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 59 of 76.
“No, I will not. I need to make some progress. <BR /> <BR />It is no surprise that the Minister would do so, being a champion and a cheerleader for the type of Brexit that has resulted in empty shelves and, in his own words, could see us in the bizarre situation of having food shortages in our shops and healthy animals in our own country being slaughtered on farms and not used for food production. That would be a ridiculous situation where we would try to import from other parts of the world at a higher cost because we have a labour shortage issue here. Nobody would want to take ownership of that, but it is ownership that he and his DUP colleagues, who aligned themselves with the most right-wing elements of the Tory Party to deliver a hard Brexit, must take.”
“Of course, this year, freedom of movement has ended, so those who wanted to remain in Britain or the North had to go through the bureaucracy of applying for settled status. It is blinkered, head-in-the-sand nonsense to assert that labour shortages are not because of Brexit but simply policy after Brexit, as the Agriculture Minister has done.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over 200,000 EU nationals left Britain in the past couple of years, so anyone who asserts that labour shortages are nothing to do with Brexit is like a child with their fingers in their ears and their eyes squeezed shut. They do not want to know. The anti-migrant, xenophobic, English nationalist motivation driving the post-referendum Brexit campaign resulted in EU nationals — people who had made their homes in Britain and locally and who were valued members of our communities — reporting an increase in hostility and racist incidents. It is also a matter of fact that the value of sterling plummeted after the referendum, so wages were worth relatively less in euros than before Brexit.”
“The motion notes with concern the impact that labour shortages are having, particularly on our agri-food sector, which relied greatly on workers from across the EU. The ending of freedom of movement, the outworking of Brexit and the British Government's post-Brexit immigration policies have created this situation. There is a need for the British Government to act urgently to address labour shortages and enable EU citizens to come here to work and live, and the motion calls for that and for the Economy Minister to make clear to the British Government the significant impact that labour shortages are having on our local economy and the need to rectify that situation.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she agree that David Frost's recent remarks at the Policy Exchange think tank event at the Tory party conference, which referred to growing all-Ireland trade as a problem to be solved, well and truly expose the British Government's cynical and duplicitous nature regarding the protocol?”
“I gave consideration to the amendment, as you would expect, and I welcome the UUP's engagement, but my understanding is that the concept of "at risk" does not apply to SPS but rather to customs and tariffs, so I am unclear on the intent of the amendment; therefore, we cannot support it. I hope the UUP will support the motion, which is, of course, in line with its own protocol alternatives paper.”
“The only way forward is through continued constructive and pragmatic engagement in order to find practical solutions that provide certainty and clarity for businesses and everyone else. <BR /> <BR />It is time to dial down the rhetoric and for the DUP to put an end to the threats to our institutions that are only about its own opinion polling and deflection from a failed Brexit strategy that supported the most right-wing elements of the Tory party in order to deliver the hard Brexit and poor trade and cooperation agreement that has resulted in the current frictions in trade and necessitated the protocol in the first place. <BR /> <BR />I urge Members to support the motion.”
“It would better befit them to pay attention to what is going on in the Chamber today, to pay attention to those of us who are actually listening to those whom we represent and setting out realistic and practical ways forward, and to listen to those who have found opportunities and benefits in the protocol and support it. <BR /> <BR />It would better befit the DUP to do likewise. Getting rid of the protocol, as that party claims it wants to do, would be a disaster for many food businesses, our agri-food businesses in particular. Triggering article 16 would not solve anything. It would only add to the uncertainty and lack of stability and would damage businesses. The reality is that we all know the protocol is going nowhere.”
“In fact, it will simply trigger the process that is already happening through the Joint Committee and will require that efforts continue until a solution is found. It will also require specificity in any remedies and will ask why they have been proposed. <BR /> <BR />Anyone peddling the notion that article 16 gets rid of the protocol or stops it applying is misleading the public, and, possibly, themselves. Unfortunately, at the Tory Party conference this week, the British Government will continue to dial up the rhetoric. We have already heard some of that from Brandon Lewis and David Frost, with unrealistic fantasy assertions, as if they had no part in agreeing what is currently in place.”
“The country with which it is most important to make a trade agreement is the United States, but President Biden has made it clear that that will not come any time soon, and any SPS agreement that is designed to protect the North will not be a barrier to a trade agreement between Britain and the US. <BR /> <BR />Some discussion has focused on a time-limited arrangement on SPS while other options are considered. Given that any trade agreement, including with the US, is likely to be several years away, that arrangement is there to be explored. Genuine engagement to resolve the issues is vital. Finding a reasonable and practical solution requires pragmatic and flexible approaches. The much-threatened triggering of article 16 will not help that process in any way, shape or form.”
