Debate contribution: Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 17 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5394334
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move amendment No 1:
Before I speak to the amendment, I put on record my thanks to the members of the Economy Committee for their helpful scrutiny of the Bill. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, it is a lengthy piece of legislation, with a considerable number of clauses, and relates to procedural issues on insolvency. The legislation, which will ensure that procedures are modernised and fit for purpose, is important for those impacted on by insolvency proceedings. I put on record my appreciation of the Committee's diligent scrutiny, because, while officials were dealing with some of the Committee's queries, they discovered that there is a minor omission in clause 119(3), which is a consequential amendment clause. The main purpose of clause 119 is to enable my Department to make any changes that are required to existing legislation so that it will align with what is in the Bill once it becomes an Act. My Department will be able to do that by making orders to effect the changes required, which may include the repeal, revocation, amendment or modification of any existing statutory provision that applies in this jurisdiction. The intention is that all such orders will have to be laid in draft before and approved by the Assembly. The requirement for that is in clause 119(3). However, it has been identified that, as drafted, clause 119(3) is deficient. That is because it is not stated to apply in the case of orders that make changes to Acts of Parliament made at Westminster. Acts of Parliament are primary legislation and can be amended to the extent that they apply in this jurisdiction by an order made under clause 119 powers. Therefore, orders amending Acts of Parliament should be subject to the same form of Assembly control as any other order made under those powers. Accordingly, the amendment that I have tabled will ensure that that is the case. The amendment will do that by inserting the words "or any Act of Parliament" into clause 119(3). The amendment is important, but it does not involve any change to the Bill policy. I have notified my Executive colleagues about it. The Economy Committee was informed about the need for the amendment in a letter sent to it on 30 October 2025. The Committee formally agreed to clause 119, subject to the amendment being made, when it met on 26 November 2025. That concludes my explanation of why I consider the amendment necessary.
414 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 (0.64).
- 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 | 0.01 | 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 | 0.64 | 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 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 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 14:51 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.