Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): On behalf of the Committee, I warmly welcome our Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald; permanent secretary Ian Snowden; and Johanna Park, finance director, who is a familiar face here at the Committee. First, I pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for the work that they have done in recent times. I will hand over to them to provide an update to the Committee.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I want to take a few moments to update you on some of the key developments since we last met at the end of January. On the progress in our economy, which continues to perform relatively well across a number of indicators, the North continues to outperform Britain in economic output and export growth. That is due, in no small part, to the benefit of dual market access. Between the first quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2026, exports from Britain to the EU decreased by16·6%, and, over that same period, exports from here to the EU increased by 10·3%. Therefore, while Brexit has proven to be an act of economic self-harm for Britain, dual market access has given our businesses a commercial edge. I am pleased to say that Invest NI is helping businesses to use that advantage through export and supply chain advice, market intelligence, mentoring, export skill support, trade missions and financial assistance.

In addition to contributing to our strong export performance, the Windsor framework has been very effective in protecting the all-Ireland economy. Cross-border trade for goods and services reached £14·5 billion in 2024, which is a remarkable 16% increase on 2023's £12·5 billion. Trade in both directions has grown: sales from North to South by 20% and sales from South to North by 9%. In the face of global challenges, strong all-Ireland trade has been essential to our domestic resilience. The proportion of good jobs here is also increasing, as is productivity, and regional imbalances have narrowed. Tourism has also increased by 9% in terms of overnight trips and visitor spending. Figures are positive, as is progress towards the economic vision across the Department.

The 'good jobs' Bill has been drafted and has been with the Executive since 29 April. I had hoped that it would be passed to the Committee for scrutiny before summer recess, but, unfortunately, the Executive have not yet been able to make a decision on it. There is, however, still plenty of time in this mandate to progress the Bill, so I will continue to seek its introduction to the Assembly and onwards to the Committee.

I am pleased to say that, last week, the renewable electricity generation Bill was approved by the Executive via urgent procedure. I corresponded with the Speaker on Thursday night seeking its introduction to the Assembly, which should allow that to happen in advance of summer recess. Once in law, the renewable electricity price guarantee will be used over 25 years to deliver lower electricity costs to households.

As the Committee is aware, my officials have worked with their counterparts in the Department of Finance and the Treasury to secure a commitment to cover 75% of the NI renewables obligation (NIRO) cost to consumers. That amounts to about a £30 discount on domestic electricity bills per household per year for three years. Work by the British Government should complete later this week to extend the Energy Prices Act 2022 through a statutory instrument (SI), which is the fastest route to enable us to pass that saving on to local people. The business case is currently with Treasury officials. My intention is that the £30 discount will be applied as a credit directly to domestic electricity bills from September. In partnership with Community Foundation NI, work is under way to encourage people who feel that they do not need the payment to voluntarily donate it to local fuel poverty charities. I know that the Committee also raised that issue.

On the domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, legislation for its closure was passed by the Assembly in May, and I thank the Committee for its cooperation in progressing the closure Bill and the regulations to enact it. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the Bill received Royal Assent last Thursday. That will free up valuable annually managed expenditure (AME) funding, which my Department will seek to utilise to optimise the use of biomethane.

In April, I announced a policy to bring forward smart meters, which will give local homes and businesses more control over their energy use, thereby allowing them to make savings. I chaired the first meeting of my artificial intelligence advisory panel. The panel, which brings together experts from industry, academia and government, will help to ensure a coordinated approach to the economic challenges and opportunities presented by AI. The panel's initial focus is on supporting delivery of the recommendations from the recent Matrix report on AI.

My Department is progressing a significant programme of work. It has plans to bring forward eight pieces of legislation within this shortened mandate and is working at pace to meet that commitment. I have already spoken about the 'good jobs' Bill, and work is now under way to draft a credit union Bill and offshore renewable energy installations Bill. In addition to the renewable electricity generation Bill, the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill is with the Committee, and a call for evidence is live. Work continues on the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill, which is at Committee Stage and whose deadline has been extended to 30 October. The Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, which strengthens director accountability, expedites payments to small creditors and supports business rescue where possible, is awaiting Royal Assent.

While it is not primary legislation, it is important to note that we have progressed regulations to introduce parental bereavement leave and pay for miscarriage. That is an important and emotive right that I was delighted to support from Committee Stage in the last mandate through to bringing it into effect in April this year for qualifying parents. The Committee, too, had a significant interest in that issue. Officials are working to bring forward critical domestic abuse regulations so that those who need that support can access vital protections before the end of the mandate.

I will finish with the Department's financial situation. Analysis by NISRA has shown that, between 2016-17 and 2024-25, the resource budget for the Executive as a whole increased by 58% while my Department's budget increased by only 1%. That reflects the priority that has been given to Health and Education by the Executive, but it has had an impact. Invest NI's resource budget has been reduced by 15%, funding to Tourism NI has remained largely static, and, despite a 27% increase in funding for further education colleges, the sector has had to deliver significant operational efficiencies, including reducing staff numbers by 213 — or 5% — through a voluntary exit scheme in 2024.

