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 69 of 76.
“I welcome the Minister's statement today. The Minister referenced the Internal Market Bill. He and the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers have already raised concerns about it providing to Westminster financial powers that are over and above those of the Assembly and Executive. What is the Minister's assessment of the impact that the Internal Market Bill will have on our ability to control our spending?”
“I thank the Minister for her update. I concur with her about the economy not being some nebulous term. It is really about people and the fact that the health of our businesses, many of which are SMEs, and their workers are very much interlinked. <BR /> <BR />The Minister made bids and was allocated funding to support economic recovery. Is she considering how that funding could be reprioritised to support some of the businesses that are struggling financially as a result of closures or reduced income?”
“On enhanced rights for workers, does the Minister agree that agency workers in the Civil Service should be entitled to annual leave on the same basis as permanent workers?”
“There is much at stake over the next number of weeks. A great deal is at stake for our communities and businesses across this island. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that the British Government backtrack from that course of action, respect the rule of law and honour their obligations in full, as set out in the withdrawal agreement which they negotiated and which the British Parliament ratified. I urge Members to support the motion.”
“It is deeply unfortunate that that action was necessary, but the British Government need to be held accountable for what they agreed to. <BR /> <BR />It seems to have come as a surprise to some in the British Government, and to some here in the North, that the EU has followed through and taken the action that it stated it would. The British Government have form, of course, when it comes to not implementing agreements, but, to borrow a phrase, they are playing senior hurling now; not living up to commitments will not cut it. Worse still is stating that you intend to deliberately breach them. <BR /> <BR />Hopefully, the British Government will take the necessary action to prevent further consequences. It is also worth remembering that the leaders of the political groups in the European Parliament stated:”
“Following the publication of the Internal Market Bill, the EU clearly set out its response: if the British Government did not, by 30 September, remove the clauses of the Bill that breach the withdrawal agreement, it would take legal action for breach of agreement. The Internal Market Bill was passed in the House of Commons last Tuesday without necessary amendments. On 1 October, the EU issued legal action on the basis that the Bill breaches the good faith articles of the withdrawal agreement and that, if it becomes law, it will breach the protocol commitments.”
“A lot of the discussion until now has been on how the Internal Market Bill breaches the withdrawal agreement commitments on issues of trade, but last week saw a significant intervention from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, when they outlined how the Bill also breaches the Good Friday Agreement and the protocol commitment on rights. That is deeply concerning, particularly in the context of this British Government's known intentions for the Human Rights Act. <BR /> <BR />It is vital that all aspects of the protocol be fully implemented and that there be no watering-down of those rights protections, either in an apparent way or by stealth.”
“Concerns remain about the lack of meaningful proposals from the British negotiators, so the focus at this point needs to be on finding resolutions to those issues and on ensuring that the technicalities of the protocol are worked through to a positive conclusion as quickly as possible. <BR /> <BR />The Internal Market Bill has been an unnecessary distraction in that regard and does not, despite what the British Government and the Bill's proponents say, resolve the issues of unfettered access. The rumour that the British Government will go further still and legislate for the definition of "at-risk goods" would be even more unhelpful and would cause deeper ructions in the negotiations.”
“Those on the opposite Benches who criticise the protocol, and particularly those who campaigned for the sunny uplands that we now face, have no alternative that guarantees North/South or east-west trade on the same basis that we now have in the context of the type of Brexit that Britain has insisted on, because they are, in fact, contradictory aims. <BR /> <BR />Brexit itself is the cause of the difficulties that we face. Although the protocol offers some protections, nothing is as frictionless as the arrangements that we currently have. In that respect, the future arrangements negotiations is the only show in town. At this point, we are all familiar with the issues that are still causing difficulties: fisheries, state aid and governance. That was restated at the end of last week's round of negotiations.”
“That has already caused debt to be accrued and has put many jobs on the line. Many workers and families are already struggling as a result, and, at the end of this month, we face the ending of the furlough scheme, which will see thousands more jobs lost. It is already a bleak economic outlook, with predictions of record unemployment, and that is without even taking into account a no-trade-deal outcome. <BR /> <BR />Like, I am sure, everyone else here, I have absolutely no desire to see a hard administrative border down the Irish Sea that damages our businesses, many of which are SMEs with no real capacity to deal with the cost and red tape that is associated with such a border.”
