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 39 of 76.
“I thank the Member for his question. The communication that I have been given in relation to Derry and Strabane is that it will go ahead and the deal signing will go ahead. That is the extent of the communication that I have received. I am still pressing Treasury for formal communication. Derry and Strabane is one deal partner, but those who are still affected by the pause have a lot of questions, and there are a lot of things that we still do not have clarity on that we are trying to get clarity on.”
“I have spoken to all the chief executives of the impacted councils over the weekend or this morning and assured them that I and my officials are doing what we can to resolve the situation immediately.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I am well on record at this point as saying that the handling of the matter by the British Government has been atrocious. I am not aware of any formal communication between the British Government and the deal partners, but there was a call with the NIO on Friday to inform it about the pause. The haphazard approach that we have seen in relation to the matter has led to unnecessary confusion, concern and stress for all involved in the city and growth deals. It was a decision by the British Government, and, therefore, it was for them to formally communicate that. <BR /> <BR />My officials have been in constant contact with deal partners over the weekend. The handling of it has been absolutely terrible.”
“The Member is aware of the content of last week's amendment. I cannot remember the exact detail of it, but I felt that it added to the motion as it stood. We need to do all that we can to put our finances on a more sustainable footing and to deliver the best public services that we can, and those that the people we represent expect and deserve.”
“The Member will be aware that we have asked Departments for proposals for using transformation funding. He will also be aware that, as part of the Budget sustainability work, we have committed to looking at all opportunities to deliver efficiencies where there is duplication, to generate revenue and to look at the types of tools that we need to manage our public services effectively.”
“Of the proposals that have been received, 29 are moving forward, and 18 of those will be included in a digital landscape review. A number of Departments submitted proposals in the digital space, and we thought that the most effective use of money would be to do something on that collectively. A further 11 proposals will move to a second assessment stage. Clearly, the £235 million of transformation funding across five years, which has been made available to the Executive in the financial package, will in no way tackle the magnitude of the issues. I am, however, committed to making the best and most effective use of those resources to develop and implement a model of delivery that will help to stimulate the transformation of public services.”
“The Member will be aware that the public sector across the North is in critical need of investment and reform to ensure that high-quality public services can be delivered efficiently. Transformation will be essential for doing that and for helping to put the Executive's finances on a more sustainable footing. I brought a proposal to the Executive to set up an interim transformation programme on 9 May and to quickly establish the interim transformation board, which is considering proposals for utilising the £47 million of transformation for this year. The board has completed its first-stage assessment, and 47 proposals have been received.”
“It is certainly my intention to ensure that it is delivered by the end of the mandate. At the minute, we are scoping options as to how it can be delivered. It is my intention to make it happen as quickly as possible.”
“The Member has raised that with me on a number of occasions and has considerable interest in the subject. He will be aware that I am committed to delivering the scheme, which will help to recognise the loss that parents feel and, in some small way, to process that loss. I met the Health Minister last Monday to review ongoing work and plans for the next steps for the delivery of a baby loss certificate scheme. I am keen to see that progressed as quickly as possible, and my officials have engaged with officials from the Department of Health on the practicalities.”
“I am not aware of the specific issue in Lagan Valley to which the Member refers, but a number of general concerns have been raised in relation to the issue of management fees. I would be happy for the Member to correspond with me in relation to that issue, and we can get some advice from officials.”
“I have had quite a bit of correspondence on management companies from Members. I am sure that many of us have received concerns from constituents about them. I have raised the matter with officials and asked what can be done. As the Member will be aware, there are different responsibilities for the issues across a number of Departments, but I have asked officials to look at the matter.”
“I thank the Member for his question. My understanding is that the Government mean 30 October, the Budget date. However, I await full clarification from the Treasury on a lot of issues. It is my view that Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West should not have to wait until the end of October before getting the same clarity that the deals will go ahead that Belfast region and Derry City and Strabane have had. There should be absolutely no disparity between the deals.”
“I agree with the Member. It is really concerning. As he knows, an awful lot of effort and time went into developing those projects. We signed the heads of terms for the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal back in April. There has been considerable investment in developing the business cases. Unfortunately, we still have a lot of questions on which we cannot give answers to deal partners. I met the chief executive of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council this morning and relayed my reassurance that I am doing all that I can to get the answers and get the pause lifted.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Of course. The relationship between the Department and the Committee is one where such information is regularly shared. We try to be as transparent as possible.”