My Department's budget has been acutely impacted by the loss of EU funding, and by cuts to the Department's baseline by the Secretary of State in Budgets that were implemented when the Executive were in abeyance. Similarly, the budget for our universities has suffered cuts at the hands of the Secretary of State that have not yet been undone. My Department is now at breaking point, which is why I could not agree to the draft Budget. It is crucial, therefore, that the Executive receive additional funding. The Fiscal Council has confirmed that we are underfunded relative to Scotland and Wales. As part of a final Budget, therefore, it is crucial that my Department receives a fair share of any additional funding. That is necessary to ensure that universities are adequately funded, that colleges are resourced to deliver on our skills needs, that Invest NI can drive economic development, and that my Department can deliver against the objectives of the economic vision. In the meantime, as you will be aware, Departments are operating within a contingency allocation.

Thank you, Chair. I am happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you very much, Minister, and I thank you and your officials for your work. I want to pay tribute in particular to you for securing support for the renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme. I made it clear in the House that you would have my full support in delivering that, so thank you for being able to achieve that. You mentioned one of your officials. Not to pick out anybody, but on behalf of the Committee I pay tribute to Catriona Harkin in particular for the work that she has done on RHI.

Minister, I share your concerns in relation to the draft Budget. However, that is the first time that I have ever heard you state that you do not support the draft Budget. Back in January, when the Minister of Finance produced his first draft Budget, you were at pains in the Assembly Chamber to tell us of the need to agree it. At what point did you realise that the Budget that was produced by your colleague John O'Dowd was not a good one?

Dr Archibald: I still believe that the Executive need to agree a Budget, with an opportunity to agree a three-year Budget. We would all concur that there was an opportunity to take a more strategic approach to putting our finances on a more sustainable footing. Having done the analysis in the Department as to what the impact of the draft Budget would mean — that was the case across other Departments as well — it became very clear that it would not meet requirements.

Johanna can speak to you specifically about the figures, but, comparing what we had in our budget last year with what we would have over the three years of the draft Budget, we are looking at a considerable cut. The Executive, as a whole, took a position that the draft Budget was not a tenable way forward. Since then, as you will be aware, we have been engaging with the Treasury, via the Finance Minister, in order to find a more sustainable way forward.

Unfortunately, the happenings, if I can put them that way, at Westminster this week have further delayed the possibility of making the progress that we want. The Finance Minister thought that we were finally getting a level of engagement that might have found a resolution. I hope that things have not been set back too long in our being able to achieve that. The longer we are without a Budget, the more difficult the situation becomes, not least for our arm's-length bodies (ALBs), which are trying to manage things through this difficult period.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Minister, I am particularly concerned about higher education. You will be aware that since you became Minister for the Economy, we have had job losses at Queen's University, and Ulster University is proposing 450 job cuts at campuses in my constituency, in your constituency and at Magee. Now, we have received correspondence from all the institutions — Queen's University, Ulster University and the Open University — that, come September, there could be 1,700 fewer undergraduate places available for Northern Ireland students as a result of proposed cuts.

Under the contingency budget, Ulster University's allocation will be reduced by £3·8 million, which is equivalent to 760 fewer undergraduate student places. Queen's University's allocation will be reduced by £4 million, which equates to 720 places. Ulster University wrote to the Committee this morning to state that it will have 300 fewer places. Where, Minister, do you expect those 1,700 undergraduate students to go?

Dr Archibald: You have just outlined the scale of the challenge facing us. Last year, we were not in a good position with the opening budget for higher education either. Over the course of the year, we managed to obtain additional in-year funding, which went towards alleviating some of the challenges that our universities were facing. The number one reason why I felt that the draft Budget was not a sustainable way forward was because of the impact that it would have on our universities. That is where I will be seeking to put additional funding, if we are successful in obtaining it.

Such an impact on our universities is not where we want to be. Ian may wish to speak about the contingency allocations process. Obviously, that does not reflect ministerial decisions, but we have to give people some ability to plan. Again, that underscores the need for us to make swift progress in our engagement with the Treasury. It is a feature across all Departments that we face imminent and very difficult decisions. We are all trying to push collectively to find a way forward.

Ian, do you want to speak about the contingency allocation process?

Mr Ian Snowden (Department for the Economy): Yes. As the Committee knows, the contingency allocations that were issued by the permanent secretary for the Department of Finance at the beginning of May are about 95% of last year's Budget. We now have to plan for the possibility that that may be the budget that we have to work to. If no Budget is agreed by 31 July, those numbers will effectively become the budget that we need to work to from 1 April.

I have issued the allocations to all the arm's-length bodies, partner organisations and parts of the Department. After the statutory obligations that we have to meet and the pre-committed activity and expenditure that we have to honour are taken into account, those allocations mean that everybody has to take a 6% reduction from the position as it was last year. The figures that you cited would be the contingency allocations with that 6% reduction applied.

If a Budget is agreed, additional funding will go to the universities, but we would need to know exactly how much we would be getting in that Budget to be able to say what the difference would be. As things stand, if we get to the end of July without an agreed Budget, those are the numbers that everyone will be working to.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): And that will be 1,700 fewer undergraduate places by September of this year,

Mr Snowden: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What is your advice, Minister, to the 1,700 people who wish to study here will not be able to as a result of an allocation from your permanent secretary?

