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 5061827
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Bill introduces key reforms that will give viable businesses the space and flexibility to, potentially, get back on their feet. It also provides clarity and confidence, which is important to creditors and investors. Ultimately, that is vital for a stable and attractive economy. We need a balanced approach to insolvency that protects the most vulnerable. Legislation must recognise the legitimate interests of creditors while ensuring that insolvent individuals and companies are treated with dignity and fairness and are protected. The Bill introduces much more robust mechanisms to detect fraud and misconduct. That is an element that the Committee will want to go through to make sure that we do not have fraud throughout our system. It also provides responsible debtors with a clear path towards a resolution and, where possible, gives people that second chance by providing a clear and predictable framework for insolvency where no one starts out to fail and no one works to fail. Equally, we must remove unnecessary uncertainty for those taking the brave step of starting a business in the first place. In turn, that fosters innovation and economic growth, which benefits all of our community. I thank the Minister and, as has been done across the House, thank the Department's officials. Members of the Committee have a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the needs of a modern, dynamic economy, one that is resilient, fair and fit for the future. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance talked about the two-way conversation. When the Bill came to the Committee — the Chair referenced this — that was the case with officials, and that is really welcome. That has not been the case in other areas, when matters came from the Department on which we were being asked to make decisions but felt that we were not being given the information or the detail. In particular, I point to the renewable heat incentive (RHI) regulations before Christmas, where information was just not available to us for us to make a reasonable decision. On this Bill, I commend the Department for providing the Committee with the information and allowing the Committee to work through the issues. Answering in full and giving us full responses to everything that was asked was a really welcome change. The Alliance Party is happy to support the Bill. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to ensure that the Bill has a successful passage and that we set a platform for moving forward within the Department.
418 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 (0.77).
- 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 | 0.77 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 13:06 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.