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 57 of 76.
“Another issue on which the Committee has sought reassurance is in relation to the impact of article 10 of the protocol and whether there could be any impact on companies here accessing ARIA funds. Queen's University and the Open University have both indicated that they support the policy intent of the Bill. Queen's states that research excellence should be supported wherever it exists but that there is a need to ensure that, in practice, ARIA reaches out across the UK and does not focus on areas of traditional R&D intensity to demonstrate its effectiveness through quick wins. The Committee has heard that ARIA will provide an additional avenue of research and development funding and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the research base. It is also noted that there will be no impact on existing funding.”
“The Committee understands that the British Government originally proposed to reserve ARIA funding powers through an amendment to the 1998 Act, and similarly so for Wales and Scotland. However, the devolved Administrations maintained concerns about the reservation of ARIA, and a memorandum of understanding has been drawn up to ensure ARIA's independence from government whilst also allowing the removal of the reservation from the ARIA Bill. During the oral briefing from the Department on 1 December, the Committee received further details on the terms of the MOU with the devolved Administrations and sought reassurance around representation for the North on the board of ARIA.”
“Therefore, whilst the Committee has not had the time to produce its normal Committee report, I will outline to the House the discussions that the Committee had during that oral briefing from the Department on 1 December, as well as some of the views expressed during our limited consultation. <BR /> <BR />The Bill seeks to establish the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, a UK-wide funding body for high-risk, long-term R&D, which will align with existing research funding developed through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the research councils and will also reflect the gap in high-risk, high-reward research that exists in the North as well as in Britain.”
“The Committee understands that the long delay between the Bill being introduced in Westminster and the LCM being laid was due to negotiations with the devolved Administrations, primarily around the governance of ARIA and the need for it to be independent of government. The Committee understands that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are now content with the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and will proceed with LCMs. <BR /> <BR />As soon as the Committee was made aware of the upcoming LCM, we wrote to our key stakeholders to ascertain their views and sought an oral briefing from the Department.”
“I will speak briefly as Chairperson of the Economy Committee. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill was introduced and given its First Reading on 1 March 2021, and completed Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 22 November. <BR /> <BR />The Committee welcomes the general purpose of the Bill in that it provides a mechanism for funding high-risk, long-term R&D, and will deliver on British Government commitments to invest at least £800 million in that R&D over the five years of the current British Parliament's term. However, I must highlight at the outset the fact that, as the Minister said, the Committee has had very limited time in which to scrutinise the LCM, given the breach of the 10-day rule. In turn, there was little scope to engage with our stakeholders.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. I welcome the fact that there will be an uplift in the forthcoming Budget, but does he agree that those structural reforms are needed in the health and social care system in order to allow us to ensure that other key public services also receive the resources and finance that they need?”
“I wrote to the Minister's predecessor in January 2020 setting out Sinn Féin's opposition to petroleum licensing in the North, and I understand that the Department has had the report, which the Minister referred to, since July. The lack of clarity since then is causing anxiety and concern to communities, which have also voiced clear opposition to petroleum licensing. Can the Minister at least provide a date for when the report will be published?”
“Indeed, I am sure that we will see more of the officials, because we will be dealing with another three private Members' Bills on employment law in the short time ahead. Through this Bill and those other private Members' Bills on employment law, we are making really good, progressive moves to support workers, which is to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />As I said in my earlier remarks today, when considering the Bill, the Committee looked into it in great detail. Committee members gave the Bill thoughtful consideration. We believe that the amendments that we brought forward are very considered and pragmatic and that they provide for some flexibility and modification, if necessary and following consultation, at a later date. We need to take that into account. <BR /> <BR />I ask Members to support amendment No 2.”
“I will pick up on some of the broad themes and on the nature of the debate. Any Bill that comes into the House can come out of it in a very different form. It is for Departments to respond to the will of the House in the legislation that is brought forward. In the previous debate, the Minister made comments about the Committee having engaged with the Department of Finance or about it consulting on particular elements of the policy. Once the Bill is passed, if it gets to that stage, it will be for the Department to conduct that work. <BR /> <BR />When Committees scrutinise Bills, Departments provide responses to queries. I have already put on record my thanks to departmental officials for their very constructive engagement with the Committee and for coming to talk to us on a number of occasions.”