Dr Archibald: I would say to those people that I am working to find a way forward that does not result in that level of cut being necessary. I think that all Ministers are on that page. That is absolutely not where I want to be. We need to invest in our universities and colleges, and that is what I have sought to do since I came into this role. I will keep working on that, and I appreciate the Committee's support. I know that the Committee has ongoing engagement with the universities and colleges — Ulster University will give evidence to the Committee tomorrow.

I am absolutely committed to trying to put in additional funding. As I said, we faced a difficult budget last year, and we secured additional funding, the bulk of which went to our universities. I want to find a way forward to correct the situation that the universities have found themselves in during the past few years, which has made it very difficult for them to plan to deliver in the way in which we need them to deliver for the wider economy.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Minister, you will be aware of the letter that Queen's University sent to you on 28 May, outlining the implications of the reduction, but I am interested to get your thoughts on it. Queen's University is proposing to increase its numbers significantly by recruiting beyond its maximum student number (MaSN) allocation. If Queen's does that, it will impact on other universities, particularly Ulster University. Will the Department fine Queen's University if it recruits beyond its MaSN allocation?

Dr Archibald: The letter from Queen's outlines scenarios. We do not want institutions taking decisions that will have wider implications for other institutions. I have sympathy for Queen's, however, given the position that it is in. We are working to try to find a resolution as quickly as possible so that we do not end up in that scenario. Ian, do you want to say something on recruitment beyond the MaSN?

Mr Snowden: We have a degree of tolerance around the MaSN allocations in any particular year. We have to get into a discussion with Queen's about the extent to which it would propose to recruit beyond the MaSN, what that would mean in practice, and how we will deal with that collectively. We want to try to come to some sort of agreed position, so I would not say that a fine would automatically flow from that.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Can you categorically rule out the Department fining that institution, regardless of how many students it recruits beyond the MaSN as a result of cuts that have been imposed?

Mr Snowden: I cannot categorically rule it out, because it will depend very much on the circumstances, the situation, and how the University feels that it needs to behave.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I have a final question on recruitment numbers. I remain concerned about the number of places that students from the Irish Republic take from the MaSN allocations in Northern Ireland. That number continues to grow. It is now likely that institutions will have made their offers two weeks in advance of the Central Applications Office (CAO) results coming out and that the universities will be full in advance of Irish students receiving their grades. What will the Department do if institutions in Northern Ireland have made conditional offers to those students but do not have places for them as a result of the cuts that have been imposed?

Dr Archibald: You are asking questions on matters that also exercise us. On the matter of the MaSN and students coming from the South, obviously we want to facilitate cross-border mobility for our students.I have had significant engagement with my counterparts in the South on the issue. We should see the Irish Government stepping up here and supporting our universities when it comes to those young people who choose to come north to study. We have raised the matter at the highest levels with the Irish Government, as have the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, because we need to find a sustainable way forward on the issue, being mindful, of course, that we want students from the North to be able to go south as well. As you rightly pointed out, we have ongoing challenges around the UCAS and CAO time frames, which, again, I have raised with my counterpart.

If I am being honest, Phillip, we want to find a solution to the situation before we get to that point. We will keep all options on the table in that respect. As Ian said, we will not take a really hard line, because we recognise that we are in a difficult situation. However, it has to work for the wider higher education sector as a whole.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you, Minister. We have 40 minutes left and eight Members, so there are exactly five minutes for everyone.

Ms McLaughlin: I will keep with the universities agenda, specifically the expansion plans for Magee. We have heard from all the institutions about the financial context in which they find themselves. Are you particularly concerned about Ulster University's financial well-being?

Dr Archibald: Ulster University has highlighted clearly to the Department and publicly the financial challenges that it faces. You will know that, in addition to the commitments to, for example, the expansion of Magee, there are city and growth deal projects across the board that Ulster University and Queen's are key partners in delivering. Ensuring that the university is in a financially sustainable position to do those things is a priority for us, because they are really important projects for the wider economy. Across the board, in every constituency, they will have a positive impact.

Yes, I am concerned about Ulster University's finances, which is why I have indicated to the Chair that we are working to find a better Budget settlement. I would welcome the Committee's support in making the case for my Department to get additional funding as part of any increased Budget settlement. There are pressures across all Departments, but to deliver on our ambitions for our economy and our young people, we need to invest in them.

Ms McLaughlin: Absolutely. On the back of all that is happening in the financial context of higher education, the plans for the expansion of Magee seem uncertain when you speak to those in charge of Ulster University. They do not have the money, they do not have the funding, and nothing is coming from government to do it. The commitment remains in place but with no budget allocations. There is real and deepening concern in Derry about the expansion plans. What contingency plans are you working to in order to deliver that? Have you had those conversations with the Magee taskforce?

Dr Archibald: There are ongoing conversations with all partners on the Magee expansion. Ian will have further meetings this week in that regard. As you will know, Sinéad, allocations were made in the draft Budget; obviously, we will want to see those honoured in any future Budget, alongside additional funding to invest in the sustainability of our universities. That is my contingency. It is that we are trying to secure a better Budget settlement so that we can deliver on our objectives.

We have made really good progress in Magee. We have seen a 22% uplift in student numbers, and we have seen all the land purchased to reach the target of 10,000 students. We now need to see the issues around student accommodation unlocked so that student numbers can continue to grow. That will take a number of years, but that is what the plan entails. It will not be turned around overnight or in the next year or two. It is a plan for a few years. We continue to work to ensure that the funding will continue to flow through, and the next stages will be phased to get us to the 10,000.

