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 36 of 76.
“I am happy to confirm that I am willing to work with Executive colleagues in relation to the other funding streams and to get clarity on them. My understanding is that the intention of what was DLUHC and is now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is to consult the Shore Road skills centre applicants prior to confirming a final decision on that funding. That is a constructive thing to do, but, clearly, we will wait to see the outcome. The Executive do not have a role in that process. Obviously, that is a point that we have made in relation to a number of the funds. We would like to see decision-making in relation to those returned to the Executive, and we will continue to make the case for that.”
“It is my intention that October monitoring will happen very soon. My officials are working at pace to ensure that it is delivered as soon as possible and had a lot of the preparatory work already done in advance of the Budget statement last week. I hope to bring proposals for allocations to the next Executive meeting. The funding envelope for 2025-26 has been announced, and, again, it is my intention to publish a draft Budget by early December, subject to Executive agreement, to allow time for a full consultation before a final Budget is agreed by the Executive, prior to the start of the next financial year.”
“I remind the Member again about the difference between the opening budget lines and the out-turn at the end of the year and that the Department of Health got an uplift in its budget this year in line with that of other Departments — greater in some respects. Clearly, there are huge pressures on health. That is recognised across the board. As I have said in relation to the general funding package, the funding that has been announced is a recognition of the underfunding of our public services, and it will be for the Executive to agree their way forward in relation to the Budget in 2025-26. Health has been a priority for the Executive since they came back, and it is clearly a priority in the Programme for Government. The Budget will reflect the Programme for Government in allocating funding to Health.”
“Obviously, they will have to decide how they manage those.”
“The Executive have prioritised public-sector pay since they came back in February. The first action that I took as Finance Minister was to propose £688 million to settle public-sector pay disputes that had been going on for some time. The Member will be aware that Departments have identified £770 million of pressures, which include the pay review body recommendation costings. We now have £600 million to allocate. From my perspective, it is really important that we recognise and properly reward our public-sector workers. I would like to see speedy movement — that is the best way to put it — from Departments. In my role as Finance Minister, I will engage with my trade unions on pay deals in the coming days. I recognise that pressures on pay and other elements will still be a challenge for Departments.”
“I concur with the Member on the difficulty that those increases will pose for many businesses and for those who deliver services on behalf of the Executive and Departments. We understand that funding will be provided to cover the costs of the public sector, but we do not believe that it will cover the arm's-length bodies or the other organisations that provide services on behalf of the Executive. We will seek further clarity on that from Treasury, making the point clearly, as the Member did, about the difficulty that the increases will pose.”
“<BR /> <BR />The strength of collaboration and enthusiasm has been immense across the board from all political representatives, from colleagues in local government, from our council delivery partners, from educational institutions and from industry, and I thank Members for their unwavering support. City and growth deals are a key driver in boosting economic development and delivering regional balance and are a catalyst for further investment and opportunities. The un-pausing will allow both growth deals to move forward to development of their outline business cases, and I look forward to signing the heads of terms of the Mid South West growth deal on behalf of the Executive later this week.”
“I thank the Member for his question. As I said in my opening remarks, the pause should never have happened in the first place; it was hugely unhelpful. However, I am glad that common sense has prevailed and the right decision has been made to unpause the funding commitment. When the funding was in jeopardy, we — all of us — stood up, side by side and shoulder to shoulder. We fought, we lobbied and we made an evidence-based case to the British Treasury on the need for all four of our city and growth deals to develop our economy, create prosperity and address the regional balance. The Member will be aware of the need for that in his part of the region.”
“I very much recognise the pressures that are on businesses and certain sectors and that those pressures come from different angles, which does not help. I am committed to working with businesses to look at how we can support them.”
“I thank the Member for his question. In my commentary since the Budget was announced, I have acknowledged the additional funding for public services. It goes some way towards showing a different approach. However, as I have outlined, it does not meet the significant pressures that we face this year and that will likely continue into next year. <BR /> <BR />Table 2 in the annex that accompanies the statement shows that the business rates Barnett consequential is -£79·66 million, because the British Government reduced the rates relief that is available to businesses in those sectors in England. Unfortunately, therefore, we have no additional funding to allocate for business rates support. I, however, have brought proposals to the Executive to set out a more strategic short-, medium- and long-term approach to our rating system.”
