Debate contribution: Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5061831
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill and their contributions to the debate. I am pleased to note the support that the Bill has commanded across the Chamber. I am also grateful to members of the Committee for the Economy for their contributions to the debate and for their scrutiny of the Bill so far. It will now hopefully pass into their hands for further scrutiny. I welcome the comments about departmental officials and the level of engagement that the Committee had on the Bill. While its subject matter is, for the most part, specialist and technical in nature, the Bill will be of benefit to those who work in the profession and to those affected by insolvency, including creditors and employees. The Bill will streamline and modernise procedures to make the management of insolvency proceedings more efficient, which, in turn, will improve returns for creditors. I will touch briefly on some of the issues raised in the debate. In fairness, few additional issues or points of contention were raised. That reflects the process of consultation and engagement with the Committee that was gone through to get the Bill to this stage. We will certainly take on board the commentary about that when we engage on legislation. Members across the Chamber have recognised that the Bill will address some of the issues in order to update and modernise, our legislation, tackle unnecessary bureaucracy, bring things more into line with modern ways of doing business and improve transparency. I note the point that Mr Honeyford made about people who take a chance on starting their own business and the challenges that they face and his point about family homes. That issue can be discussed further as the Bill is scrutinised in Committee. I look forward to hearing the feedback from Committee Stage. I am really grateful to those who have contributed to a helpful debate on this important legislation. I ask the Assembly for its support in agreeing the Second Stage of the Bill so that it can be referred to the Economy Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
352 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.26 | No |
| 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 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.