Ms McLaughlin: Are you still working to the same time frame, or will there be a delay owing to the current higher education situation? For example, Ulster University is experiencing worse financial difficulties, given the situation with its reserves. It has made commitments as well. The university has to support the expansion within its plans, but there is no money to do so.

Dr Archibald: We are working to obtain additional funding so that we can put Ulster University on a more sustainable footing. Alongside that, we are doing the review of higher education funding so that universities in general will be on a more sustainable footing. The time frame has been set out. The Ulster University Magee taskforce report sets out what is required. That is the trajectory to which we are working. We are trying to make sure that we secure additional funding. Alongside that, there are issues that we have to work to unlock, such as the issue with student accommodation, about which the Committee will know. There are demographic challenges. The number of 18-year-olds will start to reduce in the next few years. We therefore need to make sure that things are in place to support us to get to the 10,000 target. That is the work in which we are engaged.

Ms McLaughlin: Queen's University was highly critical of capital funding, as you know from the letter that you received from it. Queen's said that, although it supports the expansion of Magee, it wanted to see more transparency around capital funding. How did you respond to that letter?

Dr Archibald: We have not yet responded to the correspondence. We are working our way through it. We want to find a solution that works for our higher education sector in general, and that will require more funding, full stop. I have raised with my counterparts in Britain the challenges with research and innovation funding. That is why Queen's in particular is exercised about the capital settlements. To achieve our wider economic objectives, we need to invest in research and innovation. We therefore need to look at the funding that flows to all universities for research and innovation and at how we support our universities by having competitive funding streams. That work continues to be done.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. And —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry, Sinéad, I will come back to you when there is a chance to do so, but I want to give all members an opportunity.

Mr Delargy: Thanks, Minister, for your presentation and, indeed, for all the work that you outlined. It is huge body of work, including what is, I think, the biggest legislative programme of all Departments. In the past 10 years, there has been one piece of legislation. Under your leadership, there have been eight. That is hugely positive. It is something on which the Committee will continue to work as well.

My first question is on Brexit. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, both socially and politically but ultimately for our economy and our businesses. In your presentation, you outlined some of the benefits of dual market access and some of the ways in which your Department and businesses have, organically, had to mitigate issues with it. Will you tell us about some of the work that your Department has done to support businesses to access the dual market? Will you also outline some of the challenges that your Department has faced as a result of Brexit?

Dr Archibald: The Committee will be aware of this from its own engagement, but the most significant impact of Brexit has been the loss of funding for skills, particularly from the European social fund. Moreover, the loss of the European regional development fund (ERDF) has impacted on Invest NI's budget. In my opening remarks, I outlined the impact of the loss of EU funding. As we all know, that has posed significant challenges. As we all know, the Shared Prosperity Fund did not replace it, while the local growth fund has put us in an even worse place. Unfortunately, the collective efforts of the Executive and all parties on that issue have fallen on deaf ears, and EU funding is not being replaced to the same level. That has significant impacts across the Department, because what we are trying to do is to invest in our skills pipeline and create a strong base for our economy. We have to continue to work on that and look collectively at all other avenues of funding that we might be able to access to invest in skills. The Committee will know about programmes such as the Shared Island Fund and PEACE PLUS. We have to look at anything on which we can work with partners to try to plug some of the gaps, as well as make the case for a better funding settlement in general.

The Windsor framework has been in place for three years now, and we have seen relatively good performance, particularly when it comes to exports. That is an area in which businesses here have not faced the additional challenges and barriers that businesses in Britain have faced. That is of benefit to the local economy, and we see that benefit coming through in our economic growth figures. There are also examples of businesses pointing to the ability to sell into both markets as being key to their success. That is not without its challenges, however. If there is a major shift in trading relationships, there will clearly be frictions. There are east-west frictions. Businesses have highlighted the fact that there are challenges from additional bureaucracy, particularly with the duty reimbursement scheme and suchlike that are in place as mitigations. Processing times are not as fast as businesses would like them to be. We have made representations and have recently seen some movement there. There are challenges that come with a shift in relationships, but the big advantage has been all-island trade, which has grown significantly, as businesses continue to take opportunities. We continue to see more all-island coordination.

We have clear advantages. When I go out and meet investors, particularly in the States, but also elsewhere, we highlight those advantages, and there is significant interest. The Committee will know that foreign direct investment propositions take time to deliver and that decisions are made based on more than one factor, but dual market access is a significant selling point that we continue to lean into.

Mr Delargy: Thanks, Minister. We have heard from so many businesses, particularly from Invest whenever it has been before the Committee, about the ability, as well as the need, to upsell our dual market access in everything that we do.

My next question is on energy. As did former Minister Murphy, you have been doing a huge amount to reorient the economy so that ordinary people feel the benefits. Socialisation in energy policy in particular has been very welcome, and I think that everyone on the Committee recognises the benefit of that. You said that progress has been made on the renewable electricity price guarantee. Will you outline some of the benefits of that? When will people start to see the benefits reflected in their electricity bills? In particular, what impact will the REPG have on those consumers who really struggle with their energy bills?