“My immediate focus is on allocating the funding for 2024-25 before quickly turning our attention to the 2025-26 Budget, which I intend to bring to the Executive in coming weeks. There is no doubt that there will be challenges ahead, but, working together, we will be better placed to meet them and to deliver for all our citizens.”
“<BR /> <BR />I hope that the statement has provided Members with an overview of the implications of the autumn Budget. While the additional funding is to be welcomed, the reality is that public services are still stretched and the level of funding announced last Wednesday still does not plug the current gap. We will need to see continued investment over the coming years to help transform public services. As an Executive, we have committed to taking a more strategic, longer-term approach to the Budget process, with the Executive Budget sustainability plan published earlier this month. We are committed to transformation and reform to help our services become more sustainable and efficient going forward. The multi-year spending review in the spring will give us the ability to plan on a longer-term basis.”
“The announcement that the Shared Prosperity Fund will continue for a transition year is welcome. That avoids a potential cliff edge in March 2025 and allows consideration of post-2026 arrangements. However, the total funding of £900 million for 2025-26 that was announced last week represents a 40% reduction in quantum from 2024-25. Our allocation for 2025-26 is not yet known, but Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government officials have advised that information will be available shortly to provide certainty for groups and projects that use the funding. I have already made it clear to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that I do not believe that a reduction in the funding is acceptable and will continue to press hard for at least the same level of funding as before.”
“I will continue to make the case for all the small farmers and small businesses that are vital to our economy. <BR /> <BR />The changes to agricultural property relief mean that, from April 2026, the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets will continue to attract no inheritance tax at all, but, for assets over £1 million, inheritance tax will apply at an effective rate of 20%. The Treasury has indicated that it expects only around 500 agricultural estates across Britain and the North to be affected by the change next year. It has also argued that small family farms are protected. Clearly, we need to see the proof of that. My officials have already been in contact with their Treasury counterparts to understand the impact locally.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is disappointing that the Chancellor did not move to abolish the two-child limit or to reinstate funding for the winter fuel payment, which will have a detrimental impact on the well-being and health of older people. That highlights again the impact of bad decisions taken at Westminster on people here, and, unfortunately, with the huge pressures already on our budgets, the Executive cannot mitigate every such bad decision. <BR /> <BR />The Chancellor also announced changes to agricultural property relief. I understand the concerns raised by many farmers about the potential impact of those changes on the sustainability of the family farming business here. The importance of our farming sector was raised in the meeting with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Chancellor and me on 12 September.”
“<BR /> <BR />While the increase in employer's allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 will help to protect the smallest of our businesses, I have no doubt that the increased cost of National Insurance will be difficult for many businesses to manage. While the British Chancellor has said that the Budget is about putting more money into people's pockets, the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) analysis stated that it assumes that three quarters of the National Insurance cost increase will eventually be passed on to employees through lower real-terms wages. That will impact on individuals who are still impacted by the cost-of-living crisis.”
“While the Treasury has advised that it will provide support funding to the public sector for additional costs, we do not know yet whether that will be sufficient to offset the costs. I will provide a further update on that in due course. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the bigger impact of the change will be felt by businesses. There is no doubt that the taxation increase will prove challenging for many small businesses, which are the bedrock of our local economy. Although the 1·2% increase in rate that was announced is lower than the 2% that some had speculated, that will be cold comfort to the businesses that have been impacted.”
“However, given the continued pay and inflationary pressures and growing demands on our services, it still represents a challenge for the Executive and highlights the need for the transformation of our public services. <BR /> <BR />Previously, the Executive received a ring-fenced allocation for agriculture and fisheries support that was based on the level of EU funding in 2019. From 2025-26, that £332·5 million is included in the Executive's baseline. Therefore, it will now be for the Executive to agree on funding for agriculture as part of the Budget process. <BR /> <BR />As well as the direct impact of last week's Budget on the Executive's finances, there were a number of other announcements that are worth highlighting. On Wednesday, the British Chancellor announced changes to the employer rate National Insurance contributions policy.”
