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 45 of 76.
“Officials are still working through the preliminary plans for how the scheme will, or could, work. Costs cannot be finalised until the General Register Office has engaged with Department of Health officials in more detail in order to agree what our delivery plans will be. Obviously, we will look at cost implications once those figures have crystallised.”
“Officials are working on the preliminary plans for how the scheme could work, and, as I said to Mr Robinson, all options are being considered, including how we could produce baby loss certificates in Irish.”
“I am keen to build on the progress that has been made on registering life events in Irish.”
“All those things are being considered and worked through as officials scope out the development of a scheme here. I am open to looking at how we might take forward any of those things. Certainly, we will look at how we develop the scheme to ensure that it best meets the needs of people here, and there may need to be a consultation to ensure that people's views are taken on board. We have not yet taken a position on whether a consultation will be required, but that will be kept under review as we go through engagements with the officials involved in the schemes in Scotland and England.”
“I am keen to see the scheme taken forward as quickly as possible to give bereaved families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their loss. Initial discussions have taken place between the Department of Health and the General Register Office (GRO) about how the baby loss certificate scheme work may be developed. My officials and those from the Department of Health recently met managers from the Department of Health and Social Care who deliver the baby loss certificate scheme in England. A meeting has also been scheduled with National Records of Scotland officials to investigate how the Scottish scheme operates. That ongoing engagement will provide important lessons for the development of a scheme here.”
“We all recognise the importance of ensuring that the parameters of devolution are respected.”
“As the Member will be aware, the public sector transformation board was included in the financial package and is specific to the allocation of the £235 million that has been earmarked for transformation, on the basis of £47 million over each of the next five years. The Executive have agreed to it. My approach to the setting up of a transformation board is that it will do important work that, we all recognise, needs to be taken forward to transform and reform our public services. The basis of the transformation board is to evaluate the bids that come in to ensure that they meet a threshold of being transformational. <BR /> <BR />It is important work. I do not believe that it undermines devolution in any way, because it will be for the Executive to decide what projects are taken forward.”
“The analysis from the Fiscal Council is based on including the financial package in the calculation, and its calculation put it at around 125% or 126%. Obviously, we argued to the Treasury that it was the financial package and our baseline still sits well below that at in and around 120% or 121%. Therefore, we successfully made the case that we are still below need and that the 124% needs-based adjustment should be applied this year and next year. Thankfully, we got that over the line. However, as the Member will be aware — I have made the point on a number of occasions — that funding is relative to what goes into public services in England. If public services in England are not properly funded, which evidently they are not, we do not have enough money to run our public services either.”
“<BR /> <BR />The application of the 24% needs-based adjustment factor to the spring Barnett consequentials will, on its own, provide us with an additional £24 million to allocate in June monitoring. It is also anticipated that significant additional funding will arise from the Westminster Main Estimates, but they will not now be confirmed until after the election.”
“Following the agreement of the interim fiscal framework on 22 May — luckily, we got it over the line just before the general election was called — the needs-based factor of 24% will apply from 2024-25 to new Barnett consequentials arising since the Executive were restored in February 2024. It will apply when the Executive's relative funding falls below their relative need of 124%. The funding provided in the financial package that accompanied restoration will be exempt from that calculation, which means that the 124% will apply in 2024-25 and 2025-26 even if, by Treasury calculations, the financial package brings the Executive's funding above 124%.”
“We have established the team, and we have nominated officials to form it. As the Member will be aware, a certain degree of expertise is required to take forward that work, and it is important that officials with that expertise are part of the team. It is really important for us, as a Department and an Executive, that that work be taken forward. We will ensure that adequate resources are put into it, including for work on how we might provide the additional evidence that may be required in the time ahead.”
“I was pleased to sign an interim fiscal framework on behalf of the Executive last month. That is a significant early milestone towards putting our finances on a more sustainable footing. Following intensive and constructive negotiations, I secured a significant commitment from Treasury that it will review how the Executive are funded. That includes reviewing our relative need if multiple independent and credible sources provide evidence that it is higher than 124%, which I believe it to be. <BR /> <BR />I have established a new team in my Department to take forward the important work to agree a final fiscal framework. One of its first tasks is to consider how to build on the robust independent evidence base that we already have thanks to the work of the Fiscal Council.”