“I appreciate the Minister's remarks. I will pick up on, in particular, the last point about the consultation responses and the call for the 26-week qualification period to be removed, which was contained in our more detailed written responses. There were also quite strong views on that in the oral evidence received by the Committee.”
“Once again, I welcome Members' contributions to this group of amendments, and I thank them for those contributions. The contributions reflect the previous debate.”
“The cost of £1·5 million for setting up the system for the day-1 right is the same as the £1·5 million cost for setting it up for miscarriage. It is either/or or both. It is the same cost. In relation to the discretionary support, obviously, other eligibility criteria apply to discretionary support, so it would be available only, for example, to people on lower incomes, and they would have to demonstrate that they were in financial stress to be able to access that support. I am not sure that discretionary support is the most appropriate vehicle.”
“<BR /> <BR />Neither the Department nor the Minister has offered any demonstrable evidence for their assertions on the risk of breaking parity. This amendment is simply the decent thing to do. I urge Members across the Chamber to take a stand for workers and ensure that the right to paid leave in really awful circumstances is enshrined in law from the point at which someone starts their job.”
“Some stakeholders were of the view that leave should be flexible, including options to take single days, to acknowledge that grief does not follow a specific pattern. The Committee trusts that the Department will give that issue due consideration and, in due course, evaluate it. <BR /> <BR />I want to make a few brief comments as Sinn Féin economy spokesperson. I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said, other than that I am strongly of the view that the statutory protection and right to paid leave should not be subject to an arbitrary qualification period. That serves no purpose. Anyone who suffers a bereavement or pregnancy loss should, regardless of how long they have been in a job, be entitled to the same level of support.”
“The Committee was clear that it would not be deterred from pursuing additional rights for employees and workers by any barriers, pressure of time or the prospect of increased costs. It therefore tabled this amendment for consideration by the House. <BR /> <BR />I have addressed the issues that the Department raised regarding the cost of breaking parity with Britain. I restate that the Department has not cited a precedent for devolved Administrations becoming liable to fund breaks with parity in Britain. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recommended that the Department undertake work to scope and bring forward proposals to allow leave to be taken in single days, rather than, as specified in the Bill, two weeks having to be taken together or in separate blocks of one week.”
“One Committee member expressed quite poignantly that it could not be right for two employees who work side by side and are both affected by parental bereavement to have differing rights based on their length of service. The Committee was particularly mindful of the impact of any qualifying period on zero-hours contract workers, agency workers and those on temporary contracts. <BR /> <BR />The Committee engaged extensively with the Department on the issue. The Department estimated that a maximum of 40 parents would be affected by the 26-week qualifying period and that the cost of day-1 rights would be above what was commensurate with the number of additional persons whom the change would benefit. Those figures are, of course, predicated on the Bill as introduced: that is, not including workers who experience miscarriage.”
“Amendment No 2 is the single Committee amendment in group 2. This was the only amendment on which the Committee divided, with a majority supporting the amendment. Again, I put on record my thanks to the Bill Clerks and Committee team for their help and support. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 seeks to remove the 26-week qualifying period for pay and to introduce a day-1 right for all employees and workers. The issue of a day-1 right was raised consistently by representative bodies across key sectors, including trade unions, human rights groups and bereavement charities. This is a view held not only by those representing employees but by business representatives.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have an opportunity, before the end of this mandate, to enshrine in legislation progressive and meaningful provision for workers and their families: the right to statutory paid leave on the death of a child or a pregnancy loss; to ensure that there is compassionate support for workers; and for workers to know that they are valued, that they do not have to worry about taking unpaid leave, sick leave or annual leave in those terribly difficult circumstances and that they have statutory protection. It is an opportunity that the Assembly should grasp, and I urge all Members across the Chamber to support the Committee's amendments in group 1.”
“What was considered by the Committee was the fact that we are considering people's lives. Obviously, we have to live within budgets, but we want to provide compassionate support to workers at really difficult times. <BR /> <BR />Regarding Mr Allister's comments, we asked for examples and precedents, but we were not given any. We were not offered any legal advice on what was being suggested either. I can only deal with what is presented to me.”
