Debate contribution: Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5061460
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Deputy Speaker, I have spoken to you about your dad before, but, as it is the first time that you have been in the Chair when I have been in the Chamber, I also pass on my sympathies. I agree with what has been said. I speak in support of the Bill and welcome its Second Stage. As Alliance Party spokesperson on the economy, I recognise that the Bill is a long overdue step to modernise and strengthen our insolvency framework in this region. As has been said, the detailed briefings that the Committee received were really reassuring. I thank Jack Reid and the departmental officials for the overview and comprehensive briefings that they gave us. The core of the legislation is about giving businesses, especially small businesses, legal tools. In Northern Ireland, over 90% of our companies are small businesses or microbusinesses that can find themselves in circumstances that no one ever wants to experience. That is the spirit that we need to adopt here. People are forced into making choices by pressure on them that nobody ever wants to feel. The Bill provides the legal tools for businesses to restructure, recover from and possibly survive those financial difficulties. Non-payment is a massive issue in Northern Ireland. My background is in construction, and I can say that non-payment is normally caused by the greed of the developer. They simply withhold payment to add profit, which puts small companies and microbusinesses at massive financial risk. The pain and stress that that causes and the risk that it puts on business owners are, thankfully, addressed by the Bill. That level of stress is not fully understood in the House or across society. People who go out and start their own company often put their own assets at risk to achieve their dreams. The Minister talked about energy costs and all the things that can affect a business. Bad debt is another factor. Regularly, family homes are put at risk to service bank debt. We need to address that during the passage of the Bill. We should make sure that people do not lose their home in that way. There is no stress like financial stress. It is a weight that business owners carry. Nobody goes out or starts a business to fail. That has been acknowledged throughout the House, and so it should be. The Bill represents a positive and progressive way forward. It brings our laws in line with best practice. As the Chair of the Committee said, the example that we hear about is that in England and Wales. Following that brings us into line —. Are you going to stop me?
No? Sorry, I thought that you were going to stop me speaking. The Bill brings us into line with England and Wales. In fact, as has been said, it takes us ahead of the situation there. Changes are about to be made, and we are going ahead with them. It is to be welcomed that we are not coming back to this and that we are setting stuff ahead. The Bill provides greater clarity and certainty for business owners, creditors and individuals. Importantly, in doing so, it ensures that Northern Ireland remains competitive and an attractive place in which to invest and start a business. Too often, our outdated insolvency laws have compounded business failure rather than providing a clear route out of it and into recovery. The Bill introduces key reforms that will give viable businesses the space and flexibility to potentially get back on their feet.
It is critical that we save businesses and individuals that can be saved. It provides clarity and confidence —.
Yes.
611 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.89 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:00 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.