“<BR /> <BR />SPS agreements are already in place with other countries, and models exist. New Zealand has an equivalence approach to regulations, but some checks are still required. Switzerland has an agreement where, essentially, EU regulations are applied, but checks are minimised. However, business organisations tell us that a bespoke agreement, rather than any of the approaches that other countries have, is what is required to take account of our unique circumstances and the level of trade that there is between Britain and the North. <BR /> <BR />The British Government have made much of the need to have control over their regulations, while also asserting that they do not intend to drop standards to give them the ability to make trade agreements with other countries.”
“It was negotiated, agreed and put in place to, among other things, prevent a hard border on this island; a border that would see those same checks that are required at ports being performed on land. That is the entirely impractical and impossible to enforce alternative to the protocol. <BR /> <BR />Let us be abundantly clear: those checks are the result of a threadbare agreement on SPS and veterinary regulations between the British Government and the EU and are not due to the protocol. In fact, the protocol protects all-island supply chains that are vital to the agriculture and agri-food processing sectors. Absolutely no one in those sectors would want to see those checks imposed on land. They want a practical solution that reduces the need for checks. An SPS agreement would deliver that.”
“Essentially, what transpired in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was a bare-bones, minimalist approach, which has resulted in the checks that are now being applied not only between Britain and the North but between Britain and other EU states. It is a minimalist agreement that has resulted in the British food and drinks industry losing £2 billion in trade with the EU in the first six months of this year. That is the damage that is being inflicted by Brexit. <BR /> <BR />The lack of an agreement — one which could minimise significantly the checks on east-west trade — was a choice that was made by the British Government with their eyes wide open. Despite what some of their Ministers now assert, the protocol was also a choice that was made by the British Government with their eyes wide open.”
“The motion calls for Members to support a comprehensive and bespoke agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary standards to be negotiated between the European Union and the British Government, with the aim of reducing checks and paperwork on goods that are being imported from Britain. Such an agreement has support from business representatives as a practical and realistic way in which to reduce the friction that has resulted from post-Brexit trading arrangements. Agreement on a minimum level of standards would reduce drastically the checks that are necessary on agri-food products at ports. <BR /> <BR />Of course, that is not a new point of debate. There was much discussion, throughout the entire Brexit negotiation process, on SPS and whether a veterinary agreement or alignment of regulations could, should or would be reached.”
“This is just in relation to that point about people from less affluent backgrounds being enabled to access the scheme. There are two different points about that. There is a point to be made about them being unable to afford the upfront costs, and that is, perhaps, where an incentive scheme might be directed. It might be means-tested.”
“I thank the Minister for his response and associate myself with his comments about the commitment and dedication of staff. I also agree with him about the impact that the pandemic is having. <BR /> <BR />Alarming numbers of patients are waiting for long periods in emergency departments across the North. What interventions has your Department put in place to help staff cope and to reduce waiting times for patients?”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, the Bill is a small step on the right path towards delivering on the objectives of empowering communities, increasing uptake of small-scale green energy technology, and diversifying our energy sources. Therefore, I urge Members to support the Bill, and I am very encouraged that, going by the contributions so far, we can look forward to its coming to Committee for us to explore it in further detail. Hopefully, it will be the first practical step to net zero.”
“There should be no further investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. The obligation to promote the development of the gas industry here needs to end, and we should not encourage more people to rely on an energy source with such fluctuations in price. Instead, we should have an obligation to promote decarbonisation. <BR /> <BR />As others have said in the course of the debate, we need to improve energy efficiency, particularly in housing for families in fuel poverty. We must ensure that those on lower incomes have access to affordable heat and power sources that are not vulnerable to the same global forces as fossil fuels.”
“Certainly, there are none that incentivise the installation of small-scale renewable systems. The Bill looks at one aspect of how to incentivise the uptake of small-scale green energy projects. The energy strategy also needs to consider the type of support that will be required to ensure that the upfront equipment costs create no barriers, particularly to those on lower incomes. <BR /> <BR />With respect to the broader energy strategy and policy framework, it is crucial that the final strategy sets us on the right trajectory to deliver net zero. In the current context of soaring wholesale gas prices that, due to global demand, are hitting record highs, and with coal and oil prices also rising, it has never been more apparent that tackling fuel poverty is strongly interlinked with the need to end our reliance on fossil fuels.”