Dr Archibald: That is something that forms part of my engagement with the wider energy community. There is a recognition that people have to understand why changes are being made and how those changes will benefit them, and they will have to feel that benefit. There is a responsibility on all of us to communicate that. Fairer grid connection costs will come into effect from 1 July. People will hopefully feel the benefit of that policy change in the near future.

First, primary legislation will establish the renewable electricity price guarantee. In the next mandate, we will introduce the regulations. There is some more work to be done on the exact terms and conditions. I think that we all recognise the need to ensure that the first auction takes place at the right time, that the price is set at the right point and that the scheme will deliver savings to people in the medium to long term. To me, the community benefit element is key. It is about making sure that people feel the benefit. If communities host renewable energy infrastructure, they have to directly benefit from doing so. We are looking at credits for people who live in such areas.

There is work still to be done on exactly how we operationalise that, but it will be done as the primary legislation progresses. I am grateful to my Executive colleagues for agreeing the Bill, which means that we can introduce it in the Assembly before the summer recess. That was our aim so that the Committee can get it as quickly as possible.

Mr Buckley: Minister, I will start with your own words. You have emphasised that members of the Invest NI board should be chosen for their competence, credibility and capability. My first question is very straightforward. Will you explain the specific appointment of Mr Peter Lynch to the board? He is a former IRA prisoner who, as you know, was convicted and jailed for conspiracy to murder a police officer. Will you outline the specific qualifications that you believe made him a suitable candidate for the role?

Dr Archibald: I do not want to speak about specific individuals — that is not particularly fair — but I will speak to the specifics of how we chose from the candidates. It was not me who decided that those people were appointable. Rather, it was a selection panel. I was asked whether I wanted to launch a competition for new Invest NI board members. I was asked about the criteria that we would use to assess the people who came forward. I agreed to launch that competition. We put in place a process involving a panel, on which there was a chair, the chair of Invest NI and an independent assessor from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. They went through the process of sifting the applications, interviewing people, evaluating the candidates and eventually recommending to me candidates who were deemed to be appointable. That is how we made those five appointments. I am on record as saying that I believe that the five people who have been appointed are strong candidates who will add value to the Invest NI board. They bring experience from different areas of the economy, and they will do a good job.

Mr Buckley: Minister, the man sitting to your right informed you of some of the sensitivities about the appointment, so I have no doubt that you reviewed all the applications, as any Minister would. What was Peter Lynch's specific business experience?

Dr Archibald: As I indicated, I was presented with a list of a number of people who had been assessed by a selection panel as being appointable. I think that 267 people applied, of whom 52 were interviewed.

Mr Snowden: Fifty-six.

Dr Archibald: Fifty-six were interviewed, and 19 of them came through that process and were deemed to be appointable. I was asked to select five. As I said, I chose people who bring a breadth of experience to the role, based on the information that was provided to me in the candidate evaluation submissions. I believe that we have a breadth of experience from people from different parts of our economy who will add value to the board of Invest NI by bringing experience from different parts of our economy that meet the various objectives under our economic vision. Given the people who were leaving the board, before the new people were appointed, the skills that were required were identified in collaboration with the chair of the board of Invest NI to ensure that the board continued to have the relevant experience and expertise.

Mr Buckley: Minister, the fact that you cannot answer the question or share that information is worrying. It appears to me —.

Dr Archibald: What information —?

Mr Buckley: I have asked you now on two occasions about Peter Lynch's specific credentials that meant that he was deemed to be appropriate —

Dr Archibald: Peter, like —

Mr Buckley: — for appointment.

Dr Archibald: — the other four people, passed the assessment. The selection panel of three people —

Mr Buckley: OK, so —.

Dr Archibald: — who —.

Mr Buckley: No, Minister. You cut in on me. I asked you —.

Mr Delargy: Chair, on a point of clarity.

Mr Buckley: Excuse me.

Mr Delargy: On a point of clarity.

Mr Buckley: I asked you for his credentials.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): There is no point of clarity.

Mr Buckley: You then set out the appointment process. I am asking you —

Mr Delargy: This is about legislation and the Department's budget, not Invest.

Mr Buckley: — specifically what his credentials were. If you cannot tell me, I can conclude only that it is jobs for the boys. Please outline his credentials.

Dr Archibald: It is absolutely not the case that it is jobs for the boys, Jonathan. I did not choose the people who were deemed to be appointable. A selection panel did, based on an application process in which a set of skills was asked for. The people who came through that process, which was very competitive, were deemed by a selection panel to be suitable for appointment. As I indicated, I chose people from different parts of our economy who bring different experience and who collectively add value to the board of Invest NI.

Mr Buckley: Minister, you know that the appointment does not pass the smell test. I will ask another question. Did you consult, or were you consulted by, Michelle O'Neill or any other member of Sinn Féin on the potential appointment?

Dr Archibald: I am the person who makes the appointments. The process is this: recommendations for appointment come to me from my officials, and I make the selection. That is what happens.

Mr Buckley: That is not what I am asking you. Did you consult any senior Sinn Féin personnel on the appointment?

Dr Archibald: Why would I consult outside —

Mr Buckley: Answer the question. It is a yes or a no answer.

Dr Archibald: — the process?

Mr Buckley: Is that a no?

Dr Archibald: I made the decision. That is the answer.

