Debate contribution: Public-sector Pay
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 4 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Public-sector Pay
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4254750
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank those who have taken part in today's debate on public-sector pay. I will respond to some Members' comments in the course of my remarks and address others at the end. Our public-sector workers are at the heart of service delivery. The Executive are united on the need to resolve public-sector pay.
One of the first actions that I took as Minister of Finance was to seek flexibility from the Treasury around the funding that was made available in the financial package to deal with the departmental overspends and public-sector pay. Getting that flexibility meant that the amount that the Executive could allocate for pay was over £100 million more than originally provided for in the financial package, so there was some £688 million in total. I was pleased that the Executive supported the proposal to allocate that amount towards public-sector pay. It signals that we value our public-sector workers. Those workers, including our civil servants, deliver public services in our communities on a daily basis in our schools, our hospitals, across the transport network and right across the public sector. It was important that we went as far as we could, and that is what we did as an Executive.
That funding, along with the £380 million for departmental overspends, has now been provided as a total resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) allocation for each Department. Gaining Executive agreement to those departmental allocations meant that Departments could immediately begin to take forward negotiations to agree public-sector pay awards for 2023-24. Providing that allocation for pay as part of a broader funding envelope granted flexibility to Departments to manage pay awards within the overall funding available. As Members will also be aware, I then brought forward a Budget Bill for 2023-24, which gave Departments the legal authority to spend the funding that the Executive agreed to. You will know the urgency with which that had to be taken forward, and I am grateful for the support and cooperation that I received to enable the legislation to be introduced at such pace. It was borne out of necessity. I agree entirely that public-sector workers have waited too long to get the pay rise that they are entitled to for 2023-24. The fact that the delay has taken place in the context of a severe cost-of-living crisis and a squeeze on household budgets has only exacerbated the impact that we know that so many of our citizens have felt. The pay negotiations that I, as Finance Minister, am directly responsible for are those for Civil Service pay. On taking office, I prioritised meeting Civil Service unions. Those meetings were among the first that I had in my first week as Finance Minister. I quickly gave officials a negotiating remit to engage with unions on the 2023-24 pay award. I asked for those discussions to conclude as quickly as possible in order to get the offer made, and I am pleased to advise that negotiations started on 19 February and that the pay offers were issued on 26 February. The Civil Service pay offer will see the majority of civil servants receive a 5% consolidated increase plus a one-off £1,500 non-consolidated payment. Some will also receive progression increments. I am also pleased to maintain the commitment for the Civil Service to be a Living Wage Foundation (LWF) employer, and pay will be increased to match the most recent Living Wage Foundation real living wage rate of £12 per hour. The lowest-paid staff in the Civil Service earn £21,053 a year. By increasing pay in line with the Living Wage Foundation rate, the annual pay will rise to £23,177. That represents a 10% increase. The pay offer that I have made will, if accepted, see that 10% increase for the lowest-paid staff backdated to August 2023. The eligible staff will also receive the further £1,500 non-consolidated payment. I understand that the unions will ballot their members on the offer. I am pleased to note that NIPSA, the union with the biggest membership in the Civil Service, has recommended the offer to its members. I hope that staff will look favourably on the offer and that unions' consultation with their members will proceed as swiftly as possible so that we can get pay to staff as soon as is practicable. For my part, I have done what I can as quickly as possible to make sure that public-sector workers receive the pay awards that they are entitled to for 2023-24. I know that other Ministers with responsibility for other groups of public-sector workers are seeking to agree pay awards for this year as quickly as possible. My strong hope is that the negotiations will come to a conclusion as soon as possible so that the pay awards can be implemented as quickly as possible and provide some relief to public-sector workers and their families. The motion calls on:
"the Minister of Finance to make a statement to the Assembly upon the conclusion of these negotiations or at the end of the financial year."
As I said, I am not responsible for finalising pay negotiations for public-sector staff groups, except for those who get Civil Service pay. It is right that we afford unions the time and space that they need to ballot their members. In the case of civil servants, we expect that non-industrial unions' consultation with members will be concluded by the middle of March, with industrial unions' consultation expected to take eight weeks. I will update members once negotiations around Civil Service pay have been concluded. As for the other public-sector staff groups that are involved, it is for the relevant Ministers involved to update Members on those negotiations as they will be closer to the details of each. I know that the Health Minister, for example, has submitted a written statement to the Assembly that sets out the latest position on health pay negotiations. I will address some of the comments that Members made in the debate. Mr McCrossan mentioned giving unions time and space. He said that the negotiations were not going quickly enough, and that it is important that unions' processes are respected. I know that Ministers and employers are trying to progress their end of negotiations as quickly as possible. Declan Kearney and Liz Kimmins both mentioned the impact of Tory austerity, which I agree was a political choice to run down public services across Britain and here. I agree with Mr Kearney about the need for a social dialogue and a new funding model. Diane Forsythe mentioned the need to settle disputes quickly. She said that we were not able to give Departments everything that they want. That was the case, but we allocated as much as we were able to, and I am glad that the Executive supported the proposition that was put forward. I agree with Alan Chambers: no workers, healthcare or otherwise, want to be on picket lines and suffer financial penalty for being there. I do not agree with Mr Frew's assertions on fiscal devolution, but I am sure that we will debate that many times in the time ahead. Mr Honeyford, Cara Hunter, Stewart Dickson and Justin McNulty all mentioned the value of our public-sector workers. They need to be valued, and to have a good quality of life and good working conditions as well as decent pay. That is particularly pertinent in healthcare: when staff are on strike, it is about not just pay but safe staffing levels. It is important that we progress that also. Public-sector workers right across the public sector will be key to delivering the transformation that we all want to see, so it is important that they are properly recompensed. As I have said, I want to see public-sector pay awards for 2023-24 made to staff as soon as possible. For my part, I think that I have done what I could in the short space of time since the return of the institutions to make sure that that happens. We are not there yet, and more work remains to be done. I know that the workers involved have waited a long time for the increases that they are entitled to, so I will continue to do what I can to ensure that negotiations are concluded and awards made as quickly as possible. Although we are discussing pay issues for this year, we will soon need to turn to public-sector pay considerations for next year. I had a constructive first meeting with the Treasury last week and look forward to continued engagement in the time ahead. I welcome the agreement of the Treasury to immediately commence work together on the development of a fiscal framework that reflects our level of need. That will be critical to delivering sustainably funded high quality public services, including on public-sector pay.
1,471 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.