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 38 of 76.
“Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“2) Bill, as I have laid out, is a crucial piece of legislation that provides Departments with the power to continue to deliver vital front-line services to all our citizens during the 2024-25 financial year. I commend the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly, and I ask that Members agree its Final Stage. It is vital that the legislation completes it passage through the Assembly as it enables us to keep delivering public services and prevent Departments running out of money during the 2024-25 financial year.”
“In the interim fiscal framework, which is a document that I will perhaps share with Mr Gaston, we had a commitment that we could plan on the assumption that we will be funded at or above the level of 124% in future years. We need to secure that and ensure that that is part of our budget baseline going forward, so that we have our fair share of funding going towards public services. <BR /> <BR />Nicola Brogan spoke about the need to secure further fiscal powers. That will also be part of those future negotiations on our final fiscal framework. <BR /> <BR />I think that I have covered most of the remarks that I wanted to highlight. I will bring my remarks to a close. I have tried to respond to as many of the issues that Members have raised in today's debate and in previous debates as I could. <BR /> <BR />The Budget (No.”
“I will bring a paper to the Executive in the near future, with proposals around allocating the £500 million. <BR /> <BR />I also agree with him about the need for Departments to get on with transformation. That is something that we all agree on. Some funding goes towards transformation specifically, but it is quite a small pot of funding, and it will not do everything that we need it to do, so we need to see more wide-ranging actions on that. <BR /> <BR />There is also an important point to be made, and Diane made it in her contribution, about the financial package not having secured as much as is necessary to deliver public services. That is very clear. We still have more negotiation to do in relation to post 2026-27.”
“I accept the point that there is a level of caution to be had. Obviously, there will be a degree of risk attached to those allocations, but it is on the basis of the intelligence that we have as to what we can expect. From my perspective, it is a degree of risk that I am comfortable with to make the allocations on the basis that we want to give Departments as much certainty as we can to help them to be able to plan to live within the budget envelopes that they have. <BR /> <BR />That brings me on to Mr Tennyson's comments. He spoke about the enormous challenges that budgets are facing. I agree with him that we need to see Ministers taking actions to live within those budgets, because the consequences of not living within them are, from my perspective, pretty dire for next year.”
“I thank the Member for his remarks. I will be and have been engaging with my Scottish and Welsh counterparts, and I will meet them, along with the British Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in early October as part of our regular Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC) engagements.”
“The figures that we are talking about, which are in the region of £500 million, have been arrived at on the basis of discussions that my officials had with Treasury officials. Similarly, we had discussions with officials in advance of June monitoring, and it transpired that that is where we ended up on the numbers that we were expecting. However, it is also fair to say that there are Departments in England that are facing considerable pressures as well and that, therefore, money will likely have to be allocated to them. Also, they have committed to funding the pay review body recommendations, so I think —.”
“It is my intention to align with that, and, in planning for it, we have asked Departments for their projections for three years. <BR /> <BR />Liz Kimmins, Nuala McAllister and Steve Aiken mentioned Health, and, clearly, Health is a priority, with over half our Budget going to that Department. We have sought to prioritise it in the allocations that have been made. Mr Aiken made his point again about the outturn versus the opening of the Budget. I am sure that, come the end of the year, the picture will be very different, but we will wait and see. <BR /> <BR />Mr Aiken made other comments about the allocations that we are expecting. Obviously, you have a degree of scepticism about some of the actions that we have seen over recent days and weeks. You are right to be cautious.”
“Those are also now reflected in the Programme for Government, but, obviously, we would like to be in a place where we are setting a Budget that aligns with and funds the priorities that are in a Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGrath and Miss McAllister discussed multi-year Budgets, and, again, that is the place where we want to be. You will be aware that we are able to allocate funding only on the cycle of years that we have in front of us. We are in the final year of a spending review, so we were able to do only a one-year Budget this year. We understand, and she has been very clear about this, that the Chancellor intends to set a one-year Budget in October and then, come early spring, will set a Budget for the following two years.”