Mr Buckley: Just answer it. Is it a yes or a no?

Dr Archibald: Sorry.

Mr Buckley: Did you consult Michelle O'Neill or any —?

Dr Archibald: I do not have to consult —

Mr Buckley: You do not have to, but did you?

Dr Archibald: No —.

Mr Buckley: No? OK. You did not.

Dr Archibald: No, I do not consult. I make the decision.

Mr Buckley: On the specific appointment, did you consult —?

Dr Archibald: I made the decision on it and on the other four appointments.

Mr Buckley: How do you think other members of Invest NI — hard-working staff — feel about the appointment? Do you think that it is a mark of impartial governance or of a politically motivated choice?

Dr Archibald: Anybody who looks at it will see a robust process that followed the guidance and code of practice from the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It resulted in the selection of five people who were deemed to be appointable to the board of Invest NI who bring different experience and skills and will add value to the board. I stand over those appointments. Collectively, all five of them are good appointments.

Mr Buckley: Minister, I will finish on this, but I will not mince my words. Appointing to the board of Invest NI a former IRA prisoner who was arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder a police officer is, frankly, a textbook example of cronyism over competence. With that appointment, you have damaged the credibility of Invest NI's board.

Dr Archibald: I absolutely do not accept that. To say that, 28 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, people who were involved in the conflict cannot add value to our society —

Mr Buckley: Who was excluded?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK.

Dr Archibald: — is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr Buckley: Who was excluded, Minister?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. Thank you, Minister. Pádraig.

Mr Delargy: I will make just one point before we move on. The Minister and departmental staff have been invited to talk about legislation and the departmental budget. That was a specific invitation from the Committee that we all agreed. We are going way beyond that, into territory that has already very clearly been dealt with. The member's party is blocking legislation —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. Pádraig, we are now going to —.

Mr Delargy: — getting through the Executive. Focus on legislation. Do not focus on your own pet projects.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Colleagues, for now, I note —.

Mr Buckley: Do not tell me what to focus on or not to focus on at the Committee, Pádraig.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Order, colleagues.

Mr Delargy: It is about culture and about legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Colleagues. Order.

Mr Delargy: If you have no questions on that, you have nothing to say.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Pádraig, one second. I will ensure that all members get their fair allocation of time at the Committee. Members are perfectly entitled to ask whatever questions they wish. The Minister can decide whether to answer them. She has proven herself to be more than capable of answering any questions that are put to her. I will ensure that all members have equal time and will do so without fear or favour.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you all for being here. Minister, we know that there are many challenges for parents, especially mothers, in the workplace. You mentioned earlier the regulations to introduce parental bereavement leave and pay for miscarriage, which I very much welcome. Yesterday evening, we were at the launch of the baby loss certificate scheme, which you initiated in your time as Minister of Finance. Both are welcome. We have had a lot of discussion lately about neonatal leave, however. Provision for that is one of a range of measures in the employment rights Bill — I understand that — but my colleague the deputy First Minister, in the interests of mothers and parents who are going through the most difficult of times, proposed introducing separate legislation to get that through. Has your Department done any work to scope out what it would look like to split the neonatal provisions from the other provisions to bring them forward in isolation?

Dr Archibald: The deputy First Minister proposed that I remove trade union access from the Bill and progress everything else. What we put together as the Bill is balanced legislation that advances workers' rights and gives them voice and representation in the workplace in order to be able to exercise those rights. That is really important. I have engaged to a very considerable extent on the proposals that are in the draft Bill, and I continue to work with my Executive colleagues to move it forward.

As recently as yesterday, I corresponded with the deputy First Minister in respect of some of the issues that she raised. I made an amendment to the Bill to exempt businesses with fewer than 10 employees from trade union access measures. That was in recognition of some of the concerns that were raised about the administrative challenges of that.

Trade union access is important. One concern that has been highlighted is how that engagement will happen. To clarify, a code of conduct will have to be agreed between trade unions and employer representatives through the Labour Relations Agency forum. The trade union access provisions will not come into effect until that code of conduct is agreed. That code of conduct has to be approved by the Assembly. It will be a statutory code of conduct. Again coming from engagement with the deputy First Minister, I have clarified what I believed was implicit in a code of conduct, namely that it would have to facilitate respectful and constructive engagement. That is now in the legislation so that what we are trying to achieve is clear to everybody.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks, Minister. I understand the range, complexity of the legislation. You have outlined its intention, which I also understand, but my concern, and the concern of many people who have been in touch with me, has been the weaponisation by your party of neonatal leave. I do not believe that that is anything to play games with. My colleague Deborah Erskine outlined that in a heartfelt way in the Chamber last week. Those are mothers who went into very early labour, sometimes before 24 weeks. They are not entitled to maternity leave at what are some of the most stressful times. Sometimes their babies do not survive. It is an absolutely devastating and stressful time for people, and to have it constantly pushed out in the media and on social media to weaponise neonatal parents is in incredibly bad taste. If the issue is being highlighted so much, and if people feel so strongly about it, do you not consider it to be an aspect that could be scoped out and brought forward on its own? Do you not think that those parents deserve that?