“<BR /> <BR />That brings the total additional funding provided as a result of the interim fiscal framework to £431·4 million. That demonstrates the difference that the framework has already made by providing hundreds of millions of additional funding for public services here. While Barnett consequentials are not hypothecated and it is for the Executive to decide how those are used, I have included a breakdown of the Barnett consequentials for both years in an annex that accompanies the statement. <BR /> <BR />In addition to the Barnett funding for 2025-26, including the restoration package, the Executive will receive £668·7 million resource DEL and £91·6 million capital DEL that is non-Barnett funding. The 2025-26 settlement equates to a real-terms uplift of 1·3% in resource DEL against the latest 2024-25 position.”
“It is welcome that the Chancellor has recognised the recurrent nature of the pressures being faced in 2024-25 by baselining the additional £609 million of resource DEL consequentials provided in the autumn Budget. The same approach, however, has not been taken for the autumn Budget 2024-25 capital DEL consequentials. As a result of the interim fiscal framework, the Executive's capital borrowing limit for 2025-26 will be increased from £220 million to £225·7 million. The Executive will also receive an additional £601 million resource DEL and £270·8 million capital DEL as a result of the announcement. Again, as a result of the interim fiscal framework, the needs-based factor has also been applied in 2025-26, meaning that the funding provided is £248 million more than it otherwise would have been.”
“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 provided to the Executive in the autumn Budget, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has indicated that, while 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. It is my clear view, however, that these items are unaffordable, given the existing pressures facing Departments. I will therefore seek to negotiate a reserve claim. <BR /> <BR />The Chancellor's statement on Wednesday also outlined the first year of a multi-year spending review that will conclude in spring. That sets the Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a result of the interim fiscal framework that I agreed in May of this year, the Executive have received £184 million more than they would otherwise have done in 2024-25. I will move quickly to propose allocations to the Executive to get that funding out to Departments as part of the October monitoring round. As Members are aware, Departments previously identified resource DEL pressures of £770 million, so the extra funding falls short of what is needed and is not sufficient to meet the trajectory of overspend that Departments have indicated for this year. That will inevitably mean that Departments have to take decisions in order to live within budget. <BR /> <BR />The overcommitment figure does not include the cost of a number of exceptional items, such as the PSNI data breach, holiday pay and McCloud injury to feelings.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the extra funding that we will receive for the rest of the current financial year. The autumn Budget will see the Executive receive an additional £609·3 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and £30·4 million of capital DEL for 2024-25. That is on top of £308·9 million of additional Barnett consequentials, received from the spring Budget and Westminster Main Estimates, that I allocated in the June monitoring round, making a total of £918·2 million of additional resource DEL funding in 2024-25. That level of in-year funding is unprecedented outside of COVID. While that is welcome, it is, again, worth pointing out that the scale of the funding reflects the reality of how badly public services have been funded as the result of 14 years of austerity.”
“I also welcome the lifting of the pause on the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals. The pause should not have happened in the first place, but I am glad that common sense has prevailed and the right decision has been made to enable the deals to go ahead: they will be key drivers for economic development and improving regional balance. <BR /> <BR />Whilst there are things in the Chancellor's Budget that, on first review, are encouraging signs of a different approach to public services, there are also clear areas of concern, including the impact of increased employer National Insurance contributions, particularly on our small businesses; the change in treatment of our agriculture funding; changes to agricultural property relief; and the reduction in the Shared Prosperity Fund.”
“The amount of money announced by the British Chancellor last week reflects the state of public services and the urgent need for investment — something that I have been pointing out since I took up post — but let us be real: the impact of 14 years of austerity is not going to be reversed by one Budget. <BR /> <BR />I have been calling for greater investment in our infrastructure for some time. I therefore welcome the British Chancellor's announcement that the Government will change their self-imposed debt rules to free up capital funding. However, the proof of that announcement will be in its delivery. The change in fiscal rules is a first step. We must now see the Chancellor deliver the resources that the Executive need to invest properly in our public services in the long term. Next year's spending review will be the test of that.”