“Decentralising and democratising power generation, including through microgeneration, has to be a key part of the new energy strategy to make that necessary move away from fossil fuels and to deliver more affordable energy and the ending of fuel poverty. <BR /> <BR />Ensuring that people and communities have ownership and a stake in the process of decarbonisation will help to ensure the type of buy-in that will be necessary to deliver on our energy and climate targets. Microgeneration projects will also help to reduce dependency on the overall grid, as well as helping to reduce emissions from power generation. It can also, if paired with the electrification of heating, lower emissions from homes, farms and businesses. <BR /> <BR />Currently, there are no active green energy support schemes in the North.”
“The Bill is an important step in the right direction. As John outlined, the Bill will, first, place a requirement on major providers to source at least 5% of their electricity from renewable microgenerators, and, secondly, require major providers to pay a minimum price for electricity generated by those microgenerators. The potential for additional income for homes, small businesses, communities and the cooperative social enterprises that Mr Dickson referred to provides them with a small incentive and places little burden on providers. <BR /> <BR />Empowering communities must be at the heart of our new energy strategy.”
“As Mr Dickson said, we have made good progress to date, and we need to build on that. Investment will come from the public sector and the private sector, and the private sector will include individuals, families, small businesses and communities. That will require incentivisation and support for those who can least afford it. It is crucial that the move to net zero is based on the principles of just transition. Legislative change will be required to ensure that that happens.”
“The Paris Accord requires countries to take action to limit global warming to 1·5°C by the end of the century. Achieving that will require resolute and meaningful action right now. The energy strategy that the Department for the Economy is developing will set the direction of travel until 2030 and is therefore crucial. We must not miss the opportunity to embed in it the expansion of our renewable capacity and end our reliance on fossil fuels. That type of upscaling of our renewable capacity will require significant investment.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and speak in support of my colleague John O'Dowd's Bill. The context in which the Bill has been introduced is that of the climate and biodiversity crises that pose an existential threat to the planet and how we live. That was set out starkly in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which the UN Secretary-General described as nothing less than:”
“— and that is punitive and grossly unfair.”
“Germany has extended its scheme until the end of the year, while in France, job support continues into 2022. Even the United States, not known for government intervention or its social security safety net, is taking a stimulus approach to economic recovery. Meanwhile, the British Tory Government are removing job support, slashing universal credit and hiking National Insurance, all of which will hit lower-income workers and families the hardest. Boris Johnson's Government are pushing the cost of the pandemic disproportionately on to the shoulders of those who can afford it least —”
“<BR /> <BR />The British Government are not only out of touch but out of step with the approach of other countries, including the South, where job support will remain until at least the end of December and may be extended.”
“It is unfair that support for those businesses, and, consequently, the jobs and livelihoods of workers and families, is ending at the same time as the cost of living, in particular the cost of heating and electricity, is going through the roof, and inflation is impacting on the cost of food and other essentials. The British Government are completely out of touch with working people: they are withdrawing job support and, at the same time, slashing £20 a week from universal credit. That £20 has been a lifeline for many families over the past year and a half. That cut could not come at a worse time. Looking towards winter, the picture for many families is bleak.”
“Thanks for the opportunity to speak this morning. I will use the opportunity to call again for an extension to the furlough scheme. According to the most recent statistics, at the end of July, 36,100 jobs here were still furloughed, and that was evenly split between full furlough and flexible furlough. That is unlikely to have changed a great deal since then. Those furloughed jobs are across a number of sectors, including manufacturing, construction, retail and other services. Some of those sectors with workers still furloughed are not yet in a position to return to normal operations, and they will not be for some time due to some restrictions remaining in place, demand still being low or global issues outside their control. <BR /> <BR />While we all hope that no further lockdowns will be required, nothing is certain in that regard.”
“Rather than looking back to the failed politics of the past and of exclusion, all of us, collectively, should look to the future and to how we can build a more inclusive society where everyone has an opportunity to contribute to creating a better future. I oppose the Bill.”
“Opposition to political progress is Mr Allister's political raison d'être. This is a wrecker's Bill, designed to turn the clock back and to exclude. It limits the participation of one section of our society that, election after election, puts Gerry Kelly and other members of my party into office. Fundamentally, it is anti-democratic legislation. <BR /> <BR />Whether anyone in the Chamber agrees with Gerry Kelly's politics or not, no one here can credibly dispute the enormously positive role that he and other former prisoners have played in delivering a new and more accountable policing service and in trying to build confidence in policing across our communities. Without that contribution, the progress that we have made as a society would undoubtedly have been much slower and more difficult.”