Dr Archibald: I do not believe that it is being weaponised. It is something that I have had considerable engagement on. I have heard the voices of the parents whom you spoke about, and I very much recognise why the legislation is needed. We have drafted a comprehensive piece of legislation to address a number of areas where we have not progressed as quickly as, for example, Britain in workers' rights, mainly because the Assembly was not sitting for periods of time over the past few years. For me, it is about making as much progress as possible in the time that we have. I am very much of the view that the Bill as a whole has been formulated, it is sitting with the Executive, and the best thing that can happen is for it to make its way into the Assembly so that the Committee can do its job in scrutinising it. I have been very open that if people want to table amendments to the legislation, they are free to do that and to seek the support of the wider Assembly. However, the work on the Bill has been done, and the Bill as a whole should be introduced so that people can express their views on all of it.

Ms Forsythe: I appreciate the range of things in the Bill. It is so complex that it sat with your Department for two years.

Dr Archibald: That is not a fair characterisation. Obviously, consultation is required.

Ms Forsythe: We have received it now, after such a delay. There is a huge range of things in the Bill to get to grips with and to scrutinise before being able to agree it. I disagree with you; I think that it has been weaponised. We have seen the Sinn Féin slides weaponising neonatal leave. That is really hurtful to parents, and is not a fair thing to do, so I ask you to reconsider on the neonatal leave aspect. If you genuinely feel strongly about neonatal leave and wider maternal issues that you have brought forward in other ways — I believe that you do — I strongly urge you to reconsider.

Have I time for one more?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Unfortunately not, Deputy Chair.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister, for coming in. I want to say at the outset that Catriona Harkin has been first class in energy, which is the area that I want to focus on. Numbers on renewables have dropped in the past four years. Invest NI has now dropped its net zero accelerator fund because there is seen to be no need for it; the private funding is there. If there is no need, and the funding is available, why are we not seeing an increase in growth?

Dr Archibald: We have seen increases in the past year, and we are back up to 48% as of the end of March, which is the most recent figure. There was a high of 51% in 2021; obviously there were particular features at that time. Since then, we have had different challenges, but we are going the right way again, and that is welcome. We have seen the considerable work undertaken alongside SONI, NIE and others to make that progress go in the right direction again. On the net zero accelerator, Invest NI undertook significant work to understand what the market failure was, if any. After significant analysis, there was not deemed to be any for that particular element, but that does not mean that we do not need to continue supporting businesses. There was huge interest in the energy efficiency capital grant, so businesses are really engaged with this. They want to invest in renewables, they want to invest in energy efficiency, and we want to support them. I do not see it as a failure that we do not have a net zero accelerator fund. We need to spend public money wisely, and we will look at how we can support businesses differently to make progress towards the targets.

Mr Honeyford: I also want to put on record that the new renewables scheme is very positive. Well done on getting the scheme to that point. We will get it through. My point is not about the net zero accelerator fund. We should not waste any public money. My point is about the disconnect between the investment in the business community and the Department. The business community is telling us that they do not have the certainty and things in place for the legislative programme to enable investment. Why is that the case?

Dr Archibald: We are working on different elements of renewable energy policy development, as you will be well aware. It is important for us to incentivise the investment at the right level and the right time, and we are working to achieve that. I am pleased that we are able to introduce a renewable electricity price guarantee scheme to the Assembly. We will continue to work to align what the Department is doing with what business needs as best we can, and that is the priority and focus.

Mr Honeyford: There is a difficulty in the energy sector regarding wider business. There was a report at the end of last week that nine out of 10 business leaders do not see the connect between the Department and their reality. They are looking for clear timelines and legislative programmes. Money is not the issue; the legislative programme and the timelines to deliver it are. That is the bit that is not clear.

Dr Archibald: I accept your point. That is what we are working to put in place. It is about giving certainty and confidence, and that is why it was really important to me to make a commitment to introduce the Bill before the summer recess. It was important to me that that happened to instil confidence. My officials are working hard on different policy areas, and they are working in partnership. I want the Department to be more outward-facing and engaged to align as much as possible with the demands of business and make sure that we are responsive. I have made the case about our energy-intensive businesses and the challenges there. We are working very closely with the industry to find a way to support that. We are trying to put in place exactly what you have highlighted. Ian, do you want to say anything?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We need to keep going to get everybody in.

Mr Honeyford: I will be very quick — I appreciate that other people need in. I appreciate that that is happening, but what needs to change in the Department to give industry confidence in it?

Dr Archibald: We have to continue to deliver. That is why it was important to me that we got that Bill moving, because it shows delivery. We have been doing that, and you mentioned one of our officials who has recently done a really good job with the Committee. The entire team is working very hard to deliver across very complex policy areas, and they are doing a good job. I believe that we will begin to see more and more delivery over the next number of months.

Mr Kearney: Caoimhe, it is obvious that the DUP is blocking the 'good jobs' Bill in the Executive. What is your view on why it is being blocked? You had recent discussions with the deputy First Minister. What was the outcome of those conversations?

Dr Archibald: I am not clear on why it is being blocked. As I indicated to Diane, I believe that we have crafted a comprehensive Bill that is well balanced on advancing rights and giving voice and representation to workers. We need to have both sides.