“If I understand the question, the Member is asking about the additional Barnett consequentials that are based on our assumptions after discussion with the Treasury. They are based on engagement at official level about what is likely to come to the Executive for the rest of the year. As I said in my previous answers, the Barnett consequentials will not be confirmed until we get Supplementary Estimates in January. The Chancellor is not in a position to confirm the Barnett consequentials at this point. The allocations that I intend to make are based on the direction of travel and discussions between officials.”
“The sale of the buildings will enable some much-needed capital funding to be reinvested in public services, as well as reducing building costs for the Executive, including the costs of energy usage.”
“My Department is progressing an ambitious review of its office estate, with the aim of reducing the in-scope footprint by 40% by March 2028. The sales process is nearing completion for Netherleigh House, Clarence Court and Victoria Hall, and officials are confident that sales will be completed in coming weeks.”
“There is research being looked at and that does not necessarily lead directly to a policy change being implemented. As I said in my previous answers on the rates consultation, proposals will go to the Executive on the short-, medium- and longer-term rates measures in coming weeks, and it will, of course, be for the Executive to decide.”
“The economic policy centre conducts research on behalf of a range of people. My Department had asked for some research to be done on the poundage across the North and the impact of the poundage across the different council areas. That is a slightly different issue from the one to which the Member refers.”
“We took the opportunity to raise the need for investment in public services and capital infrastructure. At no point were my officials made aware that an announcement was being made on Friday evening.”
“Obviously, the issue of Casement Park has been raised on many, many occasions with the Chancellor and with all levels of the British Government. We had been told on a number of occasions that a decision was imminent, and it came on Friday evening after many, many months of dither and delay from the previous Tory Government, who effectively ran down the clock and left us in the position that we are now in.”
“However, as set out in the Prime Minister's statement and in the Chancellor's statement — they have been at pains to point out that a difficult Budget is coming — public finances are under extreme pressure, with Whitehall Departments being asked to find savings. Scotland and Wales are also facing significant pressures. The action being taken by the Scottish Government has been well publicised. While there will be further Barnett consequentials later this year, they will fall significantly below the level of pressures that we are currently facing. As I outlined to the Chamber last week, I will continue to make the case to the British Government that more funding is needed for public services and to support our families, workers and businesses.”
“I met the Chancellor in London last week along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That followed an initial meeting with the Chancellor in July shortly after she came into office. I also separately met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the end of July. The meetings provided an opportunity to highlight the Budget pressures facing the Executive and to make the case that the Executive need to be properly funded and to be able to deliver the public services that people here expect and need.”
“No, it did not, and, in fact, it was communicated at official level and brought to my attention only on Wednesday afternoon because it was such a concerning announcement and came as a bolt out of the blue. They are really important projects that have been years in the making. The handling of the matter and the communication, in particular, has been absolutely shambolic. There has been no formal communication with deal partners, which, again, is deplorable. Those points I will, of course, relay and have already done so. We need to see a bit of reflection on how the British Government engage not only with us as an Executive but with our constituents.”
“The Member will be aware that the Department of Finance leads on the delivery of the city and growth deals, but they involve partners, including local government and private-sector partners, and are delivered across a number of Departments. My Department takes the central role and, as you would imagine, was very active over the weekend in communicating not only with partners but with Treasury to try to ensure that the pause that was put in place on the funding commitment is lifted. People are working hard to ensure that that is the case for the remaining two deals.”
“I completely agree with the Member's analysis. She represents the Mid South West deal area, and I represent the Causeway Coast and Glens area, and we probably share frustration at the difference in treatment that there now is between the deals. Certainly, that is the case that I made to the Chancellor on Thursday about all the deals in general as well as the fact that they are about promoting local economic development. They are about creating jobs in local areas and addressing the infrastructure deficits that we have, particularly in rural areas, in certain parts of the North. The deals are game changers for regions across the North, and that is why I will continue to make the case that that pause be un-paused as soon as possible.”
“I will speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon, and I appeal again to the British Government to reverse that appalling decision.”