“The reality is that it is our businesses, our communities and our economy that will stand to suffer worst from a no-trade-deal outcome and our highly integrated supply chains that will be the most damaged by increased barriers. Our business community has been very clear that what it needs but does not have right now is clarity. With the clock ticking down rapidly, it fears what is coming down the line at the end of the year. Even if there is an agreement, the timetable to implement what is agreed is too tight. The business community could not be any more clear: it wants an agreement that creates the minimum of bureaucracy. <BR /> <BR />As I stand here, amid growing numbers of COVID-19 cases and the potential for increased restrictions, I am very mindful that our businesses have already faced months of the most difficult circumstances.”
“That is what is most frustrating and utterly futile about the Internal Market Bill. It has increased uncertainty and has damaged relations and trust in the negotiation process: a process that we already knew was difficult and slow. It seems that Boris Johnson and his cronies have spent the past 10 months in denial about what they signed up to and ratified in the withdrawal agreement. Instead of putting their best endeavours into finding reasonable and workable outcomes, particularly for the protocol, they have tried to wriggle out of the commitments that they made. <BR /> <BR />We are now looking at a very tight timetable to see the negotiations conclude, with the key stocktaking looming at the EU Council meeting on 15 October.”
“However, the protocol will function most effectively in the context of a comprehensive free-trade agreement based on zero tariffs.”
“Of course, anyone with any sense who has one eye to future trade deals also realises the potential impact and reputational damage that such actions will have. Why would anyone hold faith with any agreement that the British Government sign up to in the future? <BR /> <BR />The strong response from the US has continued, with bipartisan support towards upholding the protections afforded to the Good Friday Agreement by the protocol in the withdrawal agreement. The consequence will be no trade deal between Britain and the US unless the protections are upheld. Let us be clear: the protections of the protocol on Ireland provide some degree of certainty for the all-island economy and to protect North/South cooperation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The response has been damming, not just from the EU, which would be expected, but the British political and legal classes have been equally vociferous. Diplomats and politicians from all shades have condemned the bad faith and lamented the impact that these actions will have on holding other states to account. The Internal Market Bill is a step too far, even for Geoffrey Cox, the British Attorney General who, this time last year, presided over the proroguing of Parliament debacle. He slated it, stating that it:”
“On 8 September, the British Secretary of State for the North, Brandon Lewis, confirmed in the House of Commons that the Internal Market Bill would break international law. In doing so, he confirmed what everyone already knew: that the Bill, as enacted, fundamentally breaches the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Ireland. The blatancy of this admission, however, was greeted with shock and dismay; it defies the norms expected of states that operate on accepted conventions. It is also, in fact, a breach of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The convention is a standard that states are held to when they sign international agreements, such as the withdrawal agreement to which the British Government are a signatory.”
“How does that match up with schools having the ability, under their ethos, to monitor what they teach?”
“The Examiner of Statutory Rules has no issue with the rule, and I support the motion to affirm on the Committee's behalf. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak very briefly as Sinn Féin's economy spokesperson. We recognise the role and success and commend the success of the screen industries and our creative industries. Like others, they have experienced difficulties due to COVID-19. The Minister has outlined the important contribution of both the screen industries and the wider creative sectors to our local economy and the skills base in respect of that locally. We want to see that continue to grow and, therefore, support the order to continue the grant-in-aid payment to develop commercial activity and job creation in the sector.”
“I rise to speak briefly as Chair of the Economy Committee to support the motion on behalf of the Committee. As the Minister has indicated, the NI Screen Commission (Funding) Order (NI) 2020 will provide the Department with powers to fund NI Screen Commission, that is, NI Screen, and will regularise how the Department for the Economy makes grant-in-aid payments to NI Screen to allow it to increase commercial activity or employment in relation to the screen industries here. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the SL1 for the NI Screen Commission (Funding) Order (NI) 2020 in April, and members were content with the policy direction. The Committee agreed the statutory rule at its meeting on 9 September 2020 subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The rule came into operation in May 2020.”