“I take on board what he says about welfare reform, but that was a very specific set of circumstances. We have not seen any legal advice to confirm what the Minister said about repercussive costs.”
“The Minister has had significant time to give his views. I would like to respond. <BR /> <BR />The work can now be done on miscarriage leave and pay and to allow time to ensure that the consultation to which he referred can be done. I take on board what the Minister says about the time frame for that. I also listened to Ms Armstrong about being able to do things a bit more quickly. Perhaps that can be looked at, or, again, as I said in my opening remarks, we could look at the 12-month period that we have put in our amendment at Further Consideration Stage. The Committee would be willing to look at that on receiving evidence from the Minister. <BR /> <BR />I do not accept what the Minister said on the risk of repercussive costs being substantial. No precedents have come forward.”
“Regarding the substantive issues that we have covered this afternoon, I listened carefully to the Minister's contribution and his comment that the amendments would be likely to delay things. Frankly, I agree with Mr Dickson and Mr O'Toole that we need to approach this in a problem-solving way. I understand that the Committee's amendments have been written in such a way that they stand alone and allow for the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, as introduced, and the regulations in respect of it to be brought forward while the work continues.”
“It is not within the scope of the Bill, but we included its asks, which were to extend provisions to all bereaved people, in our Committee report. Hopefully, the Department will take that on board in the time ahead.”
“Contrary to how the Minister has characterised them, we have tabled what we consider to be well-thought-out amendments. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the contributions of Members from across the Chamber this afternoon. I thank Kellie Armstrong for again speaking of her experiences in generous terms. Both she and Órlaithí outlined the real impact of bereavement and pregnancy loss on someone's mental health as well as on their physical well-being and their workplace experience. That is something that we have been very much mindful of in our consideration of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I want to pick up on a couple of points that Members made beyond that, including Gerry Carroll's point about the Coalition for Bereaved Workers, from which we received evidence.”
“I thank all Members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate on what is a really important issue. A number of Members have rightly pointed out the horrendous nature of the grief that parents suffer on the death of a child. At Second Stage, Members spoke of their experiences, including me when I spoke of my family's experience of losing a child. As Mr Dickson said, those experiences are at the forefront of our mind in our discussion this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />At the outset of the debate, I said that the Committee had taken a strong interest in the Bill from the get-go. We support its aims and very much want to see parental bereavement leave and pay put into law. We welcomed the Bill's introduction, and we have considered it fully and listened to the evidence.”
“In actual fact, we sought it prior to our clause-by-clause consideration. We then sought some further clarity because we had not got the exact detail that we were looking for. I put that on the record.”
“The Department has clarified that it will be 56 weeks in the legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />I urge Members across the Chamber to support the Committee's amendments, which have been well-considered and thought out. I reiterate my thanks to the Bill Office for its support in crafting those very pragmatic amendments, which provide flexibility to the Minister and the Department and allow for some modification, if that is deemed necessary, by a consultation, and which would, as I stated, be brought back to the House for a debate on the regulations to enact them. I look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions to the debate.”
“There has been a unity of purpose in much of the debate and discussion on the Bill, which is positive. In particular, I record my thanks to my fellow Committee members for the constructive and positive approach to the deliberations on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Employment rights are fully devolved to the Assembly. We have the ability to set our own policy and to be a leader when it comes to standing up for workers. The amendments to the Bill would make us a leader, certainly across these islands, in ensuring that workers who suffer miscarriage have access to paid leave and that, they along with workers who suffer the death of a child, would have the right to paid time off to seek support, to deal with practicalities or simply to privately grieve and deal with their loss.”
“First, I acknowledge that the previous Economy Minister, Diane Dodds, introduced the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, which is important legislation in its own right and, as introduced, would provide support for workers who find themselves in the awful circumstances of experiencing a child dying or a stillbirth. <BR /> <BR />From the time that the Bill went out for consultation, I have raised the issues upon which the Committee has tabled amendments. Those are statutory leave and pay for workers suffering miscarriage and the provision of those rights from day 1 of employment, with the intent of ensuring that workers in those most terrible of circumstances have the right to compassionate support from the time they enter employment.”