“When the scheme was in place up until 2022, there was positive feedback. I do not have the figures in front of me, but the analysis showed that those who partook of the scheme were mostly small independent retailers and that the scheme had a beneficial impact on the high street. I would be happy to write to the Member with more specifics on the evaluation of the scheme.”
“As the Member 's question reflected, the consultation closed in February. We received some 1,400 responses. Those have now been analysed, and officials have shared a draft report with me. That will go to the Finance Committee soon for discussion with officials. I want to give proper consideration to what people have said. I am keen to look at what we can do to ensure that our rating system aligns with the economic vision that we are trying to achieve. That is something that I will be keen to work on with my colleague the Minister for the Economy.”
“The Member will be aware that some responsibilities relating to those issues fall to other Departments as well as mine. In the previous mandate, some work was done on the high street task force, which reported in 2022. The high street task force's recommendation for my Department was to reinstate the back in business scheme. That recommendation has, obviously, been taken forward. Of course, I am completely open to any proposals that the Minister for Communities or the Minister for the Economy would like to make in relation to supporting businesses on our high streets and would be happy to work with them on that.”
“I was pleased to secure Assembly support on 14 May for the restoration of the back in business scheme. The scheme opened for applications on 15 May. Once a business has supplied all the required evidence, the application will be processed within 10 working days. The scheme should have a significant impact on securing the occupation of long-term empty retail space in our towns and cities. Importantly, on the evidence of its last iteration, the scheme predominantly goes to smaller retail units and is paid to smaller operators and independent traders, providing them with much-needed support in their first two years of trading. The design of the scheme grows the tax base and comes at a notional cost, on the basis that the properties might never have become occupied otherwise.”
“<BR /> <BR />I recently circulated an Executive paper to my ministerial colleagues asking for their views, and I am confident that the plan that I have set out will receive the necessary support for us to proceed with that work. Subject to competing legislative priorities, I hope to see a Bill introduced to the Assembly in the early part of next year.”
“I propose bringing forward reforms that will place belief marriages formally on an equal footing to religious marriages, replacing the temporary arrangements that are currently in place. In addition, I propose increasing the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership from the current 16 to 18. That will bring this jurisdiction into line with established best practice. Provisions will be included around the recognition of marriages elsewhere where one party is under 18 and lives in this jurisdiction. It will also provide for criminal offences for adults who arrange or attempt to arrange the marriage of a person who is under 18. Those are important reforms that will help to safeguard our children and young people.”
“As the Member might be aware, the Executive's legislative programme that has been published is for this calendar year only, up until December 2024. The policy preparation for this legislation is quite far advanced, and I intend to bring it to the Executive soon.”
“I do not consider that reform in relation to that issue is a priority, and it should not hold up the important reforms that are planned to proceed in the legislation, including in particular the intention to increase minimum marriage age, which I am keen to see implemented without additional delay.”
“I intend to bring forward marriage law reforms that will create more choice and flexibility for couples seeking to marry, provide equality between those with religious and non-religious beliefs and bring this jurisdiction into line with international best practice on marriage age. I believe that that is all to be welcomed and look forward to debating those important reforms in the Assembly in due course. <BR /> <BR />Regulation of marriages undertaken by independent celebrants would require significant further reform of existing marriage legislation.”
“It is a responsibility that I take seriously. I want to, and intend to, deliver for all our citizens. On that note, I commend the Budget to the Assembly.”
“We need to invest in our artists and creatives, not just because they contribute significantly to our economy but because they are beneficial to our communities, particularly in a society like ours that is emerging from conflict. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister made some comments about parties going back into the Executive without clarity or sufficient funds. Time and again, my party has said that the best place to negotiate with the British Government and with Treasury was in an Executive, with a Finance Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister negotiating with the British Government. That is exactly what has been borne out over the past couple of weeks. <BR /> <BR />I will bring my remarks to a close. It is the responsibility of a Finance Minister to bring Budget proposals before the House.”
“I hope that she will recognise that I have tried to work with her constructively, and I will continue to do so. <BR /> <BR />I fully intend to work as constructively as possible with Mr Nesbitt when he takes up his role as anticipated later today. He highlighted the potential to delay the vote because Departments have a 65% Vote on Account. I have already set out in the course of the discussion that the 65% Vote on Account was based on the assumption of Royal Assent for the next Budget Bill in September. If we delay this vote and the introduction of the next Budget Bill, there is a risk that Departments could run out of cash on the basis of the Vote on Account that was taken. <BR /> <BR />I want to put on record that I agree with Sian Mulholland's comments around the arts, which are not just nice-to-haves.”
