Motion or amendment: Late Payments in the Public Sector
Motion or amendment by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Late Payments in the Public Sector
- Assembly identifier
- Document 408793
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Late Payments in the Public Sector
That this Assembly believes businesses and traders who supply goods and services to the public sector should be paid on time and in full; recognises that late payments can negatively impact cash flow and cause undue stress for business owners and their employees; notes with concern the findings of research published by the Federation of Small Businesses in 2023, which found that 56 per cent of small business owners and the self-employed in Northern Ireland had experienced late payment in the last three months; further notes that Northern Ireland was jointly the worst affected region; is concerned that the reasons for late public sector payments generally remain unreported; highlights the need for enhanced reporting by all public bodies in order to improve accountability in this area; calls on the Minister of Finance to introduce a new Executive target for payment of at least 90 per cent of invoices within 5 days for work completed; and further calls on the Minister to work with Executive colleagues to agree fresh measures to ensure 100 per cent of valid invoices are paid within the 30 calendar day statutory limit.
192 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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: 0.02 (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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:56 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.