“It is worth noting that Lidl Ireland has recently announced its bespoke policy on bereavement for employees North and South. It is reported to have introduced compassionate leave with pay for employees who have experienced or been directly impacted by early pregnancy loss or miscarriage. Additionally, the Government of New Zealand have legislated to support those who have suffered a miscarriage. The Committee believes that it is acting in the best interests of people in the North by taking the opportunity through the Bill to afford those protections to as many parents as possible whilst ensuring that the Bill's original provisions are enacted in the current mandate. <BR /> <BR />I would like to make some very brief comments as Sinn Féin economy spokesperson.”
“No. I will not give way again. I will let you make your comments, and, when you do so, perhaps you will give way to me.”
“I do not accept that. I do not accept the Minister's assertions. I believe that the work has been done on the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill. You can bring that forward and, at the same time, have further work conducted on the inclusion of miscarriage and the removal of the 26-week —”
“<BR /> <BR />All regulations brought forward from the Bill will be subject to the scrutiny of the House, as will any issues that arise to disrupt the bringing forward of those regulations. Members, we must also keep in mind that employment law is a devolved matter on which the Committee and the House have not only a right but a responsibility to take progressive action to the benefit of people here. The Committee has ensured that any scheme to make provision for miscarriage will need to be approved by the House, thereby allowing Members to consider any issues that might arise.”
“The Department has not brought forward any precedents where a devolved Administration were liable for the cost of the British Government restoring parity. It is also important to state that the Committee has been careful in constructing its amendments to ensure that unforeseen difficulties would return to the Floor of the Assembly for Members to make a judgement. It is also for Members to interpret the Treasury guidance for themselves in the absence of any clear evidence on how it could be applied. Additionally, the Committee has been clear that it does not want to delay the Bill: hence the provision of a year for the Department to consult and bring forward regulations with respect to the Committee's amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Yesterday, the Department offered paragraph 2.6.10 of the Treasury's 'Statement of funding policy: Funding the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive'. That paragraph states that:”
“I will continue with my comments, and the Minister can make his contribution in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />We have been careful to allow for that 12-month period, which will allow for consultation whilst avoiding the delay in enacting the main provisions of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Department suggested that, if the British Government are required to restore parity as a result of the amendments to the Bill, the Treasury could seek to recoup the cost of doing so from the Executive's departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget. The Committee sought to probe that further with the Department, seeking further detail on the Treasury rules and how they would apply.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. Obviously, he can lay out his arguments shortly. I do not believe that it is impossible. I take on board the views of the Department, and, obviously, there is the Bill's Further Consideration Stage. If our amendments pass today, and the Minister can convince the Committee that further time is required, I am sure that Members will be open to looking at that.”
“The Committee has been careful to allow for that 12-month period, which would allow for consultation whilst avoiding any delay in the enactment of the main provisions of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Department suggested that, if the British Government are required to restore parity as a result of the amendments to the Bill —”
“The Committee did not consider that amendment to be sufficient, as there is no commitment to act on miscarriage beyond reporting on a consultation. The Committee was also informed by the Department of what it described as a potentially significant increase in the cost of the Bill in making this change, and officials said that they did not believe that the Bill was the appropriate vehicle without having consulted on the practicalities. <BR /> <BR />The Committee believes that the costs will be manageable, and members believe that it is important to put support for those suffering a miscarriage into law. The Committee was clear that it wished to place an explicit obligation on the Department to bring forward a scheme to provide for leave and pay for miscarriage and for it to be introduced within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.”
“The Committee therefore engaged in a series of detailed written and oral communications with the Department in relation to amending the Bill to include miscarriage. It is fair to say that the Minister and the Department had a strong view that miscarriage was outside the scope of the Bill and that the Department's focus from the outset was to mirror the parental bereavement provisions enacted by the British Government. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 3 November, the Committee considered the proposed amendment from the Department — amendment No 4 on the Marshalled List — which places a statutory obligation on the Department to consult on policy options for miscarriage as it relates to the Bill and to bring forward a report within two years of the associated regulations coming into effect.”