“That was not reflective of the priority that should be given to climate change, but rather to reflect the intention to provide Departments with maximum flexibility to manage their budgets. Indeed, as climate change is so far-reaching, it should be a consideration across all areas of spend in Departments. <BR /> <BR />Joanne Bunting and Stewart Dickson outlined their concerns about the Department of Justice budget. I fully agree that the Department of Justice needs more money. We tried to reflect that in the Budget allocations that were made. It received the third-largest allocation in relation to the money that was available to us. As I have said many times, including in the course of this debate, the limited funds meant that no Department got what it wanted. I have listened to the concerns of the Justice Minister.”
“What message does that send? The public will make up their own minds. <BR /> <BR />Declan McAleer and Tom Elliott both spoke about the challenges facing the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, highlighting the challenges that the Executive faced in setting this Budget. Mr Elliott also raised climate change, an issue that he has raised with me a number of times. Under section 52 of the Climate Change Act 2022, all Departments are required to exercise their functions in a manner that is consistent with achieving emissions targets and carbon budgets. Given the constrained financial position, I did not propose earmarked allocations for climate change in the Budget.”
“Some Departments followed the guidance and did not bid for pay costs, but others, such as the Department of Health, did. Some Departments broke their bids down into discrete areas, but others added a number of bids for different purposes together to present a large number of inescapable pressures. That is why Departments did not simply receive a proportion of their bids, nor did they receive an allocation based on their proportion of the block. Instead, an assessment was made of the best way possible to allocate the limited resources that were available. That approach gave the Department of Health half of what was available for general allocation. Frankly, it is utterly incoherent to resign, ostensibly in protest against the Budget, on the eve of an election campaign, only for your party to then appoint your colleague to the position.”
“It was for each Minister to decide what was affordable for the pay awards within their control in the knowledge that funding would be lower in 2024-25. Mr Swann also complained that the Department of Health only received £34 million specifically for waiting lists. That is true: I did not ring-fence additional money in order to give the Health Minister the maximum flexibility to manage the full £7·8 billion resource DEL Health budget. <BR /> <BR />Mr Swann has said a number of times that Departments did not bid on the same basis. That is true, despite guidance from my Department. Some Departments were cognisant of the funding available and competing pressures and minimised their bids, but others bid for everything possible.”
“We are already talking about the in-year monitoring money that will be allocated in June, so it just does not stack up to compare the end of the year with the start of the year, and talking about a 2·3% reduction is misleading. The only true comparison with the end of 2023-24 will be the end of 2024-25. <BR /> <BR />Mr Swann also talked about how unrealistic it was to provide funding for pay in 2023-24 and not recover those costs this year. When asking the Executive to agree the final plan for 2023-24, I highlighted the fact that the same level of funding would not be available this year. Indeed, that would have been clear to everyone. The financial package provided over £1 billion in 2023-24 and £520 million in 2024-25.”
“The question that I pose to anybody who criticises the Budget is: where would you take the money from to give it to somebody else? I give the Departments the money and they decide how to spend it, but there was a limited pot of money to allocate. I have yet to hear any proposals on where I should take that money from. <BR /> <BR />Mr Swann talked about the reduction to the Department of Health's budget and compared the end of 2023-24 with the start of 2024-25. That is not a like-for-like comparison, as has been repeated numerous times. Additional funding is frequently provided in year. The Department of Health also received £80 million of transfers from Whitehall Departments in 2023-24, and I assume that the Department of Health will receive similar transfers this year.”
“Colin McGrath raised the issue of the budget for the community and voluntary sector. Again, I recognise that the sector and its organisations are experiencing significant increases in demands for their services, including for advice and support at a time when rising costs are impacting on organisations and their ability to continue to meet demand. The Communities Minister bid for some additional money in the 2024-25 Budget, and, again, it will be for the Communities Minister, as with all other Ministers, to prioritise his budget and the programmes in it. Of course, Ministers will have the opportunity to bid for further funding allocations through the in-year monitoring rounds. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGrath seems to have more faith in an incoming Labour Government than I do, and he thinks that we could do better with the Budget that we have.”
