Member's statement: Unpaid Rates
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Unpaid Rates
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5123379
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Finances underpin public service delivery in Northern Ireland, and, more and more, we see the pressures on the Budget. It is time that the Finance Minister stepped up and took accountability for some of the issues with our rates system. Just last week, he replied to my question for written answer to say that £18 million of unpaid rates had been written off in the previous financial year. That brings the total of unpaid rates that have been written off in the past six years up to £82 million, while rolling arrears are in the region of £100 million. The DUP is committed to delivering for hard-pressed working families in Northern Ireland and has demonstrated that time and time again. As we continue to support the hard-pressed middle who are trying their best to pay their rates, it is unfair that the Finance Minister seems to think that the only way in which the financial pressures can be met is by continuing to increase rates whilst turning a blind eye to those who are not paying the rates that are billed to them. It is time that we saw a change of attitude from the Finance Minister. It is time that he stepped up and recognised the hard-pressed working families —
— who are doing their best to pay their rates bills.
228 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: 0.05 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:11 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.