“I thank all those Members who expressed their views in the debate, and I thank those who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and the associated Supply resolutions. I have listened to those contributions, and, while I may not agree with all the arguments that were presented, it is always useful to hear Members' views. I will respond to some of the issues that were raised in the debate before winding up fully. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGrath raised a couple of points about the Budget Bill's not being aligned with the Programme for Government. I am sure that he will concede that the Budget Bill was introduced before the PFG was published, and I laid out in the Chamber previously that the Executive had a number of priorities that they tried to align funding towards, with Health being one, childcare being another and Lough Neagh another.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“As the year progresses, the Executive may make further decisions on the allocation of resources, and I will bring those back to the Assembly, through the spring Supplementary Estimates and a subsequent Budget Bill, at the end of the financial year. <BR /> <BR />I express my gratitude, once again, to the Finance Committee for agreeing to accelerated passage. I also thank all the Committees and their members for the level of scrutiny that they have brought to the process. <BR /> <BR />This is the Final Stage of the legislative process for the Bill. I look forward to hearing any final thoughts that Members have on this important piece of legislation.”
“Today, however, is about concluding the Final Stage of our legislative process for the 2024-25 Budget. Members will be aware of the importance of bringing the Budget (No. 2) Bill into law in giving Departments the statutory authority for the total amounts of resource, capital and cash in the Main Estimates. If passed, the legislation will then require Royal Assent, and there are a number of steps to go through before it reaches that stage. <BR /> <BR />While I do not expect any unnecessary delay until Royal Assent is achieved, Departments will continue to rely on the 65% Vote on Account agreed by the Assembly. Some Departments have already indicated that they are approaching the limit of their available Vote on Account, with DAERA having already received a cash advance from the Consolidated Fund to cover payments being made this month.”
“<BR /> <BR />My Department has also developed a Budget sustainability plan that will be presented to Executive colleagues shortly. The plan will be a first step in a more ambitious programme of work that will help to set public services on a more sustainable footing. The interim fiscal framework agreed that the 24% needs-based adjustment factor would apply from the date of restoration. That will have resulted in an additional £160 million for the Executive by year end based on the assumed level of £500 million of Barnett consequentials that I referred to. <BR /> <BR />I am determined to continue to press the British Government to ensure that public services are sustainably funded. I have begun the exercise of gathering information from Departments to inform decisions around the upcoming Budget for 2025-26.”
“<BR /> <BR />The consequences of not living within our Budget are well understood, and I will not repeat them all here, except to say that they include the potential to jeopardise many of the gains made by parties in the financial package that accompanied the return of the Executive, as well as the interim fiscal framework that I agreed with Treasury. The Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26 will not be known until the end of October, but I anticipate that it will be challenging, and any overspend this year will make a bad situation considerably worse. I intend shortly to bring a paper to the Executive with proposals for allocating the £500 million, and I hope to get Executive agreement. It is vital that each Department take the necessary action to live within their budget once those allocations are agreed.”
“I have said that I am willing to allocate £500 million to Departments to help them to manage those pressures. That £500 million represents the anticipated level of additional Barnett consequentials to the Executive for the rest of the year, a figure that was arrived at through proactive engagement with Treasury on the likely direction of travel on Barnett. Clearly, that will not meet the full level of pressures that are being forecast, but I believe that it is important to give Departments as much certainty as I can as early as I can to enable them to take the decisions to live within their Budget allocations.”
“The Bill provides the vital legislative authority for expenditure by Departments and other bodies, as set out in the agreed Estimates, and authorises the use of resources and sums issued from the Consolidated Fund for previous years, as detailed in the Statement of Excesses. <BR /> <BR />While the debate is on the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and relates to the Main Estimates as laid in June, I will talk briefly about the in-year position. I have spoken previously about the difficult budgetary position that the Executive find themselves in at this point, and Members will be well aware of the challenges that we face. The response to the urgent information-gathering exercise that I commissioned from Departments identified a reported £767 million of unfunded pressures.”
“As Members may recall, demand for allocations far outstripped the funding available for 2024-25, and we did not have the Budget to do everything that we would have wanted to do in order to provide the public services that people deserve. <BR /> <BR />The 2024-25 Budget was agreed by the Assembly on 24 May following extensive debate. I will not repeat the same detail now, as today's focus is to complete the passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Main Estimates for 2024-25 were laid in the Assembly on 19 June alongside the Statement of Excesses, and both were debated and agreed by the Assembly on 1 July. The Budget (No. 2) Bill reflects the same position.”