“DFE subsequently confirmed to my Department that an Executive view was necessary regarding the future of the scheme before the work was progressed. As DFE is the lead Department on energy policy and the operation of the non-domestic RHI scheme, responsibility for the business case rests with that Department, and my officials continue to engage with their counterparts on that.”
“The Department for the Economy submitted a business case addendum to my Department for the uplift in tariffs in November 2023.”
“The Executive agreed that I would write to the British Treasury to seek agreement to re-profile the Executive's future years funding in order to fund the full implementation of the non-teaching pay and grading review for education support staff. The Education Minister wrote to me confirming the cost sought for re-profiling, and my officials and I engaged with the British Treasury to make that case. I formally wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 May, and I raised it with her when we met last week. The request remains with Treasury for it to address. <BR /> <BR />Mr Brett also raised RHI tariffs, the closure of the scheme and AME funding. The non-domestic RHI scheme continues to be funded through ring-fenced and capped AME budget set as a population proportion of the funding for the equivalent scheme in England.”
“<BR /> <BR />Paula Bradshaw asked about the Executive bureau in Beijing. TEO is responsible for implementing the Executive's international relations strategy. As part of that, TEO utilises £365,000 of its budget to fund the Executive's Beijing bureau. It is approaching its tenth year in operation and has made a significant contribution to the development of relationships with China. TEO and many Departments and agencies have worked and are working closely with the consulate to support initiatives to build relationships. <BR /> <BR />Phillip Brett and Cathy Mason mentioned the EA pay and grading review, and other Members raised that in the course of the debate.”
“I would like to continue to make some progress. <BR /> <BR />Calls to delay the Budget appear to be an excuse to avoid taking challenging decisions. We do not have that luxury. <BR /> <BR />Colm Gildernew mentioned the budget for Supporting People. The Supporting People programme assists some 19,500 vulnerable people each year to live independently and is an important element of the Department for Communities budget. That funding is recognised as a preventative intervention that reduces the potential for greater costs to fall on the health and justice sectors. It is a demand-led service that has been under pressure as a result of increasing homelessness. The Communities Minister bid for £12·6 million for the programme, and it will now be for him to allocate his resource budget to take account of that important priority.”
“The Department of Health will be able to engage in that process in the same way as every other Department. Calls to delay the Budget —”
“Perhaps the Member was not listening when, in my opening remarks, I explained that that approach is prohibited by the 1998 Act and that, even if it were possible to do that, it would carry the significant risks that I also outlined: the risk of overspends; the risk of worse impacts from decisions later in the year; the risk of the Vote on Account being exhausted; and the risk of £559 million having to be repaid next year. I have to say that I am not clear on what the Member or his party hope to achieve by delaying the Budget. As he said, the funding will be allocated in June monitoring. That will allow Departments to properly identify the impact of their funding envelope and develop bids accordingly. It will also allow the Executive to properly assess those bids in the context of competing pressures across all Departments.”
“I am sure that I could explain why there are differences between the North and England, Scotland and Wales and the South. We faced a really challenging Budget, and, as I said, the bids that came in from all Departments greatly outweighed the money to be allocated. It was a case of having to balance up and get some money to all Departments. We tried our best. Do I think that we put enough money into any Department? No, I do not. That is why I continue to make the case to Treasury that we need proper investment in our public services. Every Department asked for more than it received. <BR /> <BR />Mr Aiken said that the Budget should be delayed in order to allocate the additional funding that is likely to become available from Westminster Main Estimates.”
“I want to make some progress, please. <BR /> <BR />There remains an onus on the Department of Health, as the biggest spending Department, to continue to transform and improve productivity in the delivery of its services. Approximately £1 billion in resource DEL was available for allocation to all Departments. It simply was not realistic to meet all the pressures of one Department, given the number of bids being made by all Departments. The Department of Health has been allocated 51·2% of the overall resource DEL funding available, a 6·3% uplift from the opening position of 2023-24.”
“Of course, my job, as Finance Minister, is to balance all the asks and ensure that all Departments can deliver the public services within their responsibility.”