“I thank the First Minister for her statement. This week, we have seen a number of cases amongst the student population. Students' representatives have been saying that there is a lack of clarity about messaging and guidance that is specific to them. Does the First Minister think that enough is being done to support students, including those who are self-isolating? Do the regulations permit students to travel home at weekends and at the end of term?”
“I thank the Minister for her response. I know that she will agree that the levels of housing stress are too high and that we need to tackle them. Does the Minister agree that in doing so, and in making more social housing stock available, we need to ensure accessible housing?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, £55·2 million has been held centrally and you have outlined that it is for sectoral support, including airports, travel agents, taxis and coaches. Can you give us an update on the planned financial support for airports, please?”
“Last week at the Economy Committee, we heard from Richard Ramsey about how it could take us until 2024 to recover from the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. That was not taking into account a no deal outcome. Does the Member agree with me that we really need to see a focus on achieving a free trade agreement?”
“The reality is that the clock is ticking down and time is running out to provide that much-needed clarity and certainty before the end of the year. Businesses and communities are already struggling with the impact of COVID-19. They will be devastated further if there is no trade agreement. As it is, the time frame for implementing any arrangements that were agreed is already far too short. All efforts are needed now by the British Government to ensure that there is no cliff edge come 31 December.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said in yesterday's debate, the argument that the Bill is, in any way, designed to protect our peace agreement is absurd. I say it again: it is ridiculous. The protocol in the withdrawal agreement was negotiated to protect the Good Friday Agreement and mitigate the contradictions of Brexit on the integrated arrangements across these islands. The Bill seeks to undermine that with the flimsy excuse of giving certainty to businesses when we all know that it is simply about the British Government trying to have their cake and eat it, and not live up to commitments that they made. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has caused havoc instead of providing certainty. It has muddied the waters further and created distrust when calm heads and rational thinking were actually needed.”
“Michael Gove does not have the hassle of applying for a settlement scheme permit to keep his family here, or concern about whether he will still be able to cross the border. Those are the realities that are faced by people here. What I care about is those realities. What Members in this Chamber should care about is giving businesses and communities certainty to plan for what is only 100 days away. <BR /> <BR />What will unfettered access actually look like? What will be the definition of "at risk" goods? What will the VAT regime be? What will SPS checks actually look like? What are the labelling requirements? Those are the types of practical questions to which businesses desperately want answers, but, as yet, do not have them.”
“However, what has caused a great deal of concern in the international community is the freely admitted intent to break international law. The utterances of "specific and limited" mean nothing and wash with no one. It is a clear admittance that the British Government think nothing of breaking an agreement when the ink is hardly dry. The approach that they have adopted is reckless for people and businesses here. Of course, Boris Johnson is not worried about what new red tape it will cause for his small business and whether it will be able to survive. David Frost is not a young person who hopes to study in the South and wonders whether they will be able to afford the fees.”
“As was highlighted at length in yesterday's debate, the Bill undermines the devolved institutions. It has also been described as a "power grab" by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. It limits the ability of the Assembly to make regulations. The three Finance Ministers for the North, Scotland and Wales have outlined their concerns about the powers that it gives Westminster to bypass the devolved institutions in funding allocations.”
“These negotiations have been going slowly, with little progress reported on key issues, but, instead of applying themselves to resolving the issues in the process, the British Government have decided to throw the toys out of the pram and, like a petulant child, have a tantrum to get their own way. This is no childish game. The stakes for our businesses, our economy, our communities and our peace agreements are much too high to be used as a pawn in negotiations by the British Government.”
“As many Members outlined yesterday afternoon and again today, the protocol is a clumsy and imperfect tool, and the best outcome for it to operate in an efficient way is a comprehensive free trade agreement between the EU and the UK. As Members also outlined yesterday, safeguarding and dispute-resolution mechanisms are built in to the protocol. All efforts — "best endeavours", to use the term — should be focused on achieving an outcome that results in a free trade agreement. <BR /> <BR />We in the North have been through many negotiations, and we know only too well that they are difficult and complex.”
