Debate contribution: Disqualified Directors Compensation Orders (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Disqualified Directors Compensation Orders (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5483192
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Before I speak to the motion, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and with your indulgence, I take the opportunity to extend my best wishes to Gary Middleton as he steps down from his role as an MLA. Until recently, he was the Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee, and, in the almost 10 years in which I have been in the Assembly, I have always had a good working relationship with Gary. I wish him well as he continues his recovery. I also wish Julie Middleton the very best in her new role. I seek the Assembly's approval for the Disqualified Directors Compensation Orders (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026. Company failure has consequences: suppliers can be left out of pocket; employees might not get paid; and customers may lose deposits. The vast majority of company failures are due purely to commercial misfortune, but there is a small minority of cases in which the directors have contributed to the failure by misconduct or incompetence or by abusing the protections that trading with limited liability offers. In such cases, my Department's insolvency service will apply to the High Court for the disqualification of directors who are guilty of abusing their position. Whilst that protects the public from directors being able to set themselves up in business again, it does nothing to recompense those who have lost out. As a result, legislation has been made that enables my Department to apply to the High Court for orders requiring disqualified directors to pay compensation to creditors who have suffered loss as a consequence of their misconduct. Alternatively, to avoid the cost and expense of court proceedings, my Department can accept undertakings from disqualified directors that they will pay the necessary compensation. Whilst the primary legislation is in place, it can be used only once two linked pieces of subordinate legislation have been made and are in operation. The first, which has been made and is in operation, sets out the procedures to apply within the High Court for a compensation order to be made. The second is the order before you today, which will introduce a new fee to be charged by my Department to cover the cost of distributing moneys received from disqualified directors. A compensation order or undertaking can take the form of a requirement to make a payment to my Department for the benefit of creditors. In such cases, my Department will have to distribute the money that it receives to the creditors, which will be carried out by staff in my Department's insolvency service. As a result, there will be an administrative cost to the Department, because time will have to be set aside for existing staff to do the work. There will also be expenses, such as the cost of postage. The order that I now ask the Assembly to approve is to make provision for a charging fee to recover those costs. The fee is to be satisfied out of the sums received from the directors prior to any payment being made to creditors. Its amount is to be calculated on the basis of time spent by staff, with the hourly rates by grade of staff set out in a schedule to the order, plus any necessary disbursements or expenses properly incurred. The order was made on 11 February 2026 with the concurrence of the Department of Finance. However, it must have the approval of the Assembly before it can come into operation. The order has been agreed with the Economy Committee, and I informed my Executive colleagues about it on 5 December last year. The adoption of the order will allow the full implementation of measures aimed at compensating creditors who have been the victim of unscrupulous company directors. Accordingly, I recommend that it be approved by the Assembly.
I thank the Chair for his support for the motion, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of the SR. I have nothing further to add to the debate, so I commend the motion to the House.
680 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 (0.69).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | 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 | 0.61 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.31 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:17 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.