“Mr Aiken remarked that the Department of Health has always received more than 50% of the available Budget. That is not the case; in fact, the share of the overall Budget allocated to Health has grown slowly and inexorably over time. Since the Executive returned in 2020, the Health baseline has increased by £2 billion. While some have highlighted my party and other parties' manifesto commitments to an additional £1 billion for Health over the spending review period, Health has, in fact, received a £1·6 billion uplift to its baseline funding over that period. I fully agree that Health needs more money, as do all Departments. The British Government need to provide the Executive with a sustainable level of public finances. Public services here are suffering because that is not happening.”
“I want to make some progress, please. <BR /> <BR />As I set out, the Budget reflects, as far as possible, the priorities of the Executive. It was developed in just three months from the Executive's return and in a challenging financial position. The interim fiscal framework will set out the scope of the sustainability plan, which my Department is working on at pace and which will include input from other Departments. <BR /> <BR />I have heard Members from the Opposition criticise the Budget today. It is easy to point to the problems, but there are fewer solutions to come by. I have yet to see or hear the Opposition provide an alternative Budget or a plan for how to move things forward. <BR /> <BR />Steve Aiken, Liz Kimmins and a number of other Members mentioned the Department of Health's budget.”
“I am certainly of the view that we want to take that forward as quickly as possible. The Executive have been clear that they want to progress it as quickly as possible. However, we have to agree a Budget as early as possible to allow Departments to plan effectively.”
“The Member will be aware that the Communities Minister is leading on Casement Park. I have written to the Communities Minister offering any support necessary from my Department and officials to move the project forward. I am open to any suggestions from him about how to move it forward. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole mentioned revenue raising. I have always been clear that the Executive will consider all options, including efficiencies, generating revenue, additional borrowing and further fiscal powers. That will continue to be part of the negotiations with Treasury on the final fiscal framework. Mr O'Toole mentioned that, in his view, the Budget lacks strategic priorities. Of course, the correct place to set the Executive's priorities is a Programme for Government.”
“My Department has received a strategic outline case on the subregional stadia programme that my officials are considering. As recently as last Friday, the Prime Minister reiterated that the British Government would make a significant contribution to the redevelopment of Casement Park. They need to get on and clarify as soon as possible what that contribution will be.”
“While the Fresh Start funding is no longer available to take forward the other shared and integrated education projects that are not already in contractual commitment, the Education Minister has confirmed that he will include those in his prioritisation for his Budget allocation. I am sure that the Member will agree that the £150 million from Fresh Start would only have gone so far in the delivery of those 11 projects. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole mentioned Casement Park. As all Members will be aware and as has been referred to, it is an Executive flagship project. The bid from the Department for Communities for this year was met in full. The Casement Park project can deliver huge sporting, economic and social benefits across our communities. It needs to be delivered, and it is unthinkable that that would not happen in time to host Euro 2028.”
“I reiterate that the decision was taken by Treasury to un-ring-fence any money that was repackaged into the financial package. I am sure that the Member is aware that that money was then made available to the Executive as resource funding. To convert that back into capital would have meant £150 million less for day-to-day spending. Following a request by the Education Minister, the Executive agreed to provide £150 million over the next three years to build the Strule Shared Education Campus, which was previously a Fresh Start project. The Budget includes the first £20 million of that, and that was based on what DE has profiled to spend in this financial year.”
“However, as I have also said many times, this is the final year of the current spending review period, so it is not possible to set a multi-year Budget at this point. That is set out in legislation. Unfortunately, that prevents Departments from being able to plan more effectively. Treasury has made it clear that a spending review will take place after the general election, which has been set for 4 July. What is not clear at this point is whether that will be a single- or multi-year settlement, although I have made the case to Treasury and to the shadow Secretary of State that the preference of the Executive and all parties here is for multi-year Budgets. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole also raised the issue of the Fresh Start funding.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members and Committee Chairs for their participation in the debate. I thank the Members who were supportive of the Budget proposals for their input, and I have listened with interest to Members who have spoken against the Budget. I intend to use most of my time to respond to as many of the useful and constructive issues raised by Members as possible. <BR /> <BR />The leader of the Opposition highlighted, as did other Members, the issue of multi-year Budgets. Colleagues will be aware that I have said numerous times that my preference is for a multi-year Budget. I am keen to be in a place where we are able to set a multi-year Budget to maximise Departments' abilities to plan.”