“The Bill that Mr Allister has proposed is yet another attempt by the Member to undermine the Good Friday Agreement and its institutions, and it does so explicitly. It runs contrary to the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, which recognise the importance of ensuring that prisoners could play a positive role in their communities. It is explicitly set out in the agreement that that role would include employment opportunities. <BR /> <BR />It is absolutely no surprise to anyone here that Mr Allister seeks to undermine the Good Friday Agreement. He vocally and enthusiastically opposes the agreement, the enormous progress that we have made as a result of it and of the wider peace process, and the specific progress that we have made in building a new and inclusive policing dispensation.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. At the NSMC meeting in June, it was noted that evidence gathered as part of the recent 'A Fair Start' report on educational underachievement here and the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme in the South could be used as the basis on which to develop joint actions under the PEACE PLUS programme. The DUP claims that it is a priority to address educational underachievement in the communities that they represent. Does the Minister now accept the obvious damage that the reckless boycott of the NSMC will do to the essential work of tackling educational underachievement? Does she accept that her party is jeopardising the entire €1 billion of PEACE PLUS funding as a result of its panic and desperation?”
“I thank the Minister for her response and for her leadership on the issue in refusing to implement those cruel and inhumane measures. I have previously engaged with, for example, the Red Cross around issues of destitution among refugees and asylum seekers. The British Home Office is using this to target some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and I ask the Minister to ensure that her objections to the policy are registered directly with the British Home Office.”
“We need to have the ability to make our own decisions about what is best for the people of this island, what to fund and how to fund it for ourselves and not to be at the whim of a Tory Chancellor or British Government who make decisions with neither interest in nor knowledge of what is best for people here. We have an alternative, and we can do better for all whom we represent by ending the British Government's role in our affairs and by debating, discussing and shaping a new and united Ireland together. I urge Members to support the motion.”
“That is why the Finance Minister has put in place the fiscal commission, an important initiative that, I hope, will pave the way for the devolution of greater fiscal powers. However, the reality is that, while we are tied to the British Government's budgetary cycles and rules, we remain limited in how we can fund the needs of people here. <BR /> <BR />Over recent months, I have heard and seen commentary from some who like to limit discussion and debate on Irish unity or assume some sort of moral high ground. They say such things as, "We need to deal with the real issues facing people". By that, they mean seeing a GP, the cost of school uniforms, university fees or access to mental health services. We need to deal with those issues, but, for me, those issues are fundamentally why I advocate Irish unity and constitutional change.”
“The British Chancellor announced an increase in corporation tax in March, but he gave businesses a reprieve by not introducing that increase until 2023, in order to give them some time to recover. Workers have been afforded no such luxury. <BR /> <BR />Paying for the pandemic now rests on the shoulders of workers, and those who are lowest paid are carrying a disproportionate share of the burden. No such measures are imposed on wealth, and there are no attempts to tighten tax loopholes. Boris Johnson and this British Government make their policy decisions with their millionaire and billionaire friends in mind and with one and a half eyes on their investment portfolios. The Executive's limitations when it comes to revenue raising means that those decisions directly influence our Budgets and our ability to fund our priorities.”
“Last year, I proposed that the British Government should introduce a windfall tax on companies that were benefiting from the pandemic, and, in fact, there was talk in advance of the Budget in March that there were some murmurings that the British Chancellor was looking at an online sales tax aimed at the likes of Amazon, ASOS and Deliveroo, all of which had seen sales soar during the pandemic. There was also talk of an excessive profits tax. Neither of those things materialised. One can only assume that they were for the optics, or else such suggestions were slapped down by big companies. Meanwhile, Amazon, which saw its sales increase by about £1 billion over the year, paid just £3·8 million more in tax.”
“What did Thérèse Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, suggest that workers do to cover the cost of the cut in universal credit? Apparently, they should work a few extra hours. Talk about being out of touch. <BR /> <BR />Contrast the target of those tax increases with the other end of the financial spectrum. Over the course of the pandemic, the number of billionaires in Britain jumped by 24%, and their combined wealth increased by 22%, up over £106 billion, which is about nine years' worth of Executive Budgets. What have the British Government proposed as progressive measures to ensure that those who are most able to afford it pay their fair share? A big fat zero. Nothing.”