I have had engagement with the deputy First Minister, as I indicated. I have responded by making more clear the intent in relation to trade union access and the code of conduct that will be agreed. I have now set out very clearly the process for the development of that code of conduct and the phased implementation thereafter of trade union access. I will continue to work with my ministerial colleagues to try to get the Bill progressed as quickly as possible. It is very clear now that we will not be in a position to introduce it before the summer recess. I have a number of weeks before the Assembly reconvenes in September to try to convince my colleagues around the Executive table that the right thing to do is to get it into the Assembly so that everybody can give their view on it and you as a Committee can play your role in scrutinising it.

Mr Kearney: The impasse is going to delay the potential introduction of the reform relating to paid neonatal care leave. What are the implications of that?

Dr Archibald: As you know, the timelines are very dependent on when the Bill is introduced, when it is passed and when it gets Royal Assent. In respect of neonatal care in particular, we as a Department have made a commitment to ensure that the secondary regulations that will be required to implement the primary legislation are developed alongside the Bill as it progresses so that we are in a position to implement that as quickly as possible. You will know that, for statutory paid leave such as neonatal care leave, you have work to do with HMRC, and we will also be doing that. HMRC only introduces those payments on a twice yearly basis — in October and April. If you miss a window, you will delay it by about six months. That is the challenge with the neonatal care leave. We are keen to see the Bill introduced as quickly as possible so that we can get that progressed.

Mr Kearney: This is my last question. International experience in the Nordic countries and, in fact, the United States demonstrates that trade union access and trade union density is good for productivity in the workplace and for industrial relations. How central is trade union access to the overall construction of the 'good jobs' Bill, and what is your message to those who are hostile to the delivery of enhanced trade union rights?

Dr Archibald: This is about ensuring that workers have a voice in their workplace. Cardiff University did analysis for my Department on voice and representation in the workplace that indicated that only around 18% of employees here feel that they have a lot or a good amount of voice and representation in the workplace, and there was significant demand for better voice and representation in the workplace. You have already pointed to the international evidence that shows that, where workers' voices are heard, respected and a key part of workplace relations, businesses are more profitable, more innovative and have better workplace relations. That is what we are trying to achieve with our proposals on trade union access. We believe that what we are trying to progress in respect of having balanced relationships and a code of conduct in place that guides those relations will improve the broader industrial relations framework here and will be good for our economy as a whole. That is what we are trying to achieve with it. As I indicated, I believe that the Bill is balanced in terms of, on the one hand, advancing workers' rights and, on the other, ensuring that workers are able to exercise those rights by having voice and representation in the workplace. The two sides of that are really important.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister and permanent secretary, for being here this morning. A lot has already been covered by Committee colleagues. I wanted to touch on vacancies in the Department. Can you credibly deliver on energy, skills and economic growth when there are gaps in the workforce?

Dr Archibald: There have been gaps, and there are gaps across all Departments. That is a shared challenge, and it is very much related to our fiscal challenge because, obviously, there is a financial cost to our ability to recruit more staff. That is the balance that we have to strike. It is about making sure that we have the right skill sets in the right places in the Department in order to be able to deliver our objectives. Ian and the team have been working to ensure that. I have been really heartened by the effort that Ian has put into that. We are obviously trying to progress priority areas, and we have to make sure that we have teams of people with the appropriate skills. Ian has been ensuring that that is the case. I am not in any way going to shy away from the fact that there is still a challenge, given what we want to achieve in particular policy areas where we absolutely could be doing with more people. That is why, very often, we have to try to progress things in parallel and do as much as we possibly can with the teams of people that we have. There is no doubt that, at times, delays are caused because we do not have enough people. Ian might want to add to that.

Mr Snowden: We have quite a large number of vacancies. The Committee got a briefing on that a couple of weeks ago. There are about 300 vacancies in total, of which about 190 have been declared, as in we have asked for those posts to be filled. In the current financial year, we will not be able to afford to fill all of those vacancies, so we have had to cap the number at 110. That will undoubtedly create gaps in the Department, so we will have to look to redeploy staff into the highest-priority areas. In addition to that, we are systematically going through our internal processes to see where we can strip out any time delays or unnecessary work. That will help to free up capacity and allow people to focus on things that are more important.

Ms D Armstrong: I have one other question, Chair, please.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Of course.

Ms D Armstrong: This was touched on earlier. A number of issues have arisen in the Department this year which, I am sure, have had an impact on the Department's reputation. What is the Minister's assessment of the Department's reputation overseas? As the Department responsible for investment in Northern Ireland, is it seen as being a safe pair of hands ? Can the Minister assure me that any decisions or large announcements will be screened for any impact that they might have on the reputational security of the Department for the Economy?

Dr Archibald: I can speak only to my own experience of our reputation on the international stage. It is really strong, and the engagement that I have had with investors from different parts of the world has been really positive. There is still significant interest in investing here, even in the really challenging current global context, where people are hitting the pause button on investments. We continue to see a strong pipeline of investment. My Invest NI teams, whether in the US or elsewhere, can speak to the continued positive engagement and interest that they have. That is a very strong signal.

Turning to your latter point, that is part and parcel of the due diligence process that Invest NI goes through in respect of any of its investment propositions to ensure that reputational damage is not a factor. We are still in the process of developing the ethical investment framework, which is about achieving exactly that objective.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): With that, Minister and colleagues, thank you very much for your time today. We really appreciate it. Minister, do not be a stranger to the Committee; you are always very welcome. Thank you very much indeed, colleagues.