“Today's Final Stage concludes the financial legislative process for the Budget (No. 2) Bill in the Assembly. The debate at the Second Stage of the Bill on 2 July was valuable, and I thank all Members for the contributions that they have brought to the process. <BR /> <BR />As Members may recall, a 65% Vote on Account for 2024-25 was agreed by the Assembly on 9 April. That Vote on Account provided finance to allow existing services to continue in 2024-25, pending consideration of appropriate legislation to meet the full expenditure for 2024-25 — the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Main Estimates for 2024-25 relate to the supply of cash and use of resources for the current year and are based on the departmental spending plans as set out in the Executive's 2024-25 Budget, which was agreed on 25 April.”
“I urge Members to agree to the suspension of Standing Order 39(2).”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. The urgency of the Bill's needing to proceed to Final Stage is driven by the critical need to secure cash to Departments so that they can continue to deliver vital public services. As the Member mentioned, we recently had to advance funding from the Consolidated Fund to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure the delivery of farm payments. I am not aware of each Department's specific accounting position in relation to its Vote on Account at this stage, but the risk is that, if we do not move to Final Stage next week, it will take much longer to get Royal Assent for the Budget Bill, and Departments will then meet their cash limits. I therefore point out that not agreeing the motion to suspend the Standing Order would jeopardise the delivery of public services.”
“There is a risk, therefore, that Departments reach the Vote on Account limit before Royal Assent is achieved. I am seeking to mitigate that risk. Should Departments reach their cash limits, there is a real risk to the delivery of public services, as it would be illegal for a Department to exceed the voted limits. <BR /> <BR />There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to discuss in full the issues that relate to the Budget (No. 2) Bill at the upcoming Final Stage debate. I thank Members for their continued support for the Budget and their understanding on the matter.”
“in their opinion, it may proceed to its Final Stage. That Standing Order ensures that the Assembly, rightly, has time to consider and debate legislation fully. I ask that the Assembly agree to the suspension of that Standing Order in order to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time frame and for the Final Stage debate to occur in a week's time on 23 September. <BR /> <BR />As Members may recall, the Assembly agreed a 65% Vote on Account for 2024-25 on 9 April. That Vote on Account provided finance to allow Departments to continue to provide services in 2024-25, pending the passage of a Budget (No. 2) Bill. When the Budget (No. 2) Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, there are further steps to be completed before Royal Assent is secured. That does not happen immediately.”
“Standing Order 39(2) requires that, in accordance with the 1998 Act:”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“I will continue to make the case that we need to see that pause lifted as quickly as possible and that there should be absolutely no disparity between the four city and growth deals so that people can then get on with actually delivering.”
“As I have outlined in the Chamber this afternoon, I had the opportunity to speak to the chief executives of the three councils in the Mid South West growth deal area this morning. They relayed to me the importance of ensuring that the pause is lifted as quickly as possible so that it does not damage the progress of the deal or undermine the confidence and momentum that has been built up with so much commitment from local government and private sector partners.”
“Thank you to the Member for that. I agree with her about the need for the projects. They will be game-changing in local economic development and the potential for job creation and further investment in local areas. Those are the exact points that I will make to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State and that I made to the Chancellor last week. As I said, the Chancellor has talked about a growth agenda, and the projects that we are talking about completely align with that objective, so we need to see them delivered. <BR /> <BR />The point on the two deals on which a pause remains is well made. That pause needs to be lifted immediately. They need to have the same certainty and clarity as the other deals so that people can get on with their work to deliver on those important projects.”
“We became aware of the pause on Wednesday afternoon at official level. It was only on Wednesday evening that I made Executive colleagues aware of it. I cannot answer for the Economy Minister, but I know when I made my Executive colleagues aware of the news, and it was late on Wednesday evening.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I am happy to give that commitment. There should be absolutely no disparity in the treatment of any of the projects. It is imperative that the pause is lifted on the two remaining deals as a matter of urgency and that they do not have to wait until the end of October to have certainty. Otherwise, confidence in those projects will be undermined. I have spoken to all the chief executives, and there is such angst, concern and anger about how they have been treated, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will continue to impress upon the Treasury that it needs to reverse those pauses and the deplorable decisions that have been taken, because there can be no disparity between the deals. To return to Mr Durkan's point, we all accept the need to address regional inequalities, and Derry and Strabane are right at the top in relation to that. However, all our regions face difficulties. We really need the projects to be delivered in order to drive forward local economic development.”
