Debate contribution: Cost of Doing Business
Debate contribution by Miss Jemma Dolan on .
- MLA
- Miss Jemma Dolan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 2 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Cost of Doing Business
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4981670
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Our local economy is highly dependent on the contribution of small and medium-sized businesses. Therefore, it is deeply concerning when decisions are made by politicians in Britain that do not take into account the circumstances and context in which businesses here operate.
That is exactly what happened last year. Decisions taken by the British Chancellor in her autumn statement have, as the cost of doing business impact report by the Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre has highlighted, had a more detrimental impact on various sectors in the North, such as agriculture, hospitality, retail, arts and entertainment, as well as voluntary and community organisations, than on their counterparts in Britain. The commissioning of the report was a proactive approach taken by the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, as a response to the concerns of local businesses following the autumn statement. While it mentions various factors that have contributed to the challenges faced by local businesses, the raising of employers' National Insurance contributions is recognised as having had a significant impact that affects the North more due to our lower earnings.
The current Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, has continued the work of his predecessor by pressing the British Government on various fiscal matters, including ensuring that we are funded at the correct level of need and sending that report to the British Treasury to highlight the operating context of our businesses and to push for greater consideration of our circumstances as we move forward. As we all should be aware, the Executive do not have the financial powers or capabilities to mitigate negative taxation and spending decisions by the British Government. Therefore, it is appropriate that we continue to challenge them and provide the best supporting evidence that we can to do just that. I had thought, in light of previous motions that the SDLP had tabled on Opposition days, including one specifically on greater fiscal devolution, that the SDLP was aware of the limits of our financial powers. However, today's motion seems to contradict that assumption, as it fails to recognise where the main financial levers of power lie and, indeed, where major decisions that have detrimentally impacted on our local businesses have been taken. I take the opportunity to recognise the positive interventions by the Finance Minister to support businesses in recent months, including implementing recommendations of the high street task force report, such as the extension of small business rate relief, which provides reductions of between 20% and 50% to around 30,000 businesses, and the Back in Business scheme, which encourages growth in our high streets. The rural ATM scheme is another measure that has an important role to play in helping to retain access to cash in our rural communities. The review of small business rate relief, which forms part of the strategic road map for rates announced in December, has also been prioritised by the Minister to help to stimulate the economy and support the growth of the tax base. As the only major tax that the Executive have control over, the regional rate is a vital source of income that supports the delivery of our public services. Therefore, any consideration of further rates relief in addition to the quarter of a billion currently provided for, as suggested in one of the amendments, needs to take into account the wider impact that that could have. The report also underscored the costs of partition by highlighting the negative impact that the different VAT rates in the two jurisdictions have on our economy, particularly on the hospitality sector in border areas, such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The upcoming spending review by the British Government is an opportunity for them to change course from previous decisions that have significantly contributed to making the cost of doing business more difficult here. The report by Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre has reiterated the harm that can be done when decisions made by elected representatives in Westminster do not prioritise the interests of our citizens. It shows why there is growing desire to see Irish unity, which would enable economic and political decisions to be taken by those elected by the people here.
694 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: 0.12 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.90).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.93 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| 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 12:47 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.