“I rise to speak in support of the motion. First, let me say this: it is not rehashing the Brexit debate to reiterate that the people of the North voted to reject Brexit. They did so because the contradictions of Brexit in the context of our relationships across our small island and on these islands were apparent. <BR /> <BR />In recognition of the unique and special circumstances of the North and the need to protect the Good Friday Agreement, the EU prioritised it in negotiations, and the protocol was painstakingly negotiated with the British Government over three years in recognition of the need to offer those protections to the all-island economy, North/South cooperation and the Good Friday Agreement.”
“Although the pandemic has been an international tragedy, one side effect has been a brief reprieve for the environment. Global carbon emissions fell by as much as 17% at the height of lockdown. Greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to be down by as much as 8% over the year. What steps are you taking, with your Executive colleagues, to ensure that we do not lose some of those gains as we restart the economy?”
“The Minister's original answer referred to a "collaborative approach". Will she confirm that community involvement in the development of strategies to tackle paramilitarism and organised crime will be at the centre of her Department's approach to the issue?”
“We will continue to work in partnership with all those who are willing here in the Assembly and the Executive, in Dublin, in Brussels and across the EU to protect the best interests of citizens across this island. The withdrawal agreement is an international agreement. It needs to be maintained and upheld in order to protect our economy and our peace agreements. I urge Members to support the motion.”
“What our businesses and communities, more broadly, have been crying out for is certainty, and this Bill has done the exact opposite of creating certainty. The ongoing negotiations require all parties to contribute in good faith. There are difficult issues to resolve — issues that Mr Allister referred to — such as exit declarations and tariffs, and those are part of the negotiations. That is without even considering important issues not included in the protocol such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications and access to EU funding schemes. <BR /> <BR />We cannot sit back and allow our businesses, economy and hard-won peace to be collateral damage.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of Members — Martina Anderson, Pat Catney and Philip McGuigan — referred to the integrated nature of our supply chains, a fact that cannot be ignored when we talk about the importance of the British market. We need to recognise that. In seeking to ensure unfettered access to the British market, which, as Clare Bailey pointed out, is included in the protocol, there can be no compromising on the protections, because the protocol is not just about trade; it is, vitally, about rights and the protections of communities and our peace process. <BR /> <BR />By taking the path that they have taken, the British Government and Tory Ministers have shown, once again, their complete disregard for our peace, our economy, businesses, jobs and the livelihoods of people on this island.”
“Sorry. <BR /> <BR />He and his colleagues also mentioned state aid. The irony, of course, is that we have Brexiteers and unionists talking about state aid as though, by leaving the EU, they will be shaking off the shackles that have restricted them in using it, when Britain is, in fact, amongst the bottom five countries in terms of spend on state aid as a percentage of GDP. Germany, Denmark and Hungary all spend four times as much as Britain. It is, of course, how state aid is used that is the issue, and the countries that they will be seeking to do free trade agreements with, such as Japan, will be looking for commitments on state aid.”
“No. <BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole highlighted the important issue of divergence in services and what sometimes gets lost in the discussion with the focus on trade and goods. It is one of the imperfections of the protocol and where energies need to be focused in trying to minimise those divergences. <BR /> <BR />Steve Aiken said that the EU does not care about the North. It cared enough to make it a priority in the negotiations. It cared enough to insist that issues with the North were resolved as part of the withdrawal agreement exactly because of the wrangling that we are now seeing.”
“The Economy Minister, in her role, has consistently said that her top priority is to seek to ensure that Northern Ireland firms have unfettered access to the internal market in the United Kingdom. The Economy Minister has also indicated that she advised Executive colleagues that she is not willing to bring forward an LCM on the Trade Bill because she does not have the necessary reassurances that the North is able to be a full participant in future UK trade deals. What has she done about seeking reassurances that we can have access to existing EU free trade agreements through the protocol? Has she lobbied for that? I ask that because that is also a very significant issue. Putting all our eggs in one basket and focusing on unfettered access to the detriment of other trade agreements amounts to negligence.”
