Debate contribution: Public Sector: Late Payments
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Public Sector: Late Payments
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4517824
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I start by congratulating the new Member for North Antrim for an excellent maiden speech. I look forward to further contributions. My job is to make a winding-up speech for the Alliance amendment to the motion on late payments in the public sector. We know that cash flow is crucial for the survival of small and medium-sized businesses, but it is also really important for growth, allowing businesses to reinvest into their businesses and make an even bigger contribution to the economy as a whole. In March 2023, 89% of businesses in Northern Ireland were microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees, and just over 2% of businesses had 50 or more employees, and four in 10 businesses had a turnover of less than £100,000 while just over one in 10 had a turnover in excess of £1 million. Given that micro and small businesses are the backbone of our economy, as Deirdre said, they also hold the key to growing our economy — something that we need in order to deliver greater prosperity for all our people. We know that public-sector bodies procure only when the funding is in place, so it is fair to assume that the issue with late payments is largely administrative. FSB research found that, in 2021-22, more than 234,000 invoices were not paid within the public-sector legal requirement of 30 calendar days. That is particularly frustrating for businesses that will tell you of the impact that late payments have on their ability to trade and their confidence in engaging in public procurement and, in more extreme cases, of how it can lead to insolvency and impact on their mental health. All will say that it results in wasted time and constrained growth. Therefore, given the importance of business to our economy, and given the impact that prompt payment can have in supporting local businesses and their ability to grow, it is regrettable that more focus has not been put on the issue. That is why my colleague David Honeyford has private Member's legislation in development on this. Money owed by public bodies to businesses within our economy should be going back into the economy as quickly as possible, not resting in government accounts. There is also an issue around the inconsistency of payment data in the public sector. Sometimes it is unavailable, despite requirements to publish and explain performance. David mentioned that as well. Without data, we cannot understand more about why and how late payments from the public sector are occurring. That data could also tell us more about payment practices through the supply chain, which is, as he highlighted, also an issue. We all agree that the current statistics are unsustainable. We agree that more needs to be done. The Alliance amendment intends to strengthen and widen the motion to include other Departments, arm's-length bodies and agencies. It provides a target:
"for payment of at least 90% of invoices within five days for work completed",
and calls on Ministers to work together:
"to agree fresh measures to ensure that 100% of valid invoices are paid within the 30 calendar day statutory limit, with the same prompt payment requirements for subcontractors and suppliers enshrined in the terms of all public-sector procurement."
I welcome the Minister's comments and the fact that her Department is taking this so seriously. Running a business is stressful at the best of times. I loved David's analogy on growth and creating the conditions. That was very powerful. Government and other public bodies should be supporting businesses to ease those stresses, not exacerbating them with late payments. I hope that Members will support our amendment and support the motion.
613 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: 0.02 (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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.86 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:02 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.