Debate contribution: Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 12 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4266668
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I detect a significant degree of grandstanding by the Executive in respect of the Rates Order. They trumpet the fact that they are retaining rates at inflation, but they are the same parties who, in our councils across Northern Ireland, voted well-above-inflation increases in the district rate. Few of them, if any — the exception, perhaps, being Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council — struck a district rate that was below inflation. Many of them struck a rate far in excess of inflation. Who voted those rates through? Members of the same parties who are in the Executive, who tell us that it is a virtue to grandstand at inflation rate when, for example, in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, the DUP and the Alliance Party joined together to vote through a district increase of 9·78%, almost 10%. It is pretty clear that there is a degree of grandstanding going on with a view to putting off the hard decisions. I forecast that that will be the trademark of this Executive: putting off hard decisions about financial matters. If, in the meantime, they can do a bit of Brit-bashing, so much the better as far as the Minister, her party and, sadly, her partners in government are concerned. They are learning and deploying a lot of Brit-bashing tricks from Sinn Féin. Mind you, all those parties tripped over themselves to get back in here with a financial package that they now decry as wholly inadequate. I remind the House that some of those parties were prepared to come back to the Assembly with no money on the table, such was their enthusiasm. Some of them were prepared to pay with their principles to be here.
The district rate has been set to make a political point and not to deal with fiscal reality or responsibility.
The Executive are simply storing up more difficulties for themselves going forward. The Minister told us that the Treasury is now saying that the £113 million and the repayment of the overdrawn money can take place over a 24-month period. She was careful to not tell us whether that has been accepted by the Executive. She simply said that that was the offer. Perhaps, when she responds to the debate, she will indicate whether that is now an agreed position on the matter. The Minister also told us that she was going to reinstate the Back in Business scheme, which is probably good, but she has not told us the net cost of that. We are increasing rates, according to need, apparently, but then we are going to diminish them through various schemes. What is the net cost of the concessions that are being made and, therefore, what is the net income of the increase? Where, in all of that scenario, is the frightening and truly shocking level of write-off of unpaid rates? Unpaid rates seem, with a shrug of the shoulders, to be simply written off far too easily. That raises a point of agitation for many constituents who struggle and are anxious to pay their rates but then read in the press that so many million pounds of unpaid rates have been written off. They rightly query that and say, "Why am I the fool paying my rates if many others just get them written off?". Where is the vigour and the rigour in reducing the unpaid rates in the Province, which would be a benefit to us all? Maybe the Minister can tell us what action programme she has to deal with the rates that are never paid, so that there might be greater equity for us all.
606 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: 0.27 (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 (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.54).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.26 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.30 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.27 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.54 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.35 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.53 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:43 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.