“For the Members opposite, let us be clear: the only people threatening the free trade agreement with the United States are those who are trying to wriggle out of their commitments and, in the process, override the protections in the protocol. The next biggest country is Canada, and there is no free trade agreement with it yet. It is the same for Thailand, it is the same for Australia and it is the same for China.”
“I concur, as did many Members who supported the motion. It is a vital market. We want to see as little friction as possible in trade. The most recent figures, from 2016, show that total exports to the South, the EU and the rest of the world now exceed sales to Britain. When it comes to goods, which, of course, is what the protocol refers to in terms of unfettered access, the figures are £6·5 billion in sales to Britain, £8·7 billion to the South, the EU and the rest of the world. When we look at the rest of the world, we see that, of sales worth £3·5 billion, the top five countries account for the majority of them. Number one is the United States, which is worth as much as the next four countries combined.”
“I am sorry; I am running out of time. <BR /> <BR />We have to wonder why on earth any country with which the British Government might want to do a future deal would believe that it would be worth making an agreement with such a Government. <BR /> <BR />With that, I want to pick up on other contributors' points. Mr Givan lamented the fettering of trade by the protocol. However, it never fails to bemuse me that Brexiteers willfully ignore the link between their campaigning for Brexit and the problems that have now resulted. As Mr McGuigan said, it is Brexit that is the problem. As Clare Bailey highlighted, the protocol is there to protect all of that. <BR /> <BR />Let us deal with other issues of trade. The DUP and UUP Members have often talked about, and they talked about it today, the importance of the British market.”
“The Member is quite right: the claims being made are quite ludicrous. <BR /> <BR />As other contributors mentioned, the international community, not just in the EU, is looking on —.”
“Following the publication of the Bill, we had renewed reports in the British press about Boris Johnson's intention to roll back protections in the ECHR, which was also referred to by Martina Anderson. Article 2 of the protocol commits to "no diminution of rights", including the rights in the ECHR and the Good Friday Agreement contained in the annex of the protocol. <BR /> <BR />When the British Government threaten to override parts of the protocol, it causes alarm bells to ring about what else they might attempt to undermine. That reinforces the necessity of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol being fully implemented to protect our economy, our communities and our peace agreements.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I have read the Good Friday Agreement; I am across it and the details of it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The nonsensical claims that the Bill is designed to protect the Good Friday Agreement are perverse and have rightly been met with disbelief and ridicule. The Bill, as my colleague Martina Anderson outlined, undermines all three strands of the agreement. It curtails the powers of the Assembly and the Executive, with the Scottish and Welsh Administrations also criticising it as a power grab.”
“Can I get through a bit? Then I will come back. <BR /> <BR />The intention to disregard an agreement that they committed to in an international treaty fewer than 12 months ago has shown the British Government of being incapable of living up to their commitments. It is, of course, worth reminding ourselves, as the motion outlines and as others have mentioned, that people here did not consent to Brexit. The protocol is an imperfect compromise, and that was referred to by several Members: Mr O'Toole, Mr Dickson, Mr McHugh and Mr Muir. However, it goes some way to mitigating what are the negative outworkings of Brexit. It was negotiated to protect our economy, North/South cooperation and, of course, the Good Friday Agreement.”
“While that comes as no surprise to most of us on this island, their blatant reneging on their commitments — to the point of admitting an intention to break international law — has been met with outrage and condemnation, not just from the European Union or the United States but from the ranks of their own diplomats, Tory MPs and former British Prime Ministers.”
“A fortnight ago we stood here amidst the speculation of what the Internal Market Bill would contain and, despite what Mr Givan asserted, we were all very exercised about seeing the details. It is fair to say that, on publication, it was worse than feared and showed that the British Government are intent on tearing up the protocol in the withdrawal agreement and the very necessary protections in it: protections painstakingly negotiated, agreed to, and ratified by that same British Government.”
“I thank the Member for taking an intervention. A response to an Assembly question for written answer I asked indicated that 2,000 people became newly self-employed between April 2019 and December 2019. The scheme in Scotland that you mentioned gives a grant of £2,000 to those individuals. That would be £4 million, which is not a huge amount.”