“The Member will be aware that the complementary fund is an additional £100 million that the Executive committed for the three city and growth deals — the Belfast region deal, the Causeway Coast and Glens deal and the Mid South West deal — that are not in receipt of Inclusive Future Fund moneys, which the Derry and Strabane growth deal is. I think that £52 million of that fund has already been earmarked for a number of projects, leaving £48 million still to be allocated. As I have said, I do not accept that it would be reasonable for us to be in a position where the British Government renege on their funding commitments to those two growth deals. I will continue to urge them to honour those commitments and the deals that they have already signed.”
“As the Member will be aware, the city and growth deals are delivered over a number of years, so that funding commitment is over a number of years. As I said in response to another Member, I am not yet in the space of accepting that funding commitments will be withdrawn. That is not an acceptable position for us to be in. The commitments need to be honoured, and the British Government need to live up to the commitments that have been made. The Executive are certainly committed to the delivery of the projects; we expect the British Government to do the same.”
“That is the funding that has flowed from the Executive and the British Government, but there has also been investment from local partners in the development of projects to business case stage so that they are in a position to be taken forward. All of that is put at risk, if there are questions marks over it, and confidence in deliverability is undermined. That is why we need the pause on the two remaining deals to be lifted as a matter of urgency and the funding commitments delivered on.”
“I have figures here on what has been invested in each of the deals over the past number of years. Obviously, the Belfast deal is the most advanced, and funding has been flowing there since about 2022-23. There was £3 million that year and £5·36 million in the following year. In Derry and Strabane, £0·9 million was spent in 2022-23.This year, about £48 million has been spent, of which about £39·5 million is a British Government contribution. In Derry and Strabane this year, £0·72 million is anticipated to be spent on one of the projects, along with £2·7 million on the Derry North Atlantic museum, which is funded through the Executive's contribution to the Inclusive Future Fund. <BR /> <BR />There has been considerable investment.”
“I thank the Member for that question. Like me, he will be familiar with the projects in the Causeway Coast and Glens deal. I had the opportunity to visit Bushmills recently and hear about the plans for the regeneration project there. There is also Dungiven regeneration and the range of innovation projects in which the university and the regional college are involved. They are all really important in driving forward our economic development, boosting economic performance, creating jobs and supporting businesses and infrastructure development. It is crucial that they be delivered. My feelings about how the whole episode has been handled are well on record: it has been absolutely shambolic. There needs to be serious reflection on the rebuilding of relationships, because they have been seriously damaged over the past few days.”
“The number of Members in the Chamber this afternoon to ask questions on the topic shows how important it is. I will have a call with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon. It is important that we seek clarity around the projects that remain paused. That pause needs to be lifted as a matter of urgency. The Member cited a project in his constituency that needs to be delivered: we all have those projects, and all of them need to be delivered. All of the commitments made in relation to that funding and all of the pledges made — the deals that have been signed — need to be delivered.”
“They all need to be delivered. Those responding committed to them all — the British Government, the Executive and other local partners. Therefore, they all need to proceed, and they need to proceed as a matter of urgency. Nobody should be sitting around until the end of October waiting for clarity on that, because that will undermine confidence in the projects being delivered.”
“I thank the Member for her questions. I share her dismay about the projects, because she and I are constituency colleagues, and we know well the importance of the growth deal locally. I do not know the rationale behind the decision. I can only presume that it is about the progress made. The Belfast region city deal had moved past the financial deal-signing stage, and a number of contracts had been signed. The Derry city deal was getting to the financial deal-signing stage, but that is why we need to make the case for why there can be no disparity among the various deals.”
“The Member's point about having been involved for eight years is relevant. So much time and effort has gone into developing projects for each city and growth deal. I am not in the headspace where I accept that there will be a reneging on the funding commitment. The Government need to honour the commitments and pledges that they made on the funding, and, where deals have already been signed, it is only reasonable that we expect them to be delivered. I am therefore not yet in the place where I need to be thinking about reimbursing people. Collectively, we need to make the case for the commitments to be delivered on.”