“Last Wednesday, the Chancellor presented the autumn Budget. I want to update Members today — the earliest opportunity after recess — on the implications of that Budget for our public finances. I have been clear that delivering quality public services and a strong economy that supports businesses are key priorities for me in order to improve the lives of workers, families and communities. The scale of current pressures is so severe that it will take time and significant further investment to turn the tide and undo the damage caused by underfunding of our public services after years of Tory austerity.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“One way that we want to move forward on the issue is by looking at what happens in other jurisdictions, because there are different legislative frameworks. That will be part of the policy development work. I am happy to engage with officials about that.”
“I have had quite a bit of correspondence on the issue, and I know that a number of Members are concerned about it. It is a complex area of law, and we do not have the expertise in my Department currently to properly develop the policy proposals that we would need. I met the Minister for Communities last week about another issue and raised the matter with him. He is happy for our officials to work together. We need to look at how we can progress the matter, and I have asked my officials to do that.”
“Each Minister will make their pitch for what, they think, is the priority in their Department. We are also in the position where a draft Programme for Government is out for consultation. That will also shape the allocation of funding. Climate change and our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2022 have to be a priority for every Minister and in the decisions on how they spend money. Part of my Department's work on the Budget improvement plan will look at wider issues than just how we spend our money. It will be about how we do gender budgeting or green budgeting, for example, and about other issues that can be applied to that process.”
“I do not have the exact timetable in front of me, but I will do it from memory. The British Chancellor will announce her Budget on 30 October. We will then engage in developing the Executive's Budget on the basis of that. Departments have already submitted their projections for the next three years. That exercise was commissioned a number of months ago, so we have their information, I suppose, ready to go, once the total amounts are confirmed. My intention is to do a Budget some time in early December, probably. It will then go out for a full consultation, which, obviously, we were not able to do this year.”
“As I mentioned in my answer to an earlier question, my intention is to allocate the money as part of the October monitoring round. The timing has been revised to allow departmental allocations to be informed by the outcome of the autumn Budget.”
“At the meeting of the FISC the week before last, as I said in my earlier answers, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that we would have substantive clarity about the total amount of Barnett consequentials that we are getting for the rest of the year at the Budget on 30 October. Previous indications from Treasury officials through engagement with my Department officials put that in the region of £500 million. Although that is a significant amount of money, when set against the overcommitments that Departments are projecting, there will clearly still be challenges for us.”
“The marriage and civil partnership Bill is earmarked as a year-2 Bill, so it will be introduced during the 2025-26 session. I hope that the Bill will be ready for consideration before then and that we might be able to introduce it earlier than currently scheduled. Depending, obviously, on competing drafting resources, I hope that the Bill will be ready for consideration by the Assembly before next summer and before the official start of the year-2 session.”
“Members will be aware of my intention to bring forward a Bill to amend the current law on marriage and civil partnership. Those important reforms will bring belief marriage within the statutory framework and increase the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership from 16 to 18. I am pleased that the Executive approved those proposals at their meeting on 26 September. My officials have finalised instructions to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), and drafting work is under way.”
“I am happy for the Member to engage with LPS officials, who lead on that area of work. If you correspond with me, I can facilitate that.”
“I do not have the information that the Member has sought in front of me, but, if she wants to write to me about that specific issue, I am happy to correspond with her.”
“I fully agree. The only issue that needs to be discussed with the LCC is ending paramilitarism and the anti-community criminality that criminal gangs engage in. The recent meetings between DUP Ministers and the LCC provide political cover and implicit justification to those groups. That is unacceptable.”
“No, I do not think that it is appropriate to meet the LCC to discuss issues of public policy. We are 26 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, so there is no place in this society for paramilitary groups. There is no role for paramilitary groups. There is no excuse for the continued existence of those groups. Despite the work of the PSNI's paramilitary crime task force (PCTF) and the tackling paramilitarism programme, those paramilitary groups continue to exist. Tolerance of those groups is indefensible and must be called out.”