“It is not what the economy needs as we try to deliver a recovery, and it is certainly not the "Build back better" that we have all heard so much talk about. <BR /> <BR />The increase in National Insurance contributions will be replaced after a year by the health and social care levy at the same rate, so our young people — those just entering the workplace and those who are working towards buying their own home and starting a family — will foot the bill for bad government decisions for decades. The tax increases come at the same time as the British Government are ploughing ahead with the cut to universal credit that will also hit lower-income workers and families at a time when the cost of living, in particular the cost of electricity and heating our homes, is soaring.”
“Let us face it: that includes many of our front-line key workers, such as our carers, our nurses, our retail workers and our utility workers. Those who led from the front to get us through the pandemic will now shoulder the burden of bad fiscal and spending decisions by consecutive British Tory Governments, and the DUP and the UUP have both played a role in supporting those Tories over that time, the DUP most recently through its confidence-and-supply arrangement. <BR /> <BR />The increase in National Insurance contributions will also hit smaller businesses, which, of course, make up the vast majority of businesses here. The head of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in Britain has described the increase as "anti-jobs, anti-small business, anti-start-up". It is not what our businesses need coming out of the past 18 months.”
“Now is not the time for punitive taxes on low-paid workers; now is the time for government investment to stimulate economic recovery. This Tory Government, however, are cynically using the current crisis to introduce these taxes on an emotive issue such as social care, wrecking their own manifesto pledges in doing so, although, from any rational person's perspective, no pledge from Boris Johnson or his Tory cronies is worth the paper that it is written on or the ink that it takes to report what he says. <BR /> <BR />The 1·25% increase in National Insurance contributions (NICs) means that, from next April, you will pay 13·25% on income below £50,000, with no increase on the higher-level rate for the proportion of income over £50,000, meaning that the impact of the increase will be felt worse by those on lower incomes.”
“The removal of over £1·5 billion from our block grant damaged the Executive's ability to properly fund our public services, including health and social care services. Delivering on the necessary transformation of our health services will require investment, not cuts. <BR /> <BR />The British Government's response to the pandemic, spending billions of pounds supporting jobs and public services, betrays once and for all that austerity was always a policy choice and never a necessity. Now, of course, the former champions of austerity, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other financial institutions, have recognised that it does not work and are on the same page about financial stimulus being required to drive recovery.”
“I am glad to have the opportunity to bring the motion before the House today. Hopefully, it will gain unanimous support across the Chamber and send a message that the Assembly opposes the measures announced by the British Government last week, which put the burden of paying for the pandemic on lower- and middle-income workers, families and pensioners. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt that everyone recognises the need to adequately fund our health and social care services and their transformation to ensure that people can receive the care they need when they need it and that those who are most vulnerable are looked after. We also have to recognise that a decade of British Government austerity has deeply damaged our public services.”
“Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that shows that we rapidly need to decarbonise and, as Mr Dickson said, move away from fossil fuels, as part of the consideration of the application, are you considering the potential for legal challenge on the basis of climate legislation that is going through the Assembly?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I recently received correspondence from the Western Trust stating that the waiting time for gall bladder removal surgery is more than six years. I was really taken aback by that; it is a very long time for someone to wait in pain. That can have a devastating impact on people who are facing lengthy waits for an appointment or surgery. How will the Department or the trust record or monitor the impacts associated with such lengthy delays on individual patients?”
“As has been set out, the SR is one of a number tabled during the pandemic that are designed to provide some relaxations and assistance to businesses. As we know, the pandemic has continued for much longer than many expected or anticipated. It is therefore important that we continue to support businesses to enable them to recover. Sinn Féin therefore supports the SR.”
“As Chair of the Economy Committee, I support the motion on the Committee's behalf. As the Minister indicated, the amendment of the relevant periods in the regulations will assist companies affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The regulations extend the duration of temporary measures restricting the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions, introduced by the Act, from 30 June to 30 September 2021. The Committee agreed the statutory rule (SR) at its meeting on 23 June, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and the rule came into operation on 29 June. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has no issue with the rule, and, on the Committee's behalf, I support the motion to confirm it. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak briefly on behalf of Sinn Féin.”
“— attract inward investment, create jobs and strengthen our economy.”
“They must engage in good faith over the coming weeks and months to provide for our businesses a stable trading environment, in which they can maximise the unique position that the protocol affords the North of continued access to the EU single market, which allows the Executive and Invest NI to —”