“The communication from the Secretary of State is that the status of the Belfast region city deal is unchanged. That is the extent of the communication that I have had. As I said to Deborah, we need to get clarity on all those matters, and I am still waiting for that formal communication to set out the exact status of each of the city and growth deals. The project that the Member referred to is hugely important for her constituents, in the same way as a number of projects that we will all point to into which local partners have put a lot of time and effort through development proposals and investment. We need to see the assurances for each of the city and growth deals and the pause lifted on the two that remain paused.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. There has been a unity of purpose shown on the issue, and that is to be commended. It has helped us get to the position that we are in now, but we have a way to go to ensure that the funding committed to the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West region growth deal are delivered. <BR /> <BR />I was not aware of the specific issue that the Member has mentioned, so I am happy to raise it for him.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the Mid South West deal, it is projects such as the agri bio innovation centre, the Mid South West innovation programme and the green energy pilot. Those are the projects that the British Government are supposed to be funding. They are really exciting and innovative projects, and we need the pause to be lifted as soon as possible, so that everybody can get back to ensuring that they are delivered as quickly as possible and so that Mid South West can get its heads of terms signed.”
“I share the Member's concerns. I spoke to the Mid South West chief executives earlier, and I understand and feel their frustration, given the effort that has gone into developing those projects. The British Government's funding, for the most part, goes towards innovation and digital projects. They are, again, the projects that will be game-changing in economic development and boosting jobs and local economic activity. For example, in Causeway Coast and Glens, the British Government were funding the Bushmills innovation and incubation hub; the centre for drug discovery, biofood and pharmaceutical innovation; and a food innovation and incubation hub. The private sector, along with the universities, has put a lot of development and interest into those things.”
“I am well on record at this point about how deplorable the actions of the past days have been. The answer to the first part of your question is no, I am not. It is outrageous that we are in that situation. We need that to be rectified as a matter of urgency, because those projects will deliver economic development, create jobs and provide infrastructure investment. I made exactly those points to the Chancellor. She talks about a growth agenda; the city and growth deals will deliver that. We need to see them back on track.”
“The Member's question points to the difficulty that the pause on the funding commitment has created. There is a range of projects right across the North on which delivery is critical, and now there are question marks over some of those projects. I will work with the Infrastructure Minister and all Executive Ministers to understand where we are with individual projects, but we need to get the pause lifted as quickly as possible so that we can put certainty back into the delivery of those projects and ensure that there is not a loss of confidence. A lot of people out there have angst and concern about whether projects will be delivered, and I am not in a position to answer their questions, because I do not have clarity on a lot of them. We need that clarity as a matter of urgency.”
“<BR /> <BR />Obviously, as I said, the fact is that the pause in the funding commitment will damage confidence and the momentum of that project. That is why it needs to be rectified immediately. The Mid South West growth deal has also been making excellent progress and the deal partner was preparing to sign the heads of terms in late autumn. Again, I will press the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for clarity on the funding commitments for that deal and, again, stress that the pause should be lifted as a matter of urgency.”
“The Belfast region city deal, as the Member will be very well aware, was signed in December 2021. Twelve legally binding contracts have since been signed, and a further three of those are expected to be signed in 2024. Planning permission had already been granted for some of those projects as well. You mentioned that Derry and Strabane District Council has made excellent progress in developing projects for its city deal. It is now due to hold an event in the Guildhall on Wednesday to officially sign that deal. It is at the financial deal-signing stage. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council signed heads of terms on 24 April, and preparation is going into the outline business cases to progress to the next stage of the financial deal signing.”
“I have reflected on that over the weekend and do not think that this is how we should do business. There needs to be a reflection, at this point, on how things have been handled over the past couple of days. This Government have done a lot of talking about rebuilding relationships. We now need to see actions that match up to those words. Certainly, I will make that point and emphasise that confidence has been damaged by this episode and needs to be rebuilt.”
“I share the Member's dismay at the hierarchy and the fact that we have a disparity in approach. It is absolutely unacceptable, and I will continue to make the case that it needs to be rectified. City and growth deals are intended to do all of those things around addressing regional disparities: driving and boosting local economic development, creating jobs and redressing the deficits that exist. Those are some of the points that I made to the Chancellor on Thursday about why the delivery of these projects is necessary and why the commitment must stand. I will continue to make that case. I will speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State later this afternoon to relay that message again about the need to unpause the other two deals as a matter of absolute urgency. They cannot wait until the end of October.”