“The Member will be aware that I made a statement just before Question Time. My clear view is that the pause on the funding commitments to those deals needs to be lifted. There can be absolutely no disparity between the deals. I met the chief executives and representatives of the Mid South West deal and the Causeway Coast and Glens deal this morning, and I share their frustration and anger at the handling of the matter. I reassured them that I am in their corner. There can be no disparity of treatment between the deals, and it is essential that the pause on that funding commitment be lifted. I have followed up with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, making it clear that Mid South West and Causeway Coast and Glens should not have to wait for that clarity.”
“It is now essential that the pause on funding commitments is lifted as a matter of urgency for all deals, which should not have to wait until the spending review for clarity.”
“He advised that the British Government were going ahead with the Derry City and Strabane city deal, and an email followed from his office confirming that. Following that, late on Sunday evening my office received an email from the NIO stating that the Secretary of State was also happy to confirm that, following communication with Treasury, nothing had changed on the status of the Belfast region city deal. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased to say that Derry City and Strabane District Council has reinstated the event planned for Wednesday and that the Derry and Strabane city deal will be signed. That will be a momentous milestone for the people of the north-west, and I am glad that sense has prevailed.”
“There had been excellent progress on the Derry City and Strabane District Council city deal, which was preparing for deal signing this week. As you will now be aware, the British Government took the deplorable decision to pause their funding commitment to city and growth deals until further consideration in the spending review. The British Government delivered that shocking news to deal partners on Friday afternoon. Derry City and Strabane District Council was then forced to cancel its deal-signing event, which had been planned for Wednesday 18 September in the Guildhall and for which invites to a large number of guests had already gone out. <BR /> <BR />After widespread uproar and appeals to reverse that reprehensible move, I received a phone call from the Secretary of State late on Saturday evening.”
“I thank the Member for her question. That is, obviously, something that has been considered. The intention of any support that we put towards the childcare sector is to make childcare more affordable for parents and families. The analysis is that the amount of money that would go towards individual providers may not make a significant contribution to a reduction in fees for parents. However, I am open to further consideration of the idea, and, were the Education Minister to make any policy proposals in that space, I would be open to considering them.”
“Childcare is a priority, which is reflected in the Programme for Government and in the fact that there was a ring-fenced pot of money for it in the Budget. Certainly, it is something in which I intend to invest in future.”
“I thank the Member for her question. We showed how childcare was a priority for the Executive, because, despite the really challenging budgetary situation that we found ourselves in, we still ring-fenced money specifically for childcare. Childcare is one of the priorities in the draft Programme for Government, and, as the Member will be aware and as all of us would hope, the Budget will be aligned to priorities in the Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />When Barnett consequentials come across, Ministers will often make the case that they should be used for the purposes for which they were allocated in England. The whole point of devolved government, however, is that we make decisions that align with our own interests.”
“We know that we will receive additional resource Barnett consequentials in-year, but the total of those will not be confirmed until we get our Westminster Supplementary Estimates, which is usually in January. Given the pressures that we face, I asked my officials to engage in discussions with Treasury on the likely direction of travel for Barnett consequentials. The final level of consequentials is, obviously, dependent on what additional funding Whitehall Departments get and if they have an ability to deliver savings. There is some degree of uncertainty, but it is my intention to allocate an additional £500 million.”
“I am aware from conversations with the Education Minister that a ramping up in capital investment is required to support the expansion of the 22·5 hours per week preschool provision, as well as to ensure that the childcare sector is able to expand its support. Certainly, despite their constrained Budget, the Executive have shown that we prioritise childcare by the £25 million that we held centrally and for which the Education Minister subsequently brought forward proposals. We seek to build on that, and I am sure that we will invest further in it.”
“The Member will be aware of the significant financial pressures facing the Executive's Budget that I outlined to the Chamber last week. Departments project pressures of £767 million for this year. As I mentioned in my previous answer, Barnett consequentials that come across for any issue are unhypothecated and have to be utilised by the Executive in the way that they decide. <BR /> <BR />The interim package of measures that we have put in place is designed to inform the Executive's early learning and childcare strategy, which has long been in development. It is also designed to support the sector.”
“That funding is already making a difference through the new childcare subsidy scheme, which had almost 10,000 children signed up to it within just two weeks of it opening. The families of those children will see their childcare bills reduced from September 2024. Despite the significant financial pressures on the Executive's Budget, we are committed to making childcare more affordable for families. That was reflected again in the draft Programme for Government that was published last week.”
