Debate contribution: Unpaid Rates
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Unpaid Rates
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197697
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I join my party colleagues in bringing this motion to the Assembly today. It highlights a significant issue as part of the wider conversation on revenue raising. The figures outlined in the motion, which were supplied by way of previous answers from the Department, are astounding, particularly when viewed in the context of what it takes to operate some of our front-line public services across Northern Ireland. The current landscape of our public finances was acknowledged in the Programme for Government, which highlighted the fact that there is not enough funding for services to meet the needs of people here and that our ability to deliver on all our priorities is dependent on the availability of funds. In light of that, the Department has engaged in a review of rating and has been consulting on proposed changes. It is unfortunate that similar industry has not been procured to address the issue of recouping unpaid rates. To do so would be to provide a much fairer and more sustainable means of increasing revenue without placing additional burdens on those who already meet their obligations.
The Finance Minister and his predecessor have pointed to favourable trajectories in the past for annual recovery figures. However, the Department has published little by way of new, concrete proposals to systematically combat the issue. As of 31 August 2025, £145 million remains unpaid. If the Department and the Minister are to get serious with those flouting the law and significantly reduce that figure in the coming years, we must see a doubling down on processes and procedures and tangible actions, such as an increase in the target figure for gross collectable rates for Northern Ireland, which remains considerably lower than that in other jurisdictions at 93% compared with, for example, 96% in England, as has been highlighted. I would also be interested to hear from the Minister on the disparities across council districts, where disproportionality appears to exist between the level of unpaid rates and the population data, and on how the Department intends to combat such regional imbalance. Sinn Féin made much of austerity in the past. We all know the impact that the cost-of-living crisis continues to have on our citizens, yet the Department seems more interested in crippling ordinary, decent people with even higher bills than in getting tough on those who think that the rules do not apply to them. Scrapping the early payment discount, raising the rates cap or removing business support should not be our primary focus until uncollected rates debt has been sufficiently addressed. Let me be clear: the DUP will fight for hard-pressed working families. Those who prepare for and pay their bills on time should not be required to pick up the tab for those who do not.
I am almost finished, but I certainly will when I come to the end. Those who repeatedly and wilfully fail to meet their obligations to the LPS should not be let off the hook. There is an onus on the Minister to show good governance and equality on the issue, to ensure that every possible effort is made to collect what is owed to the Government and to tackle the scourge once and for all.
I agree with the Member that there surely are those cases, but, in effect, there are things that cater for that. Thank you.
559 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: 0.06 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| 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 13:33 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.