Debate contribution: Rates Review
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 2 July 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Rates Review
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4529137
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Since taking up post in February, I have already secured holding the regional rate increase to the inflationary rate as opposed to the 15% increase that was being pushed by the Secretary of State. I have reinstated the back in business scheme to incentivise the use of empty units in our towns and cities, and I have restored the rural ATM scheme. My Department has also renewed the small business rate relief scheme for 2024-25 and has delivered on its commitment to more frequent and regular revaluations by setting the valuation date in legislation for Reval2026. That was just the work of our first 100 days as an Executive. Around 75% of non-domestic ratepayers occupying property here get some form of rate support. That includes 57% of pubs getting some form of rate support, with 65% of the hospitality sector as a whole in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme. Over 63% of retailers get some form of support, with 80% of that support provided to small retail properties with a net annual value (NAV) of £15,000 or less. Almost 30,000 businesses from our tax base of just under 75,000 businesses get small business rate relief, and 4,474 manufacturers pay the lowest business rates in these islands, getting 70% off their rates by virtue of industrial derating tax relief, which is unique to this jurisdiction.
229 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 (0.70).
- 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 | 0.70 | 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 | 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 10:56 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.