“I thank the officials from the Department's Bill team for their engagement and for making themselves available to the Committee at short notice. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the group 1 amendments. The Committee is proposing amendment Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9, which collectively require the Department to bring forward a scheme to provide for leave and pay for miscarriage to be introduced within 12 months of the commencement of the Bill. There was consensus in the Committee for the amendments to be proposed. As I have outlined, a significant number of individuals raised the issue of miscarriage in responding to the Committee's survey on the Bill, as did a number of stakeholders, including the Human Rights Commission, UNISON and the women's representative groups.”
“The issue of the removal of the 26-week qualifying period for pay and the insertion of day-1 rights to parental bereavement pay was also raised consistently by representative bodies across key sectors, including trade unions, human rights organisations, bereavement charities and business representatives. <BR /> <BR />Based on the evidence that it received, the Committee wrote to the Department requesting that amendments be brought forward in both those areas. The Department engaged on a number of occasions with the Committee, and, at the conclusion of that process, it was determined by the Committee that the Minister was not of a mind to take those issues forward in a way that was satisfactory to the Committee. The Committee therefore decided to pursue its own amendments.”
“There was a general recognition that, whilst many employers are compassionate in such circumstances, these protections could not be left to individual discretion and should be guaranteed statutory rights. <BR /> <BR />The Committee focused specifically on two main areas where it felt the support and protections offered by the Bill could be widened and improved. These were in relation to including miscarriage and allowing for a day-1 right to pay, rather than applying a 26-week qualifying period as intended in the Bill. A number of individuals and stakeholders called for the Bill to be extended to provide bereavement leave and pay rights in the event of miscarriage.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee explored a wide range of issues raised in the written and oral evidence with Department for the Economy officials through oral briefings and written responses. The Committee deliberated on the provisions of the Bill and the proposed amendments and concluded with its formal clause-by-clause consideration on 8 November 2021. There was overwhelming support for the provisions in the Bill, and responses were positive in relation to the introduction of a legal entitlement to employee parental leave and pay, with the expectation that this would be a minimum provision in ensuring that parents and carers are supported in the event of parental bereavement.”
“The Committee heard evidence from a range of stakeholders and carried out a very detailed online survey, to which it received 382 responses from organisations and representative bodies, as well as a significant number from individuals with personal experience of bereavement. I put on record the Committee's appreciation of the evidence that it received from individuals who have been impacted by the loss of a child. That evidence has been vital in informing the Committee and enabling us to develop the important amendments that are before the House today. The Committee's primary aim has been to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose and that the opportunity is not missed, through the Bill, to extend these protections to as many people as possible who find themselves in these most difficult circumstances.”
“Today's Consideration Stage follows engaged and in-depth scrutiny of the Bill by the Committee, and I will touch briefly on the Committee's analysis of the Bill in providing background to the Committee's amendments in this group. I thank the Bill Clerks for their help and support to the Committee. Their assistance, and that of our Committee team, was invaluable to members.”
“There are other examples from elsewhere — maybe the Bill sponsor can refer to them when she sums up — of how that is done, the notification that is used and the procedures that are in place in workplaces and the guidance around that. Perhaps the Bill sponsor can enlighten us.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, the Bill sponsor will know that my party colleagues Mary Lou McDonald and Louise O'Reilly have introduced a Bill in the Dáil to make similar provision for domestic abuse safe leave. It passed Second Stage last December and has been somewhat delayed in progressing, despite cross-party support, due to, I believe, some technical wrangling between Ministers and Departments. If she could encourage her ministerial colleagues in government to work with my colleagues to progress that Bill and ensure that workers across the island who are suffering domestic abuse are entitled to statutory paid leave, I think that that would be a very positive development. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I support this Bill and look forward to its progressing to Committee Stage for further scrutiny.”
“I do not believe that that is the case. I think that, in the letter from the Speaker, legislative pressures were referenced. However I have to say that, particularly in relation to the most recent letter from the Speaker last week, which outlined steps that are being taken to ensure that as much legislation as possible can pass before the end of the mandate, I was reassured about that. As the Chairperson of a Committee that is dealing with a number of private Member's Bills (PMBs), I will be doing all that I can to ensure that they pass with due scrutiny and in a timely manner. So, I would like to offer some reassurance to the Bill sponsor and to those who have campaigned for this Bill that the intent is to get it through before the end of this mandate.”