“The Executive received £57·2 million of Barnett consequentials for 2024-25, following the announcement in the spring Budget of the expansion of the 30 free hours of childcare scheme in England. Barnett consequentials are, of course, unhypothecated, meaning that they do not have to be used for the purposes for which they were issued but, rather, in line with the Executive's priorities. The Executive as a whole recognise the importance of delivering for children and young people in our society. That is reflected in the fact that the Executive invested an additional £25 million this year to progress measures supporting early learning and childcare initiatives, including measures to stabilise the sector.”
“I will give the Member a figure off the top of my head that I will be happy to clarify because it will be in the consultation. I think that industrial derating costs £70 million. As I said, I will not pre-empt any proposals that will go to the Executive for discussion. Obviously, anything that we consider doing in relation to the rating system has to be about being progressive, fair and equitable, but it also has to be about what we are trying to achieve in respect of the economy, as I have just set out to Patsy.”
“As part of my consideration of the responses to the consultation, I had the opportunity to meet business organisations and businesses. Obviously, I will not pre-empt any proposals that will go to the Executive for discussion or decision, but I very much recognise the role that industrial derating has played in supporting local manufacturers. We have a strong manufacturing sector that supports an awful lot of jobs, and anything that we do needs to align with what we are trying to achieve with our economic vision of creating good jobs, improving productivity, decarbonisation and regional balance. The manufacturing sector ticks an awful lot of those boxes.”
“As the Member will be aware, that requirement was part of the financial package. We did not agree to it, but, nonetheless, that was Treasury's position, and I was able to negotiate some flexibility so that it could be raised over 24 months rather than 12. I am happy to give Members the update that it is projected that we will raise an additional £80 million this year. That is based on decisions that the Executive have made on the regional rate and other areas.”
“I met officials at the end of last month to advance policy proposals. I intend to bring forward proposals on what we can do in the immediate term and then in the medium and longer term early next month to the Executive. Obviously, decisions on the issues will be for the Executive as a whole to consider and decide on.”
“As part of the process, I will engage with Executive colleagues and continue engagement with business bodies, organisations and other stakeholders to work together to build a progressive rate system that grows our tax base and stimulates our local economy.”
“My Department published a summary of the consultation responses on the non-domestic and domestic rating measures last week on the Department's website. Over 1,400 responses were received from ratepayers, businesses and a range of other stakeholders. My Department also undertook a series of public meetings as part of the process, and I thank everyone who contributed to the process with their thoughts, ideas and experience. I met officials at the end of August to outline the next steps in advancing policy, and I will bring forward short-, medium- and long-term rating policy proposals, including a more strategic long-term policy approach, early next month.”
“Yes. It is an issue that I am keen to progress. We debated the matter in the Chamber a number of months ago, and I have asked my officials to scope out what will be required and bring forward policy proposals.”
“The Member will be aware from his role as Finance Committee Chair that a number of civil law issues sit with my Department. That has been the case since the Department was put in place. I do not necessarily agree with the Member about the need to move it to the Department of Justice.”
“It is important that we move to legislate, and I appeal to colleagues to support the proposals so that we can get a Bill to the Assembly for consideration in 2025.”
“Policy development is complete. My officials briefed the Finance Committee on the marriage and civil partnership Bill on 17 April, and Committee members were supportive of the changes. I circulated a paper to Executive colleagues on 21 May and asked for it to be tabled at the Executive meeting on 13 June. A final version was available for the Executive meeting on 19 June. Since then, the paper has failed to reach the agenda of the Executive meetings held on 18 July and 5 September. <BR /> <BR />My Department is not able to make further progress until Executive approval is secured. It is unclear to me, given the clear support for reform that the consultation process indicated, coupled with the broad support that the proposals received from the Finance Committee, why agreement to proceed should be further delayed.”
“I have previously indicated to Members my intention to introduce a Bill to amend the current law on marriage and civil partnership to bring belief marriage within the statutory framework and to bring forward the important increase in the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership to 18. My officials have finalised instructions to legislative counsel, and the drafting of a Bill is ready to commence. A paper was submitted to the Executive before the summer recess seeking approval to proceed with the policy and the drafting of a Bill. That paper has yet to secure a slot on the agenda, despite that having been requested for the past four meetings. I very much hope that it will be considered at the next available opportunity to enable those important proposed reforms to proceed and to be debated by the Assembly.”