“LPS is aware that the ongoing works in Foyle Street affect up to 29 properties and is dealing with applications from two businesses in relation to those works. We encourage businesses to engage with LPS. I am happy for my officials to work with council officials to see what the impact is.”
“I think that the Member has corresponded with me on the issue. I recognise that public realm works sometimes inconvenience businesses, so I will consider cases for relief on their individual merits. Members should be aware that that will always be done in the context that I outlined to Mr Donnelly: when we award relief for a specific purpose, we have less money to spend on public services or there are higher rates bills for other homes and businesses. <BR /> <BR />Under the rating and valuation system, every case is assessed by Land and Property Services (LPS) on its merits by considering the impact of the work on the NAV of the property. That is determined by established case law and a long-standing statutory framework that supports the stability of a tax base used to fund central and local government services.”
“I do not think that my officials or I said that. We said that we wanted to give Departments clarity on their funding allocations as quickly as possible so that they could make decisions or not make decisions that would be detrimental to the services that they deliver. That is why there was an urgency around June monitoring. <BR /> <BR />By the way, I feel that there is still that urgency in making allocations. I would prefer to do so as soon as possible, but, if we are to get substantive clarity on the total Barnett consequentials for the rest of the year on 30 October, it makes sense that we wait until then so that we can give Departments as much certainty as possible.”
“I was going to say, "In October". When I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Financial Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC) the week before last, there was an indication that, rather than having to wait until January to get clear confirmation of Barnett consequentials for the year, as is usual, substantive clarity on that would be given when the British Chancellor announces the Budget on 30 October. October monitoring has therefore been commissioned. When we see the outcome of the Budget, we will seek to make those allocations.”
“I have not been invited to go to London next week, but I would be happy to attend with them. As I said to Deborah, I will meet the Mid South West growth deal partners again this week. We all have avenues that we can use for lobbying, and I will use my relationship with Treasury.”
“The strong collective message that we have been able to send, as an Executive and as parties across the board, on the need to unpause the funding commitment to the growth deals has been a real strength. The deal partners have been engaging directly with the NIO — I think that they met the British Secretary of State last week — and have been reassured by that engagement. That is some of the feedback that I have received. Other Members may have had similar feedback. <BR /> <BR />There is still work to do. Certainly, I have been encouraging the deal partners. Later this week, I will meet the Mid South West growth deal partners again. We will continue to put that pressure on and use whatever avenue we have. I have continued to press the issue with Treasury, in particular, to ensure that the commitment is reinstated.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am pleased to advise that, at their meeting on 2 October, the Executive agreed to recommendations that I brought forward, asking them to reaffirm their funding commitments to the two growth deals and the £100 million complementary fund. While we continue to collectively press the Treasury to reverse its decision to pause the £162 million British Government funding contribution to the growth deals, the Executive's agreement to reaffirm their funding commitment should help to provide clarity amidst the confusion that has been caused by Treasury, especially — I know that the Member will be pleased about this — on the A4 Enniskillen bypass, which is currently out to tender.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 7 and 12 together. <BR /> <BR />I am continuing to push for the reversal of the British Government's pause on growth deal funding. My officials are working closely with the two growth deal teams to provide the necessary evidence for Treasury to consider as part of the spending review. During the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee meeting on 3 October, I raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury the importance of the growth deals to our economic development and reiterated the need for funding to be reinstated for the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals.”
“Obviously, I do not agree with the Member's interpretation of the Budget sustainability plan. Appendix D is a list of proposals from Departments. The Executive will take a decision, and Ministers will take decisions in each of their Departments on which of those they will take forward.”
“I agree with the Member that addressing overcommitments and living within the budget should be the top priority for any Minister. All Ministers are autonomous within their Departments and have to take decisions to live responsibly, but the consequences of any Department overspending this year would be dire for the Executive as a whole, given the fact that the overcommitted funding would come out of next year's Budget. It would also call into question the write-off of the £559 million of what the Treasury called "debt" from previous years. It is incumbent on all Ministers to take the decisions that are necessary to live within their budgets and not put the Executive in that position.”
“That provided us with some additional funding this year, but it is still going to be a challenge to live within Budget.”