vulnerable people this winter. <BR /> <BR />The Department for Infrastructure has been provided with a general allocation of £22·8 million. The Executive Office has been allocated £7 million in respect of victims’ payments. The Department for the Economy has been provided with £6·2 million and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with £3·6 million as general allocations. No allocation has been made to my Department. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to capital. Once again, capital bids far outstripped the available funding — some five times over.”
“Some 92·6% of the resource funding available for general allocation has been provided to Health, Education and Justice: £350 million has been allocated to Health and £170 million to Education, and £36 million is being provided towards addressing pressures in Justice. In addition, £2·8 million is being provided for the costs incurred by the PSNI due to the unacceptable racist disturbances over the summer. <BR /> <BR />The Department for Communities has been provided with a general allocation of £11·3 million and an allocation of £17 million for winter fuel support.”